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

[Celtavian]

re

If you are the only defender in the group is it better to go with a strength build and use Holy Strike and Valiant Strike? I noticed I get surrounded quite a bit as a defender. When I get surrounded, Bolstering Strike and Enfeebling Strike seem like a giant waste of time. I really need to hit almost everytime when surrounded to keep the aggro off other party members. Damage seems to be more important than healing. I can usually either heal myself with LoH or get healed by the warlord.

I think I'm going to go for a more strength based damage build. It seems to be better as a pure defender Paladin.

 

[Cadfan]

I'd use both, obviously. First I hit with bolstering strike, then as long as the temporary hp last, I attack with enfeebling strike. If the temp hp get used, I hit with bolstering strike again. Meanwhile, the cleric can go help someone else, because with my high armor class, temporary hit point buffer, and enfeebling strike, I'm awfully self sufficient.

 

[cbbakke]

This is our first run at 4.0 and I am the paladin of the party. I actually have enfeeble and bolstering strike as my two powers and I find I use both of them in different situations.

Against minions I lead with bolster strike first for the extra hps. If I have it on I will use enfeeble strike. On a hard hitting creature I go right for enfeebling because the few extra hps dont compare to getting missed.

As defenders, we also have a warrior in the party and they appear to unleash a ton more damage then the paladins but I can heal some on the side so it kind of pans out.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you are the only defender in the group is it better to go with a strength build and use Holy Strike and Valiant Strike? I noticed I get surrounded quite a bit as a defender. When I get surrounded, Bolstering Strike and Enfeebling Strike seem like a giant waste of time. I really need to hit almost everytime when surrounded to keep the aggro off other party members. Damage seems to be more important than healing. I can usually either heal myself with LoH or get healed by the warlord.

I think I'm going to go for a more strength based damage build. It seems to be better as a pure defender Paladin.

Our Paladin player did and the analysis above supports it.

However, the analysis above does not take into account Encounter powers, Daily powers, feats, or other Paragon Path abilities. It's quite possible that a Cha based Paladin is more effective than a Str based Paladin when one takes those into account.

Based on just At-Will powers though, the Str Paladin would appear to be more effective than the Cha Paladin for two reasons: 1) The Str At-Will powers should on average result in fewer rounds of combat per encounter via taking out more opponents quicker, and 2) 4E is an offensive (and healing) system, not a defensive one. The way to kill real high level monsters is not through defensive attrition over 20 rounds, it's through offensive potency over 15 rounds. A dead opponent cannot counterattack (as a general rule, but we did have a killed undead get back up mid-combat on Saturday ). If one does not take out monsters quickly in 4E, it gives them too many opportunities to take you out. 4E PC defensive abilities do not equate to quick.

Note: I am a defensive player by nature. But, I still recognize that while defense is good to have in 4E, offense is better.

 

[Zelc]

Holy Strike isn't as good as you think, KarinsDad. Let's take level 15. A single normal monster might have, say, around 140 HP? The paladin might have a +5 bonus to Wisdom. With 8 attacks and 4 hits, that's an extra 20 HP, maybe 10 of which is applied to a single target unless you're facing a solo. That 20 damage is the equivalent of two attacks, or one from a striker, and it only matters if the extra attacks required would allow a monster to make an extra attack. It's also entirely possible that a crit or a powerful attack will make the damage overkill, especially when it's spread out against multiple monsters.

 

[FadedC]

At level 15, 20 damage is even less significant then that. My sword and shield fighter at lvl 16 for example would have an average basic attack damage of 25.5 on a hit. And he's obviously not a striker.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

Actually, it's the opposite. Enfeebling strike scales fine, in fact it's better at high levels because you fight a lot more Elites and Solos, there are very few high level normal or minion monsters currently. Bolstering however doesn't scale at all. Most Paladins won't find it particularly helpful at mid let alone levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

Holy Strike isn't as good as you think, KarinsDad. Let's take level 15. A single normal monster might have, say, around 140 HP? The paladin might have a +5 bonus to Wisdom. With 8 attacks and 4 hits, that's an extra 20 HP, maybe 10 of which is applied to a single target unless you're facing a solo. That 20 damage is the equivalent of two attacks, or one from a striker, and it only matters if the extra attacks required would allow a monster to make an extra attack. It's also entirely possible that a crit or a powerful attack will make the damage overkill, especially when it's spread out against multiple monsters.

Sure overkill is possible. It's possible for Enfeebling Strike as well, but in two ways (too much damage, and giving a dead monster -2 to hit).


When looking at Enfeebling Strike, we know the average monster response attack is only changed by 10% if the attack hits.

So taking your 140 hit point monster and a 15th level Paladin averaging D8 (Longsword) +1 (feat) + 3 (magic) +7 (Cha or Str) ~= 16 points of damage. It takes 9 successful Enfeebling Strike hits to kill the monster. At ~21 points of damage with Holy Strike, it takes 7 successful hits.

Note: Not including criticals. Criticals increase the damage by 3 here 1 round in 20, so it is mostly white noise for this example. And, this does not include Encounter powers, etc. It is merely a comparison of Enfeebling Strike multiple rounds vs. Holy Strike.

With Holy Strike, the combat takes 78% of the time as it does with Enfeebling Strike. 14 rounds instead of 18 (at 50% chance to hit). 4 rounds of the monster being dead means 2 times (monster has ~50% chance to hit) that the Paladin does not get hit in those last 4 rounds.

The monster, on the other hand, is only going to have an extra miss one time in 10 with Enfeebling Strike. So, the Paladin hits 9 rounds out of 18 with Enfeebling Strike and gets missed less than once on average in return (and on the 9th attack, the monster is dead, so giving it a -2 is irrelevant, the Enfeebling Strike equivalent of overkill damage that you mentioned).

With Holy Strike, the Paladin gets missed twice (due to the monster being dead) vs. with Enfeebling Strike, the Paladin gets missed 0.8 times (or less than once due to the monster being enfeebled).


Granted, one extra missed attack could also mean an extra missed condition. Or, the monster attack might not have an additional effect. Stopping the combat 4 rounds early and not taking 1.2 times the monster's damage is probably worth more than taking a condition since most conditions only last for a round, but it all depends on what it is.

On the other hand, longer combats are bad for PCs in 4E. It gives the DM more of an opportunity to roll well.


This was an example with a Longsword. It doesn't change much with a bigger weapon, but feel free to do the math for yourself.


I'm not stating that Holy Strike is strong. I'm stating that Holy Strike is typically stronger and more useful than Enfeebling Strike. Enfeebling Strike has some corner case utlity for protecting an ally and can once in a blue moon, stop a PC from taking damage and possibly an effect, but again, that is only one time in 10 that it is successful. And then, only if the Paladin hits with it, so one enemy attack in 20 does it actually protect and that's only for rounds the Paladin uses Enfeebling Strike instead of some other power.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Actually, it's the opposite. Enfeebling strike scales fine, in fact it's better at high levels because you fight a lot more Elites and Solos, there are very few high level normal or minion monsters currently. Bolstering however doesn't scale at all. Most Paladins won't find it particularly helpful at mid let alone levels.

I was doing some more thinking on this. That enfeebling strike works for all attacks. Special attacks, AoE attacks, at will attacks, and every type of attack the creature can do whether it is an str, dex, or cha attack.

It really depends on your defenses. There are certain defensive builds that would make enfeebling strike a pretty big asset. Wheras the extra damage from Holy Strike does become a much smaller percentage of hit points as you rise. Enfeebling Strike always provides the -2 which scales pretty well considering that most creatures have pretty tame to hits and for a defensive build character, you can get pretty strong defenses across the board.

I was doing one build where I my armor class reached 49 with pretty good all around defenses.

That damage bonus only functions once per round on a marked creature. There really isn't anyway stack up on Wisdom to do much more damage. But Enfeebling Strike can be stacked onto other abilities that cause a hit penalty thereby acting with more synergy in a group situation.

I noticed that damage even from high level creatures is pretty tame. I'm thinking of taking Valiant Strike and Enfeebling Strike. Even though I won't focus on strength, you get enough minions around and you Valiant Strike becomes pretty powerful.

I'm going to have to think about this some more. Given the way the monsters and NPCs have multiple different types of attacks and all the different feat builds and stackable powers that can affect defenses and attack rolls, the -2 penalty for enfeebling strike seems like it might be the better choice for a long-term power.

Though Bolstering Strike isn't the greatest for a group fight, it does add some durability. So I might keep that. Choices, choices.

 

[eamon]

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.

Indeed, your (correct) analysis mostly matches my thoughts, but the limitations are so large that I think comparing in terms of damage prevention just doesn't cover it.

And, you're still not accounting for the fact that the monster can miss you when you use bolstering strike. So when your example says that enfeebling strike prevents 1 damage each round by preventing 10% of all attacks that would have dealt 10 damage, you implicitly compare that to 1 temporary hit point - but 1 temporary hit point does not imply 1 prevented damage. You can end an encounter with temporary hitpoints unused, and temporary hitpoints overlap; so if you hit three times in a row, and then the monster hits three times in a row, you'll have (usually) prevented a different amount of damage than if you and the monster hit alternatingly. That means that an attack that grants N temporary hitpoints at best prevents N damage, but on average will prevent less - and it's difficult to quantify how much less, especially since that's heavily influenced by tactics. Also, if a monster has a low hit-rate, you're more likely to "waste" temporary hitpoints by overlapping or still having them at the end of the encounter, which means that the better your AC is relative the the attack bonus of the monster, the less attractive bolstering strike becomes.

When it comes to enfeebling strike, it's not just area effects, it's also multiple attacks which "bolster" enfeebling strike's value. OA's, special powers etc: most of these things are all affected by enfeebling strike, and can push up the "average damage per round if everthing hits excluding criticals"

So I agree with your numbers, but not with the conclusion. My conclusion is that enfeebling strike is a solid effect in all situations (barring minions), and bolstering strike is situational. If the monsters don't have area effect damage, aren't doing multiple attacks per round, your wisdom is relatively high (how high you can determine using your numbers), if there aren't many nasty status effects, if your mark isn't liable to attack anyone else, then bolstering strike is better.

A mix is still best of course, as many have said before.