Forked Thread: Art of the Peel ... Enfeebling vs Bosltering Strike

[Persiflage]

From the PHB: "Unlike bonuses, penalties don't have types. Penalties add together, unless they're from the same power."

Two Divine Challenges - even from different sources - wouldn't stack, but a Divine Challenge and an Enfeebling Strike do stack for a total of -4.

 

[Danceofmasks]

You can't use divine challenge on something already under a divine challenge anyhow (as per divine challenge).
Also, a creature can only be marked once .. and new marks overwrite old ones.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I think the downside to Enfeebling Strike is that its special ability rarely affects combat.


Let's compare the special abilities of each:

1) Bolstering Strike. Not always, but this often drops Wis Mod damage from multiple attacks on the Paladin per encounter. The weakness of the Paladin or any Defender is that he is up front and typically getting attacked more than most other PC. So, he tends to often run out of Healing Surges first in a party, even though he has so many (Lay on Hands contributes to this as well). This could easily save 2 or maybe 3 Healing surges per day.

Overall, this is a good ability to have. The downside is that once the Paladin has the temporary hit points, he cannot gain more from attacking with Bolstering Strike again until he gets hit.


2) Enfeebling Strike. Although it sounds good on the surface, it is the equivalent of one fewer attacks hitting every ten times the enemy swings. Regardless of opponent of the Enfeebled NPC, the outcome of its attack is typically unchanged 90% of the time. So, it might help once per Encounter (on average). It is only when the enemy has multiple attacks (possibly with OA) that the odds here improve at all.

Plus, it can only be done on a Marked enemy, so it is limited to one opponent at a time.

Overall, this is not that impressive when compared to other Paladin attacks. It has its uses, but they typically won't result in a significant gain on any given encounter.


3) Holy Strike. This is a very good power. The additional ability adds to damage every time the Paladin hits unlike Enfeebling Strike which may or may not affect combat in a given Encounter at all (or may affect an encounter many times, but usually doesn't). For ten Holy Strike successful attacks at +2 Wis damage each, that would be 20 extra points of damage whereas protecting PCs with Enfeebling Strike would typically result in a lot less than saving 20 points of damage in return (although it could stop a condition). At +3 or +4 (or more) Wisdom, it's even better.

Like Bolstering Strike, Holy Strike will often save Healing Surges. But, it does it by damaging foes faster, not by protecting the Paladin more.


4) Valiant Strike. Like Enfeebling Strike, this one is conditionally helpful. Unlike Enfeebling Strike, the amount this helps is variable. That means that it is real useful the more adjacent opponents the Paladin has. But since Holy Strike is so solid, it is reasonable to typically only use Valiant Strike with 3 or more opponents, just to increase the likelihood of doing damage. This is especially true with minions where the special abilities of Enfeebling Strike and Holy Strike are irrelevant. This is the Paladin anti-minion At-Will power. None of the others compare.


The main claim to fame that a Chaladin has is that his Mark typically does more damage than a Str Paladin. This means that he is slightly more sticky as a Defender which is good. However, it also means that he typically takes the two At-Will attack powers which are somewhat less useful overall.

Bolstering Strike is less useful due to the fact that it cannot typically be used to gain its special ability every round and Enfeebling Strike is less useful due to the fact that its special abiilty tends to only help out once per encounter.


The other problem with being a Chaladin is that the At-Will Basic Melee attacks are based on Str, not Cha. So, the Chaladin will not be fulfilling part of his role with OAs for opponents that try to leave his vicinity as well as a Str Paladin, nor when charging.

So, to be slightly stickier to one opponent at a time, a Chaladin has to take slightly less useful and potent At-Will powers and gives up a bit on Basic Attacks. This does not, however, say anything about Encounter or Daily powers, just how the At-Will powers match up between the two.


Btw, as PCs get higher levels, monster hit points increase a lot faster. Monster defenses also tend to increase by about 1 per level whereas PCs attacks do not (PCs have to gain magic items and use synergy bonuses to make up the difference). Because of this, 4E is an offensive (and healing) game instead of a defensive game. The Chaladin is a more defensive style than a Str Paladin, hence, by definition he will start to fall behind a bit unless the potency and utility of Cha based Encounter or Daily powers make up the difference.

Interesting analysis. Bolstering Strike lessens damage by wisdom every round. That is a pretty good ability at low level, but I did notice in practice that it was not so good when I was being attacked by multiple targets.

But now that you've explained it, I do think Enfeebling Strike is a pretty poor ability compared to the others. A -2 to one marked target that is attacking you versus a boosted attack bonus for bolstering strike or improved damage seems better.

That being said it is difficult to focus on two stats and maintain a high level of efficiency in this game. I wonder if I throw out focusing on wisdom or con I can maximize my efficiency.

 

[eamon]

It's easy enough to do the math comparing bolstering strike to enfeebling strike in terms of pure damage prevention.

Enfeebling strike has a 10% chance to turn an attack that would otherwise have hit into a miss. To determine how much that's worth, take a monsters average damage per round (assuming all hits) and divide by 10. So a monsters who hits for an average of 10 on all attacks will have enfeebling strike prevent an average of 1 damage.

So in order for enfeebling to be better then bolstering at preventing damage, the average damage the monster does must be more then 10 times the temporary hit points gained from bolstering.

You're comparing apples with oranges: you're comparing the average reduction in damage to anyone using enfeebling strike, to the maximum reduction using bolstering strike to just yourself.

Bolstering strike of course prevents no damage when the monster fails to hit, nor does it prevent any damage when you fail to hit - so you'll need to take that into account, and of course bolstering strike does not prevent side effects of hitting nor prevent damage to others (when that's exactly what the heavily armored paladin should be doing, especially if he's using a shield and is almost unhittable).

The math comparing the two - even without considering the complex question of the side effects of being hit, and without considering the benefits to your allies - is anything but simple. It's made more complex by the unfortunately relevant aspect of critical hits, and by the fact that the temporary hit points might absorb other damage, or might not be completely consumed at all by a low damage roll. You'll need to at the very least consider what happens when you're hit twice (or more frequently) in a row without managing to connect with bolstering strike in between.

In practice, many monsters will rarely hit the paladin, who can easily have an AC of 20 at first level (I think even the best 1st level critter have no more than +8 to hit, and many just +4). Quite a few monsters have nasty abilities which trigger on hit. For a damage dealing, retribution wielding monster slayer with a low AC, who will thus be generally attacked a lot, bolstering strike will be relatively better. For a defensive, sword+board paladin who deals less damage and who just won't attract as many attacks, enfeebling strike will be relatively better.

A mix of bolstering strike and enfeebling strike is probably optimal.

 

[jaelis]

Enfeebling strike has a 10% chance to turn an attack that would otherwise have hit into a miss. To determine how much that's worth, take a monsters average damage per round (assuming all hits) and divide by 10. So a monsters who hits for an average of 10 on all attacks will have enfeebling strike prevent an average of 1 damage.

Enfeebling strike has a 10% chance to turn an attack that would otherwise have hit into a miss. To determine how much that's worth, take a monsters average damage per round (assuming all hits) and divide by 10. So a monsters who hits for an average of 10 on all attacks will have enfeebling strike prevent an average of 1 damage.

That's not quite right. Actually, ES has a 10% chance to turn any attack into a miss, not just attacks that would otherwise have hit you. That's different from what you said: If the monster normally hits on an 11, then now he hits on a 13. So of the attacks that would have hit you, 20% will now miss. If the monster normally hits on a 17, now he only hits on a 20, so 2/3 of the attacks that would have hit you now miss.

It's better to think in terms of damage per round. Given that level appropriate attacks are supposed to hit 50% of the time, ES should reduce the target's damage per round by 20%. So for ES to be better the BS, the monsters average damage per round should exceed 5 times the temp hit points from bolstering strike, not 10.

Then like eamon says, critical hits add some complexity on top of that.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You're comparing apples with oranges: you're comparing the average reduction in damage to anyone using enfeebling strike, to the maximum reduction using bolstering strike to just yourself.

Bolstering strike of course prevents no damage when the monster fails to hit, nor does it prevent any damage when you fail to hit - so you'll need to take that into account, and of course bolstering strike does not prevent side effects of hitting nor prevent damage to others (when that's exactly what the heavily armored paladin should be doing, especially if he's using a shield and is almost unhittable).

The math comparing the two - even without considering the complex question of the side effects of being hit, and without considering the benefits to your allies - is anything but simple. It's made more complex by the unfortunately relevant aspect of critical hits, and by the fact that the temporary hit points might absorb other damage, or might not be completely consumed at all by a low damage roll. You'll need to at the very least consider what happens when you're hit twice (or more frequently) in a row without managing to connect with bolstering strike in between.

In practice, many monsters will rarely hit the paladin, who can easily have an AC of 20 at first level (I think even the best 1st level critter have no more than +8 to hit, and many just +4). Quite a few monsters have nasty abilities which trigger on hit. For a damage dealing, retribution wielding monster slayer with a low AC, who will thus be generally attacked a lot, bolstering strike will be relatively better. For a defensive, sword+board paladin who deals less damage and who just won't attract as many attacks, enfeebling strike will be relatively better.

A mix of bolstering strike and enfeebling strike is probably optimal.

But does it scale well? A -2 to hit at higher levels doesn't seem as powerful given that so many minions and other creatures will be on the field of battle. It seems like killing the opponent as quickly as possible or hitting as often as possible would be much better.

At low levels Bolstering and Enfeebling Strike seem great in one on one battles. I noticed playing today that those temporary hit points were carved through quickly and the loss of damage from misses is pretty harsh. It seems much better to rarely miss when flanked which is what you get when you take Valiant Strike or improved damage against a single target such as you get with Holy strike.

Thing is that once you start taking into account daily and encounter powers, the charisma ones often seem better than the Str ones. I'm going to have look over my build again. I need my character to scale well since I'm the only defender.

 

[KarinsDad]

In practice, many monsters will rarely hit the paladin, who can easily have an AC of 20 at first level (I think even the best 1st level critter have no more than +8 to hit, and many just +4).

I think this is true in theory, but not necessarily true in overall practice.

At least in our game, the Str Paladin gets hit a lot more often than any other PC because he is out in front protecting the group. In fact, on 3 massive encounter days so far for our group (5 to 7 encounters each), the Paladin ran out of Healing Surges on two of those days (very noticable when that happens) and he had one remaining on the other day. On one of those days, he did not use his Laying on Hands ability (and he rarely uses it because Healing Word is better, he only uses it for emergencies).

Note: The Ranger is the only other PC who ran out of Healing Surges and when that happened, we moved her to the back and continued on.

So yes, the Paladin is harder to hit. But, he gets hit more often. A lot more often. A lot lot more often (by a factor of more than two to one based on the number of healing surges he uses up), especially by melee type creatures. Enfeebling Strike is on average better to use against a creature attacking the Paladin than against a creature attacking anyone else more often than the other way around (regardless of Paladin role).

There are obviously times when this is not true, but typically (at least for our game) it is true.

A mix of bolstering strike and enfeebling strike is probably optimal.

Optimal for a Chaladin true. But, not necessarily optimal for a Paladin in general.

 

[eamon]

A few more things to consider: a -2 to attack rolls automatically scales with whatever the monster has as abilities (except nasty criticals, of course!) and damage. Your wisdom modifier can't keep up. If you start with a +3 modifier at level 1, then at level 21 you can have a +6 modifier. But where your temporary hit points have doubled, damage has more than doubled (based on a skim of the MM, anyhow). And of course, non-damage effects are potentially even nastier...

So, for bolstering strike to really work, you'll want an exceptionally high wisdom, and it's better at lower levels.

Probably, the best option is to start off with a bolstering strike, and continue with an enfeebling strike, and then choose which to use based on the circumstances. If enemies you mark turn out to ignore the mark, sometimes, then enfeebling strike becomes more attractive. If enemies you haven't marked attack you, bolstering strike becomes more attractive. If nasty status-effects are in play, enfeebling strike becomes more effective. If you're running low on healing surges, bolstering strike becomes more attractive. If you're fighting a foe that has a really high attack bonus (or you have a low armor class) and you're being hit a lot, don't bother with enfeebling strike.

Many builds don't raise wisdom at every opportunity. If your wisdom is low, then bolstering strike is just not an attractive option.

If I had to choose between enfeebling strike and bolstering strike during power selection, I'd probably go for enfeebling strike, unless you're playing low-level, your allies are well defended anyhow, and you have a high wisdom. But if you're a dwarf or elf, and there's a second or even third defender in the party (especially if everyone has reasonable defenses), then bolstering strike is great.

 

[eamon]

In practice, many monsters will rarely hit the paladin, who can easily have an AC of 20 at first level (I think even the best 1st level critter have no more than +8 to hit, and many just +4).

Optimal for a Chaladin true. But, not necessarily optimal for a Paladin in general.

At low levels Bolstering and Enfeebling Strike seem great in one on one battles.

I'm not considering the other strength based fighter abilities in this comparison; sorry, I could have been more clear... But if you're not playing a charisma-focused paladin, then both powers are less attractive anyhow. I suppose a strength-based paladin would prefer Bolstering strike, since he could choose to use that on easier opponents (or minions), whereas enfeebling strike is best when used on the most powerful opponent around.

 

[FadedC]

You're comparing apples with oranges: you're comparing the average reduction in damage to anyone using enfeebling strike, to the maximum reduction using bolstering strike to just yourself.

Bolstering strike of course prevents no damage when the monster fails to hit, nor does it prevent any damage when you fail to hit - so you'll need to take that into account, and of course bolstering strike does not prevent side effects of hitting nor prevent damage to others (when that's exactly what the heavily armored paladin should be doing, especially if he's using a shield and is almost unhittable).
.

You'll note I covered all those things in my post, and that a paladin with shield is very far from unhittable. I've seen level 1 modules where monsters hit ac 20 on a 10 without flanking or bonuses.

The math works as long as your target only attacks the paladin. It doesn't matter if other people attack you and burn off your temp hp, because then it's still preventing the same damage as if your target burned them off. It doesn't matter if an attack misses because that's equally bad for both attacks. You will still note that I agree with your final conclusion that some mix is good.

That's not quite right. Actually, ES has a 10% chance to turn any attack into a miss, not just attacks that would otherwise have hit you. That's different from what you said: If the monster normally hits on an 11, then now he hits on a 13. So of the attacks that would have hit you, 20% will now miss. If the monster normally hits on a 17, now he only hits on a 20, so 2/3 of the attacks that would have hit you now miss.

It's better to think in terms of damage per round. Given that level appropriate attacks are supposed to hit 50% of the time, ES should reduce the target's damage per round by 20%. So for ES to be better the BS, the monsters average damage per round should exceed 5 times the temp hit points from bolstering strike, not 10.

Then like eamon says, critical hits add some complexity on top of that.

My math is correct, I did use a 10% chance to turn ANY attack into a miss and not just the ones that hit. That is what gives 10x bolstering strike value.

You can do it your way too and it's also correct and will give the same values. Preventing 20% of half damage gives the same prevention values as preventing 10% of full damage.

You are right though that I didn't factor in critical hits. Those favor bolstering strike, because they can't be prevented by enfeebling strike. However the change in math is minimal.