Re-examining Sure Strike and Careful Attack

[Mad Hamish]

These powers are perfectly fine as they are written and I've been known to take them with both classes in the past. I take them because they ensure a hit. There is nothing more annoying then going up against the big bad and not being able to properly defend. For the ranger it assures Hunter's Quarry! Can you imagine if the rogue had a power like this? Everyone would take it to assure Backstab damage.

Um, no.
They don't ensure a hit. In a standard battle you have about 50% chance to hit. Careful strike gives you a 60% chance to hit at a large cost in damage.

As a fighter you mark whether you hit or not and you get enough bonus to opportunity attacks from wisdom that the +2 to hit isn't a big issue even with heavy blade opportunist.

As a ranger twin shot gives you 2 chances to hit in the round, at 50% to hit on each that means you hit at least once 75% of the time which means you do much more damage.

A rogue might take something similar or might not, OTOH most rogues will have +4 or +5 damage from dex at low levels and normally have other ways of boosting chances to hit significantly so I suspect that they probably average 60% chance to hit if not more. Going from 60 -> 70 % chance to hit means that they will probably do more damage from dex than they get from a boost to hit.

 

[Nifft]

My suggested House Rule. The powers work as normal, with this addition:
Hit: 1[W], and you receive a +2 power bonus to attack on your next attack against the target.

When we did this over in House Rules, it seemed people liked:

Effect: You gain a +2 power bonus to attacks until the end of your next turn.

Cheers, -- N

 

[brehobit]

One comment: sure strike is a reasonable option if you can use an at-will power as an opp. attack. Often you care more about hitting with the attack than the damage as your goal (as a fighter) might be to stop them from moving.

Does that make it worth taking? Maybe.

I'd actually suggest for a fighter it be "roll twice and take the better". Not as good as dual strike (so no great love for the ranger), but it works and it's easy and it's darn powerful.

 

[Rechan]

For instance, Is the dwarf battlerager in the first post a viable option with Sure Strike and Grudge Style? Or would he be better off just using Brash Strike?

I really think Brash Strike is superior. Among other things, it also gives an extra incentive for the enemy to take a swing at the fighter: -2 to AC.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

Let's not forget the other reason we need to just flat-out hit: weapon dailies. I don't really care what power I hit with; I just want to hit with my +18 Vorpal Poleaxe of Overly Gratuitous Beheading so I can burn my daily power on this BBEG. If you're toting around magic weapons, and ESPECIALLY if you've got an Artificer recharging your stuff for you, your character should really consider taking one of these +2 powers to ensure the big boom goes off.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Let's not forget the other reason we need to just flat-out hit: weapon dailies. I don't really care what power I hit with; I just want to hit with my +18 Vorpal Poleaxe of Overly Gratuitous Beheading so I can burn my daily power on this BBEG. If you're toting around magic weapons, and ESPECIALLY if you've got an Artificer recharging your stuff for you, your character should really consider taking one of these +2 powers to ensure the big boom goes off.

Careful Attack and Sure Strike are both at-wills, not dailies. You can't use the +2 from those at-will powers on your daily attacks.

 

[Smeelbo]

Dual Strike is much better than Sure Strike, except in some rare cases, like if you had a MBA of +10 vs AC31. In that case, the Dual Strikes could not crit, and would hit at least once per round 10% of the time, but Sure Strike would hit on a 19 and crit on a 20.

If Sure Strike were +3 instead of +2, it would become competitive with Dual Strike, and possibly sometimes better.

I am personally in favor of having decent At-Wills, because the way combats appear to run, you'll need a good At-Will.

Smeelbo

 

[Samurai]

I wanted a way of allowing the power to scale as the character and his stats grow, because that is a big problem with it... +2 to hit instead of +3 or +4 damage isn't a great trade, but it's not terrible. But later on, you're trading +5, +6, or +7 damage for that same +2 to hit and it really gets to be a bad deal. So what I did was this:

Instead of adding his stat bonus to both his attack and damage roll as he would with a normal attack, he adds 2x his stat bonus to his attack roll, and no stat bonus to damage. This double stat bonus to attack replaces the +2 to attack from the book.

Second, I placed a limitation on Twin Strike: In order for the Ranger to make a 2nd attack, he must target a different opponent, no more than 2 squares away from the primary target. He may not attack the same target twice with this power.

Between these 2 changes, I think it evens the 2 powers out... Careful Attack's bonus will always be useful and will scale with the character now, but will never result in the chance for 2 hits. Twin Strike may not always be useful anymore, it requires a specific situation (2 opponents within 2 squares of each other), but can result in 2 hits instead of 1 when it works.

What do you think?

 

[Cadfan]

I wanted a way of allowing the power to scale as the character and his stats grow, because that is a big problem with it... +2 to hit instead of +3 or +4 damage isn't a great trade, but it's not terrible. But later on, you're trading +5, +6, or +7 damage for that same +2 to hit and it really gets to be a bad deal. So what I did was this:

I don't think this works. Yes, you're trading a larger amount of damage for +2 attack. But what matters is what percentage of your overall damage you're trading for that +2 attack. And as you level up, gain magic items, and see your at wills go from 1[W] to 2[W], strength generally becomes a lower percentage of your overall damage.

At level 1, my current Fighter dealt 2d6+4 with his basic melee attack, averaging 11 per hit. With Careful Attack, he would have averaged only 7 per hit. Losing a little over 1/3 of your total damage is a big deal, and the +2 attack almost never boosts you enough to make up for it.

But what about at about level 21? I expect to be dealing something around 4d6 +7 strength +5 item enhancement +4 paragon path bonus, and my weapon will be Brutal 1. That averages 30 damage per hit. The 7 from is now less than a quarter of my total damage. This makes losing it less important, and gaining +2 attack more important. Note- even if I hadn't gotten the +4 damage from my paragon path, I'd still be sitting at 26 total damage, making the 7 from strength a lower percentage than it was at level 1.

Does this make Careful Attack good enough to take at high level? I don't know. Probably not. But since the system scales in the way it does, I think that making the bonus from Careful Attack increase is unnecessary.

 

[KarinsDad]

What do you think?

I think adding two times stat modifier attack bonus to a to hit will result in 30th level Rangers that often only miss on a one.

Orcus or Ancient Red Dragon AC 48

30th level Ranger +9 Dex, +9 Dex a second time, +15 level, +5 magic weapon, +2 bow proficiency, +1 battlefield experience

70% chance to hit the toughest AC creatures in the MM without any sort of party synergy bonuses.


The next highest AC in the MM is 45 (85% chance to hit) and it drops after that.


A house rule should be balanced at all levels.