Shield Feint

[KarinsDad]

@brash strike
very much overrated alternating between shield feint and brash strike is a terrible idea.

Sorry, but you are not thinking this through.

Shield Feint and Brash Strike can be a very effective combination, especially later in an encounter when the Fighter is running out of other resources.

It allows the Fighter to keep one foe locked up and doubly encourages that foe to concentrate on the Fighter. The Fighter is not only hitting a lot, but the Fighter is also presenting a lower defense delta of 4 (2 for combat advantage, 2 for mark) over attacking someone else at a minimum of every other round (if the foe attacks the Fighter, it's worse for the foe if the foe attacks someone else).

Example:

Melee Ranger and Fighter are fighting foe.

Fighter hits foe with Shield Feint. Foe decides to ignore Fighter's mark and attack Ranger. Fighter attacks foe with Combat Challenge at +3. Ranger attacks foe.

Next Round. Fighter hits foe with Shield Feint. Foe decides to ignore Fighter's mark and attack Ranger. Fighter attacks foe with Combat Challenge at +3. Ranger attacks foe.

Next Round. Fighter hits foe with Shield Feint. Foe decides to ignore Fighter's mark and attack Ranger. Fighter attacks foe with Combat Challenge at +3. Ranger attacks foe.

Not only is the Fighter getting two attacks per round against this foe, but every time his Shield Feint hits, the second attack is at +3.

The Ranger can be healed. Allowing the Fighter to do more than double damage normal is suicidal. You've just turned the Fighter into a Striker and the foe effectively has two Strikers on him.


Foes should rarely ignore a Fighter, but ignoring him when he sometimes gets a +3 bonus to hit on his Combat Challenge and the chance to hit him is sometimes better than normal is just plain stupid most of the time. Attack the Ranger at -2 and give the Fighter an extra attack that is sometimes at +3, or attack the Fighter at +2. That's typically a no brainer for a monster.

The PCs already have 2 attacks to this foe's 1 per round. Changing that to 3 PC attacks to this foe's 1, just to attack the Ranger at -2 is typically silly, even without the +3 to hit on the Combat Challenge. Shield Feint encourages the foe to attack the Fighter even more and this specifically matches the role of the Fighter.


Compared to pushing or pulling a foe a square most of the time. No contest. Yes, there are situations where pushing or pulling a foe is awesome. They are just few and far between compared to pounding on the foe more often.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

snip, because not related to my last post...

using brash strike is straightly worse than using only shield feint later in the fight:

+3 on every attack is better than alternating between +0 and +5 and with combat challenge only at +3 every other round.

If you think otherwise ok... but don´t try to misread my posts on purpose.

 

[Mengu]

+3 on every attack is better than alternating between +0 and +5 and with combat challenge only at +3 every other round.

That +3 to hit has too many conditions. You must have hit the previous turn, the thing you hit the previous turn must still be alive, and you must still be able to attack it.

+2 to hit every round whether you hit or miss the previous round, and regardless of what creature you're attacking, is simply better than any of the above options, if attack bonus is all we're comparing.

And keep in mind the granted combat advantage is only against the target you attacked. So if your allies are focusing fire (which there is no reason they shouldn't be, especially toward the end of an encounter when you are down to at-will powers), that target might not even get to go before it can attack you with combat advantage.

Brash Strike is extremely strong if you have the appropriate weapon, but still strong enough if you don't, especially as a third human at-will.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That +3 to hit has too many conditions. You must have hit the previous turn, the thing you hit the previous turn must still be alive, and you must still be able to attack it.

+2 to hit every round whether you hit or miss the previous round, and regardless of what creature you're attacking, is simply better than any of the above options, if attack bonus is all we're comparing.

And keep in mind the granted combat advantage is only against the target you attacked. So if your allies are focusing fire (which there is no reason they shouldn't be, especially toward the end of an encounter when you are down to at-will powers), that target might not even get to go before it can attack you with combat advantage.

Brash Strike is extremely strong if you have the appropriate weapon, but still strong enough if you don't, especially as a third human at-will.

Right. That +3 needs that many conditions to be balanced.

IMHO brash strike is overrated, because it gives out combat advantage (no problem if you did so already or if you finish off the target)

alternating between those two at wills is the worst of both worlds... I would take one or the other, not both, even not as human, especially if i am not using a hammer.

If i hit with the shield feint before I either use an action point to fire off an encounter or daily, or i will repeat the attack to keep the bonus up until i want to fire off my high damage attack.

1st at will: cleave (or dual strike)
2nd at will: tide of iron or reaping strike (2 or 1h weapon), or footwork lure
3rd at will: brash strike, shield feint or sure strike (for those rare builds)

i can´t see a reason to have both brash strike and shield feint. really.

One or the other. I didn´t say anything else.
(edit: ok, i said somehing else: If you are fighting with a sword against a single monster that has a lot of hp remaining, shield feint is better than brash strike... maybe using brash strike is even better, as you said... I think it depends on your actual attack bonus and how much risk you want to take...)

edit: for a hammer and shield battlerager with high con brash strike is very potent IMHO. For most other builds there are better options (a fighter has a lot of good at-wills)

edit2: i believe shield feint has better utility options than brash strike in general.

 

[DracoSuave]

Also notice, the argument here is Brash Strike with a heavy blade, where you're not actually using Brash Strike to its full effectiveness.

Remember, if the enemy is attacking your friends, you're attacking them an extra time. Two attacks > +2 to hit with one. Ask a ranger why.

I I don't know anywhere where the defender schtick is to get hit for less damage? How can you manage that?

You take utilities that make the share of damage you receive, through temp hps, resist damage, and through outright self-healing. It's not a -lot-, but it's enough to reduce the amount of damage you take in before the leader words you up.

Consider healing not in terms of hit points but in terms of surge value. You have a higher surge value than anyone else, so healing is more efficient on you. 10 points of damage to you is less than 10 points of damage to anyone else.

Then, reduce that damage through your powers of resilience even further. This makes you a more effective damage sponge.

However, if you -hand- out extra damage to the enemies, you negate that advantage, which makes healing you as efficient or less efficient than any other character. At which point, your marking is no longer desirable because you don't -want- to get hit, you want to spread out the hits.

And if your mark is not desirable to apply, you're not a defender.


And while flanking is technically easy, you're not supposed to -make- it easy. Monsters with Combat Advantage abilities are not monsters you want flanking, and being a good defender is being perfectly aware of this fact. (Yes, it's a power they have, so you can know about it up front through monster knowledge checks.)

Compare with Sure Strike, which certain feats exist to give it equivalent damage to Brash Strike-with-a-sword. Same +2 to hit. No combat advantage.

 

[KarinsDad]

using brash strike is straightly worse than using only shield feint later in the fight:

+3 on every attack is better than alternating between +0 and +5 and with combat challenge only at +3 every other round.

If you think otherwise ok... but don´t try to misread my posts on purpose.

I didn't misread your post at all, let alone on purpose. You are the one making the claim without backing it up.

You said:

@brash strike
very much overrated alternating between shield feint and brash strike is a terrible idea.

It's not terrible. That's all I was responding to.

The +3 boost is not going to happen every time. It's conditional. But, it might happen for a round or two. When it does, +5 is almost a guaranteed hit with Brash Strike, especially for a One Handed Weapon Talent Fighter (which many sword and board fighters are). So, the Fighter can have on each round using Shield Feint only:

a) +0, +3 or +0, +3 or +0, +3 or +0

or he can alternate it with Brash Strike:

+0, +5 or +2, +0, +5 or +2

The best case scenrio in four rounds for a) is +9 total and for b) is +10 total. For a), Shield Feint has to not be interrupted 3 times for the total +9. For b) Shield Feint has to not be interrupted 2 times for the total +10. The chances of the foe not being killed or moved, and the Fighter not being incapacitated is fairly slim over 4 rounds. It's very tough to get to that +9. Not quite as hard to get to the +10.

So just alternating averages more damage with Brash Strike with the Combat Advantage cost. A lot more damage, no. But, it not only does slightly more damage, it also incentivizes the foe to attack the Fighter: both because Combat Challenge at +3 is nastier, and because if the Fighter gets to a round to use Brash Strike, there is the 4 AC delta. And because the Fighter is weapon and shield, the shield offsets the combat advantage.

Tactics 101 dude. It's not terrible. It can be quite effective.

I wouldn't suggest it for a non-human. But it is fine as part of a Human At Will repetoire.

So far, you haven't posted ANYTHING which illustrates that it is "terrible". You keep saying that you don't see a reason for it, but you have yet to post why it is terrible. What really is so bad about it?

You haven't even posted how it can be subpar to some other At Will option, let alone terrible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ok, a little bit backup:

+3 to hit > +2 to hit

trying to get that constant +3 seems more reasonable than granting combat advantage and going between +0 and +5

lets calculate:
+0,+5,+0,+5,+0
or
+0,+3,+3,+3,+3

+12 > +10

if you break up at one of the favorable numbered rounds, of course you get better numbers...

lets have a real slugfest:
+0,+3,+3,+3,+3,+3,+3,+3
or:
+0,+5,+0,+5,+0,+5,+0,+5
<
and now we are always in favour for the only shield feint combo...

if you are argumenting with: "but it must not be interrupted for xx rounds"

better go for:
+2,+2,+2,+2,+2,+2

after 5 rounds you have a +10 without hitting requirements

also you may get a different power bonus from any other source like villains menace so you can exceed the bonus of shield feint easily.

also:
usually you rather go shield feint -> encounter or shield feint -> daily to deal damage. Going all out on encounter powers may may not be a good idea depending on the situation.

also:
Would you give up the utility of tide of iron or cleave to have a relative lousy combo? I won´t, but its just my opinion.

also:
lets look at your backup to the claim that it is a good combo to alternate between shield feint and brash strike:

Example:

Melee Ranger and Fighter are fighting foe.

Fighter hits foe with Shield Feint. Foe decides to ignore Fighter's mark and attack Ranger. Fighter attacks foe with Combat Challenge at +3. Ranger attacks foe.

Next Round. Fighter hits foe with Shield Feint. Foe decides to ignore Fighter's mark and attack Ranger. Fighter attacks foe with Combat Challenge at +3. Ranger attacks foe.

Next Round. Fighter hits foe with Shield Feint. Foe decides to ignore Fighter's mark and attack Ranger. Fighter attacks foe with Combat Challenge at +3. Ranger attacks foe.

Not only is the Fighter getting two attacks per round against this foe, but every time his Shield Feint hits, the second attack is at +3.

This rather sounds like an argument for using only shield feint... so how does this backup your claim?

edit: just to be clear: there can be situations where alternating between both options can be a good idea (shield feint -> brash strike can be a great finsiher... +0,+3,+3,+5 is even "+11 in 4 rounds")... but as a standard tactic, other options are better...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The Fighter is not only hitting a lot, but the Fighter is also presenting a lower defense delta of 4 (2 for combat advantage, 2 for mark) over attacking someone else at a minimum of every other round (if the foe attacks the Fighter, it's worse for the foe if the foe attacks someone else).

Also i didn´t really understand what you are trying to say here... maybe because english is not my native language...

How is 4 lower than 2? And how does reducing your defense make you a better defender? I always thought it makes you a healing sponge...

 

[DracoSuave]

You haven't even posted how it can be subpar to some other At Will option, let alone terrible.

Let's say you've got a Kobold Dragonshield, vs. a level 1 Fighter with 18 Strength, a normal bastard sword, One Handed talent. No expertise.

+4 Strength, +1 weapon talent, +3 proficiency bonus gives a base +8 to hit.

That's a 10 to hit the dragonshield, 55% chance to hit.

Brash Strike has an 8 to hit, which each round is 13 outcomes out of 20, or 65%. After two attacks, that's 169/400 outcomes where you hit twice, 49/400 outcomes where you miss twice, and 182/400 outcomes where you hit once.

if Shield Feint has succeeded, the next Shield Feint has a 70% chance to hit.

So, missing twice occurs on 81/400 outcomes. Hitting twice requires 14X11/400 or 151/400 outcomes. Hitting only once occurs on 400-(81+151)=400-232=168/400 outcomes.

So, going shield feint only means you do hit a little less... 2(169) + 182 = 338 + 182 = 520 for brash strike vs 2(151) + 168 = 470 for shield feint.

Now, bear in mind, each outcome counts two attacks, so the math comes to 520/800 vs 470/800, or a difference of 50/800 = 1/16, or 6.25%, or the equivalent of +1.25 to hit.

So, brash strike gives you +1.25 to hit vs shield feint, in exchange for combat advantage.

That's why it sucks... yes it hits more. But the cost is counter productive to sword-and-board defending. However, if you're using an axe or hammer, the math changes because of the +Con to damage, which allows brash strike to pull ahead considerably.

But without the +Con, it's too much cost for too little gain.

Bear in mind, this is over two attacks. If you happened to have had shield fient before the two attacks, then shield feint wins out hands down. Once you get that first hit in, shield fient pulls ahead considerably. Using brash strike at that point reduces the shield feint advantage, in exchange for a single turn of more attack. But that costs you the opportunity of more utility in that slot.

Let's be honest, brash strike with a heavy blade only looks good if you forget that paladins have Valiant Strike and Radiant Strike which do the same job but without any downside... any time you look at a power and go 'But if I had Versatile Master, I could have this better power'... and that is the ONLY power you have that you can do that with... that does not make it your best power... that makes it your worst.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let's say you've got a Kobold Dragonshield, vs. a level 1 Fighter with 18 Strength, a normal bastard sword, One Handed talent. No expertise.

+4 Strength, +1 weapon talent, +3 proficiency bonus gives a base +8 to hit.

That's a 10 to hit the dragonshield, 55% chance to hit.

Brash Strike has an 8 to hit, which each round is 13 outcomes out of 20, or 65%. After two attacks, that's 169/400 outcomes where you hit twice, 49/400 outcomes where you miss twice, and 182/400 outcomes where you hit once.

if Shield Feint has succeeded, the next Shield Feint has a 70% chance to hit.

So, missing twice occurs on 81/400 outcomes. Hitting twice requires 14X11/400 or 151/400 outcomes. Hitting only once occurs on 400-(81+151)=400-232=168/400 outcomes.

So, going shield feint only means you do hit a little less... 2(169) + 182 = 338 + 182 = 520 for brash strike vs 2(151) + 168 = 470 for shield feint.

Now, bear in mind, each outcome counts two attacks, so the math comes to 520/800 vs 470/800, or a difference of 50/800 = 1/16, or 6.25%, or the equivalent of +1.25 to hit.

So, brash strike gives you +1.25 to hit vs shield feint, in exchange for combat advantage.

That's why it sucks... yes it hits more. But the cost is counter productive to sword-and-board defending. However, if you're using an axe or hammer, the math changes because of the +Con to damage, which allows brash strike to pull ahead considerably.

But without the +Con, it's too much cost for too little gain.

I could see where you would think that Brash Strike followed by Brash Strike sucks.

But, my conversation was about alternating Shield Feint and Brash Strike. Not, Shield Feint followed by Shield Feint vs. Brash Strike followed by Brash Strike. So, you are not comparing what I was talking about.

Let's compare the three.


Taking your exact same example:

1) Shield Feint round one, Shield Feint round two:

We're going to skip the fuzzy math that you added because you had a minor and a major error in it.

.45 *.45 * 0 hits + .45 * .55 * 1 hit + .55 * .3 * 1 hit + .55 * .7 * 2 hits = 1.1825 hits in two rounds or 59.125% average chance to hit

(miss first miss second, miss first hit second, hit first miss second, hit first hit second)


2) Brash Strike round one, Brash Strike round two:

.35 *.35 * 0 hits + .35 * .65 * 1 hit + .65 * .35 * 1 hit + .65 * .65 * 2 hits = 1.3 hits in two rounds or 65% average chance to hit (as expected)

Not +1.25 to hit, +1.175 to hit (65% - 59.125%).

This is a 10% increase in dpr (over 2 rounds) 1.3/1.1825=1.1. Why? Because with Brash Strike, one is guaranteed a +2 increase both rounds (which is a 65%/55%=18% increase over a melee basic attack, a 10% increase over two rounds of Shield Feint).


3) Let's look at Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike (my earlier point):

Shield Feint round one, Brash Strike round two:

.45 * .35 * 0 hits + .45 * .65 * 1 hit + .55 * .2 * 1 hit + .55 * .8 * 2 hits = 1.2825 hits in two rounds or 64.125% chance to hit


This is better dpr than Shield Feint and Shield Feint (+1 to hit on average), and nearly as good dpr as Brash Strike Brash Strike, but the difference is that the Combat Advantage only occurs on round two in this scenario, not both rounds.

So I ask again, how exactly is Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike terrible? It's basically as good or better than either of the other two.


Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike doesn't suck. It isn't terrible. It's feasible. Math 101 guys.

Is it better damage with an axe, hammer, or mace? Yup. But, that's not the conversation. That's a red herring which has nothing to do with whether taking both Shield Feint and Brash Strike is ok.


Looked at objectively, Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike is an average of +1 to hit for -1 to defenses (and note: combat advantage might occur anyway) over Shield Feint followed by Shield Feint.

Shield Feint followed by Brash Strike is approximately the same damage, but an average of +1 to defenses over Brash Strike followed by Brash Strike.