Careful Attack/Sure Strike: A mathematical analysis

[KarinsDad]

For example, lets say your fighter has villain's menace, and is taking on a dragon. If you have a power that gives you +2 to attack rolls and +4 to damage FOR THE ENTIRE FIGHT....you want that baby to hit like no ones business. Sure Strike granting a +2 to attack rolls would be a godsend in that instance.

1 day in 10 if he actually used this Daily power every day he gets a chance. Against a single target.

9 days in 10, he just ends up doing less damage and no special that helps (which he could have done with a different At Will) in the previous round for no gain.

This means that for Villain's Menace and 5 encounters per day, this version of Sure Shot would help this particular Daily power for this Fighter once every 50 encounters or 5 levels. Every 3 or 4 levels if the PCs have fewer encounters per day.

Helping one encounter every 3 to 5 levels doesn't sound like it's doing a lot of good.

Also, it's not like you're only making one attack per round. Fighters get some area attacks, like Sweeping Blow. When you make 3-4 attacks at once, a +2 bonus gets a lot more powerful.

Same example as above but with Sweeping Blow instead of Come and Get It:

Round one: Sure Strike D8 damage +2 to hit, +2 weapon, +1 damage Weapon Focus, average damage .55*(7.5) + .05*(11) = 4.675

Round two: Sweeping Blow 2 opponents, 19 Str, D8 damage +4 to hit, +2 weapon, +1 damage Weapon Focus, average damage 2 * (.65*(11.5) + .05*(15)) = 16.45

Two round total: 21.125

vs.

Round one: Reaping Strike 19 Str, D8 damage, +2 weapon, +1 damage Weapon Focus, average damage .45*(11.5) + .05*(15) + .5*(2) = 6.7

Round two: Sweeping Blow 2 opponents, 19 Str, D8 damage, +2 weapon, +1 damage Weapon Focus, average damage 2 * (.55*(11.5) + .05*(15)) = 14.15

Two round total: 20.85

Average damage is practically the same. The Fighter would need 3 or more adjacent opponents (where he would do an additional 7 average points of damage for each additional foe) for this to be really worthwhile. That does not occur every encounter. In fact, unless it is a minion encounter, 3 or more melee opponents only on the Fighter should be fairly rare.

And the Fighter might set up Sweeping Blow with Sure Strike and then have few enemies around him (because another PC blew away one or more opponents, or the opponents spread out or something). He did less damage with Sure Strike and then finds out that he does not even want to use his Sweeping Blow that next round. Opps.


Again, I'm not saying that this version of Sure Strike will never help. I'm saying that due to the lack of multiple opponent attacks for a Fighter (and that does not mean 2 attacks, it means 3 or more), it will rarely help a situation and the Fighter does less damage on a lot of rounds, just to get a slight advantage once in a while.

 

[eamon]

I like Nifft's +2 power bonus to all attacks for a round fix (or the +1 power bonus to defenses, alternately). Both fixes should apply in addition to the current +2 bonus, IMHO...

 

[WhatGravitas]

Again, I'm not saying that this version of Sure Strike will never help. I'm saying that due to the lack of multiple opponent attacks for a Fighter (and that does not mean 2 attacks, it means 3 or more), it will rarely help a situation and the Fighter does less damage on a lot of rounds, just to get a slight advantage once in a while.

Now throw in an action point and it could start to matter.

Of course, it is only useful, if the fighter does focus on other powers and attacks that compliments Sure Strike, but then you could say the same about almost every at-will.

The point is basically that Sure Strike was useless before. Now it has some niche - perhaps not the most exciting or useful one, but it certainly beats "never useful", no?

Cheers, LT.

 

[That One Guy]

I support the Nifftfix.

(Also, when I play fighters, OAs happen. Also, Viper Strike)


[W/ this fix a] Fighter can lead into a multi-round cold cheese combo.
[W/ this fix] Setting up an attack for the next round that will have a damage bonus (from something like Furious Smash or Commander's Strike) [would be an effective combo]. I've thought of other uses for that fix before, but cannot recall them currently. Sorry.
(Also, Tempest Fighter w/ Nifftfix Sure Strike would be pretty sweet)

Sure Strike would become a team-focused power. It would become entirely not about the fighter - but the fighter in a group. Thus, it would fill a new niche.

(Alternatively, it could be fun and overpowered if it was a +1 untyped bonus to hit. Funny how 1 is such a big number...)

 

[Nifft]

I don´t know if someone did the math (...) Maybe these 2 powers can actually be useful in unconventional builds...

Many have. Of those who have, none have found any use for those 2 powers.

(Nifft's Sure Strike + Encounter power) Two round total: 25.9
vs.
(Reaping Strike + Encounter power) Two round total: 24.475

Damage is practically the same.

Damage is higher for Sure Strike, but delayed. That's how it should work: you invest, and hope for a payoff.

There are very few multi-attack Fighter powers.

Ignoring the new TWF at-will, have you forgotten Passing Attack, Sweeping Blow, Rain of Blows? (All encounter powers of 3rd level or lower.)

Plus, the power bonus does not stack with other PC's abilities which give a power bonus (usually +2).

Well, duh. It's bad to give out new bonus types which stack, particularly in an at-will. We're not trying to compete against Righteous Brand, we're just trying to make Sure Strike / Careful Attack not suck.

wasting a round with a wimpy attack in order to get a slight edge the next round is not very optimal.

You could not be more wrong. Go look at Righteous Brand, and all the reasons why it's regarded as the best at-will in the game.

Setting up for big attacks is very good tactics.

But, how helpful is that? +2 is a 10% change in result. That means that 10% of the times that it is tried, it helps. 90% of the time, nothing changes.

Are you seriously asserting that a +10% change in expected damage isn't useful? Or is this a statistical joke I'm just not getting?

Nor do they have to do as much damage. Encounter and Daily effects tend to have powerful riders that accompanies the damage. (...) A fighter might not spam sure strike every chance he got, but that's why you have 2 at-wills. It would be a setup move for the fighter, which is a nice niche for a power.

Fighters have a lot of "rider" effects. One of their best is what they get to do on Opportunity Attacks (stop movement), but the rider effects on Cleave and Tide of Iron are both quite good.

Also, it's not like you're only making one attack per round. Fighters get some area attacks, like Sweeping Blow. When you make 3-4 attacks at once, a +2 bonus gets a lot more powerful

Exactly -- and that's why Nifft's Careful Attack is decent for Rangers.

Fighters also tend to get more OAs than Rangers (though this is DM-dependent), so factor those in too.

However, I do like the OA side-effect. It means Nifft's Sure Strike makes Fighters better Defenders (since they're more likely to hit with their OA), and Nifft's Careful Attack makes Rangers better Strikers (since they have lots of attacks, and now their attacks are more likely to hit).

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

Damage is higher for Sure Strike, but delayed. That's how it should work: you invest, and hope for a payoff.

By an average of one point of damage. IF used against 3 opponents (for that example). IF the opportunity still exists. IF a different power would not have killed one of the opponents on the first round. If, if, if, ...

The problem with setting up for multiple attacks on a following round is that the game is too fluid for it to be worth your while.


This is similar to the Illusory Ambush discussions. A lot of people think that giving -2 to an enemy for it's next round is cool too. And, it is cool sounding.

But if you look at the math, Illusory Ambush is inferior to some of the other single target Wizard At Will powers, especially Cloud of Daggers.

4E is all about action economy which means that it is all about damage per round. Offense over defense. Don't let people convince you otherwise.

The faster you can take out opponents, the quicker your side gets more actions per round than the opposition.

A future buff (or debuff) action on the next round is more likely to be inferior to a more damaging action this round (on average). Especially if that buff assumes that the attacker will definitely get 3 or more attacks in that round (which your version of Sure Strike requires for "a payoff").

You could not be more wrong. Go look at Righteous Brand, and all the reasons why it's regarded as the best at-will in the game.

Setting up for big attacks is very good tactics.

You know, I am convinced that you always take the opposing POV from me just to argue. I cannot ever recall a time when you and I ever agreed. And you call me wrong, etc. without ever supporting your POV with math, just hyperbole.

This is totally an Apples and Oranges comparison:

1) Righteous Brand is + Str Mod. A first level Cleric who wants to be offensive will often have a 16 Str. +3 to hit for the next round is superior to +2 to hit for the next round. And as the Cleric advances levels, it becomes +4, +5, etc.

2) Righteous Brand gives the bonus to any ally (like the multi-attack Ranger), not just the Fighter. Tactically, this is huge. Each ally in a combat can use it with a Daily power to up his odds by 15% or more.

3) Righteous Brand does 1[W] + Str mod damage. Your Sure Strike does 1[W] damage.

4) The only advantages your Sure Strike has are a) it is +2 to hit (but it still averages less damage per round than Righteous Brand just for the attack itself), and b) it happens even if Sure Strike misses.

So, your conclusion is faulty. Just because Righteous Brand is a great power does not mean that your version of Sure Strike is a great power. This is totally faulty logic.

Using your own words, "You could not be more wrong.".

Your Sure Strike does not significantly increase the damage of Secondary Attack powers on the second round enough to counter the lesser damage of round one. Average damage for those two rounds is about the same (typically within one point of damage).

Your version of Sure Strike is only really worthwhile (i.e. better than other Fighter alternatives) when the second round attack is against 3 or more opponents. Most Fighter powers and most combat situations do not allow for that. Hence, there are extremely few opportunities for "a payoff".

Yes, your version of Sure Strike is good against minions. Course, Cleave is better against minions since it will average 10 minions killed in round one in 10 encounters whereas your Sure Strike will only average 6 minions killed in round one in 10 encounters. Your version will average more in round two used with a multi-attack power, but again, the problem is action economy.


Note: Your version of Sure Strike does sound cool. It just has extremely limited utility.

 

[Stalker0]

I think Karinsdad does bring up some good points on the math. In fact, its funny to think that people are constantly obsessed with getting the best score in their prime stat to raise their attack bonus, but the reality it doesn't have that much of an impact over the course of the whole game, just 1 in 20 swings.

But...the counter argument is this, people do care about their attack bonus...a lot. And since attack bonuses are rare in 4e, having a power that gives you a flat out bonus to your attack rolls is a solid power, especially because the fighter only has to use it when he really needs it.

Let's go back to that villian's menace example I mentioned earlier. The fighter does a sure strike, uses an action point and follows it up with the villian's menance. He has a greater chance to hit with a very powerful attack that could effect the whole combat, he is now stickier because his OAs will hit more often, and the next round he throws in a strong encounter power that also gets the +2 bonus.

That's pretty good for an at-will I think. Will I spam this power as often as I would reaping strike or cleave? Absolutely not. Would I consider taking this power? Yes I would, because there are enough situations when I would love an attack bonus, and especially with action points, sure strike could give me an immediate return on my investment that same round.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Most Fighter powers and most combat situations do not allow for that. Hence, there are extremely few opportunities for "a payoff".

Let's list all fighter attacks with three or more attacks:
Rain of Blows (Enc 3)
Sweeping Blow (Enc 3)
Come and Get It (Enc 7) - draws additional targets to you
Shift the Battlefield (Daily 9) - can setup action point action/next round
Thicket of Blades (Daily 9)
Vorpal Tornado (Enc 17)
Devastation's Wake (Daily 19)
Warrior's Urging (Enc 23) - draws additional targets to you
Cruel Reaper (Enc 27)

From Paragon Paths:
Weaponsoul Dance (Kensei, Daily 20)
Crescendo Sword (Swordmaster, Daily 20)

And there are also some with two attacks, which become nice if you add OAs to it. Apart from a dearth of multi-attacks from level 10-16, the fighter can pick up a lot of attacks that allow multiple attack rolls.

Furthermore, it's hard to get three or more targets to you at once? I think this depends a lot on party composition. If you have a lot of range-focused party members (i.e. leader: cleric, striker: archer ranger or warlock, controller: wizard, obv.), then the fighter can be the sole melee character, in which case it can work pretty well.

Is the Nifft-Sure Strike always good? Clearly, no. Is it in certain situations good? Yes. Can you build your character to get these situations often? Well, you can obviously take appropriate powers, for example the ones listed above, and there's multiclassing as well, allowing you to pick up even more area attacks. So I'd say you can play a fighter, where Nifft-Sure Strike is good on regular basis (for example a Human with the powers listed above and Action Surge for a whopping +5 bonus on action point attacks).

Furthermore, the fighter really doesn't care that much about raw damage, he cares about battlefield control - the improved OAs allow that and hitting with the powers above can also help as the rider effects can slow/immobilise/shift.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Nifft]

And there are also some with two attacks, which become nice if you add OAs to it.

Right. IMHO it's important to remember that Fighters are particularly interested in getting OAs.

Let's also not forget that our ally the Warlord may be giving us extra attacks. (So: if you have a Strength-based Cleric in the party, don't bother with Nifft's Sure Strike; if you have a Warlord, consider it.)

Furthermore, the fighter really doesn't care that much about raw damage, he cares about battlefield control - the improved OAs allow that and hitting with the powers above can also help as the rider effects can slow/immobilise/shift.

Yep yep yep.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Staffan]

Some players do not want two weapon for their melee Rangers. They do not want a Drizzt.

They might want a Ranger that does not double weapon or bow. How about a Ranger with a Shield?

To get that character concept, they need a Ranger damaging power that is not two weapon or two missile attacks per round, but on par with Twin Strike.

They also need to write up a whole lot of encounter and daily powers to support that concept. Some levels have powers that could support a sword&board ranger (e.g. Disruptive Strike at 3rd), but not all. For example, at 5th level the ranger gets the choice between these daily powers:

• Excruciating Shot (Ranged only)
• Frenzied Skirmish (dual-wield only)
• Splintering Shot (Ranged only)
• Two-wolf Pounce (dual-wield only).

The ranger is designed as "well-trained guy that uses ranged weapon or dual-wields in order to deal truckloads of damage." It's not designed as "woodsy dude that fights." If you want a woodsy dude that fights with sword & board, play a fighter that spends a feat on either ranger multiclassing or on skill training: nature.