Careful Attack/Sure Strike: A mathematical analysis

[Nifft]

Sure strike, the fighter equivalent, is weak as is, but playable, because of class differences - it doesn't have a twin strike competitor for minion slaying goodness

Fighters have Cleave, which is just as good as Twin Strike for taking out minions.

If you're looking for a different style improvement, have careful attack instead grant a +1 power bonus to AC/reflex.

That would work for the Ranger, but the Fighter needs to be careful that he remains an attractive target. Perhaps a +1 to Fort, Reflex & Will instead of AC.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kitirat]

What if Careful strike had a slightly improved chance to crit?

I've been using 18-20 crits with careful striek and sure strike. One of my players showed it was excellent match up this way. You use careful strike for very easy and very hard to hit creatures and twin for mid-range and they each perform a different function. Pretty each.

See ya,
Ken

 

[Nifft]

I've been using 18-20 crits with careful striek and sure strike. One of my players showed it was excellent match up this way.

Interesting. Would you mind showing the math?

Thanks, -- N

 

[David Sid]

The solution I'm going to be testing with my players is to replace careful attack's attack line with "Strength + 2 vs. AC (melee) or Dexterity + 2 vs. AC (ranged). Make two attack rolls and use whichever roll is higher."

I calculated a Level 1 and Level 30 case (bow ranger with good Dexterity and some, but not all, damage-maximizing feats), and in both cases careful attack with this modification became better than twin strike when the latter needed a 13 or better to hit. It also is always better than twin strike for taking out a single minion or in other cases where one hit is just as good as two hits (e.g. for triggering an on-hit item power).

 

[BASHMAN]

I was writing that about my houserule : limiting Twin strike to only one attack per target.

What I was meaning is that if you cannot attack the same target twice with TS, then careful strike gets its own niche back : increased chances to hit one target at the cost of less damage.

I agree that by RAW, TS is stricly better

Well that is one way to get people not to play rangers in your campaign.. mercilessly nerf any power that can be percieved as better than other poorly written ones. Unless you've nerfed all the other classes just as much. Did you make it so cleave has roll to hit the second target?

 

[Keenath]

The best course of action might be to simply wipe Careful Attack from the collective consciousness and wait patiently for the Martial handbook's new Ranger at-wills.

This. It's not worth the time to try to recondition CA/SS. I personally like the idea of just making them add the stat to the damage, so they're essentially a basic attack with a +2 attack bonus... But since Martial Power is likely to give us a bunch of new fighter and ranger at-wills anyway, why bother messing with it?

I totally agree that adding damage or attack bonus to CA/SS is pretty meaningless. They need to have some kind of interesting effect added to them instead. The ranger at-wills are kind of boring, really -- you get a mobility power (which one depends on your weapon style, really), and a damage power (twin strike or modified CA).

Comparing to the rogue -- the rogue has a comparable mobility power (move 2 instead of shift 1) and a comparable damage power (add cha to damage or attack reflex instead of 2 attacks or an attack bonus). And then the rogue ALSO has this weird Riposte Strike counterattack thing, which acts as sort of the opposite of the fighter's stickiness; it encourages enemies to go away and hit somebody else.

I'd like to see the ranger get an at-will like that. Not necessarily the same, but something that encourages enemies to go fight the tank or back off. Or, hey, how about a power that gives the target a penalty on their OAs for one turn? It doesn't allow the ranger to move more, but it makes movement safer for his allies...

 

[Benly]

Or, hey, how about a power that gives the target a penalty on their OAs for one turn? It doesn't allow the ranger to move more, but it makes movement safer for his allies...

Actually, it would enhance the ranger's mobility; remember that you can attack and then move if you want. You could use this against a target you want to disengage from, or use your bow to hit the frontline brute with it before you run past him to the back-row squishies.

 

[cmbarona]

I forget who first proposed this, so whoever can quote, please do so...

But someone had the awesome idea of SS/CA granting +2 to attack the target until the end of the next round. This makes an attractive setup just before an Encounter or Daily. I think I'll adopt this houserule.

 

[Samurai]

Here's an idea that I had that I haven't seen suggested yet... what do you all think?


Careful Strike: Add 2x your attribute bonus to the attack roll (minimum +2 bonus, even if your attribute bonus is less than 1), and no attribute bonus to the damage roll.


This rule would mean that you never lose attribute bonus points, as you might with a flat +2 or +4, you simply transfer all of your attribute bonus damage to the attack roll. It will thus scale well even when your attribute bonus becomes +5 or more. If it's deemed too powerful, you could add a requirement in order to gain the bonus, such as not moving more than a Shift (which goes along well with the idea that you are making a careful shot, and makes it the opposite of shooting on the run.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Here's an idea that I had that I haven't seen suggested yet... what do you all think?


Careful Strike: Add 2x your attribute bonus to the attack roll (minimum +2 bonus, even if your attribute bonus is less than 1), and no attribute bonus to the damage roll.

See posts #1 and #49 (among others) to see why this isn't a good idea.