Shield Feint

[KarinsDad]

Maybe we play a different game... lowering defense as a standard tactic sounds bad, no matter how you try to justify it... even if i am easier to take out. That doesn´t make the nearly dead ranger less likely to be hit. And on top of it, if you don´t use shield feint (and hit) you give up an increased chance to kill the foe attacking the ranger. (Which really makes the decision harder for the enemy)
You could say, that a hit of brash strike may have taken out the enemy at the fighters regular turn... yes, if this is possible, brash strike is the right choice (if you don´t need less than strength modifier damage to kill, in which case reaping strike would be the right choice.)
If i want to be an easier target i am using a greatsword (fullblade) and use reaping strike.

No doubt. Reaping Strike is a great choice. With a 50% chance to hit, it does ~60% damage instead of 50% damage. In a vacuum.

But what is better when the Cleric just hit the foe with Astra Seal? Reaping Strike or Brash Strike? The answer is not necessarily clear. It's situationally dependent.

People too often look at these types of things in a vacuum. It really is dependent on the entire party makeup. What powers do they have? Which tactics do they use?

I have not once claimed that Shield Feint combined with Brash Strike is a great combination. I merely claimed that it was an ok combination. You and Draco are the ones claiming that it is terrible without much to back that claim up.

In the two round scenario (which most Shield Feint scenarios will tend to be based on 6 round encounters), Shield Feint combined with Brash Strike is +1 to hit and -1 to defenses over Shield Feint with Shield Feint, and +2 to hit and -1 to defenses over many other two round At Will combinations. There is really nothing wrong with that. It's a reasonable option. It's far from terrible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, and at least i said, that if not looked at it in a vacuum, missing opportunity cost of having cleave and tide of iron in ones arsenal for this one combo that is only slightly better in certain situations is a bad idea in general.

Of course there are party compositions and tactics where brash strike can be very good, even with a sword... (2 encounters withouta short break with possibilities to focus fire etc...)

We actually backed up or claim. It is just a bit annoying that you tell us the same things again, even when we present some counter arguments.

This is why i always said: brash strike and shield feint is bad in general. This doesn´t count out those special cases where it is very good.

p.s.: Even when you astral seal on the enemy, the ranger would also benefit from extra hp, so missing may not be an issue...

I always believe that the actual situation should let you decide which powers to take. If there was a best power per say, we could go back to 2nd edition...

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah, and at least i said, that if not looked at it in a vacuum, missing opportunity cost of having cleave and tide of iron in ones arsenal for this one combo that is only slightly better in certain situations is a bad idea in general.

The combo is not the point. It never was.

That is what you apppear to be getting hung up on.

Shield Feint is great for setting up an Encounter or Daily power when using an Action Point in the same round. Shield Feint is ok (but not great because it might not happen) for setting up an Encounter or Daily power the following round.

Otherwise, Shield Feint is a mostly meh. It's quite often not much better than a melee basic attack because of the fluidity of combat. Anyone who has played a Sorcerer with a bonus to hit on the following attack knows that.

Brash Strike is a good power all it's own. An immediate +2 to hit is awesome. It has a downside of Combat Advantage, but the smart Fighter doesn't use that downside when it makes a big difference. This is the point that renau1g tried to illustrate, but Draco does not agree with.

No power is great for every circumstance.

No combination of At Will powers is best for every Fighter.

Any combination of At Wills MIGHT be good for a given Fighter design.

It all depends.

But, you have yet to illustrate how having Shield Feint plus having Brash Strike plus having a different At Will for a human sword and shield Fighter is bad.

How?

Can someone eek out something better? Probably. But just because they might find a slightly better combination for a given Fighter doesn't equate to this combination being bad. Sorry, but I opine that a Fighter with this combination of At Wills can be played just as well as most other Fighters and with the proper party mix, even better. The Fighter can lock down the foe and hit more often, the Ranger can go off and attack other NPCs or attack from range, and the Cleric can Astral Seal the Fighter's locked down foe until the cows come home. The PCs hardly take any damage and the foe is locked down and pounded on. The Combat Advantage from Brash Strike was a mere blip on the entire encounter.

Of course there are party compositions and tactics where brash strike can be very good, even with a sword... (2 encounters withouta short break with possibilities to focus fire etc...)

We actually backed up or claim. It is just a bit annoying that you tell us the same things again, even when we present some counter arguments.

You backed up your claim with what? An opinion?

Where did you show that it was terrible? Honestly, where? Where have you even showed that it was a bit subpar? The math shows it as an ok option.

Cleave is better with Shield Feint? If so, how?
Reaping Strike is better with Shield Feint? If so, how?
Tide of Iron is better with Shield Feint? If so, how?

I can theorize that Brash Strike and Shield Feint are the best two damage dealing At Will powers because they give a bonus to hit. One can be used for an immediate +2 when the foe has difficulty retaliating, the other can be used to a next round +3 for more dpr in the future. That doesn't mean what I claim is correct.

One has to put some effort in to prove the claim. You haven't. Draco has, but his corner case examples leave a bit to be desired.

And again, I'm not claiming that they are great together. I'm just claiming that they are ok together, just like many many many other At Will combinations.

If they are indeed bad, then the people making the claim have to show the math why. Draco's claim is that since Brash Strike is best if used with an Axe, it must be terrible if not used with an Axe. That's hardly a conclusive argument.

This is why i always said: brash strike and shield feint is bad in general. This doesn´t count out those special cases where it is very good.

Yes, you keep saying that it's bad. But how?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You won. It is an ok combination, but IMHO not worth combining most of the time. You can have both at your arsenal, but even then you are not alternating between them most of the time.

in your 3 round example, shield feint, shield feint, brash strike is better than shield feint, brash strike, shield feint if the monster goes down after that combo. ;/

math:
.45*.45*.35*0 HIT
.45*.45*.65*1 HIT
.45*.45*.20*1 HIT
.55*.30*.35*1 HIT
.45*.55*.80*2 HIT
.55*.30*.65*2 HIT
.55*.70*.20*2 HIT
.55*.70*.80*3 HIT

1.918375


I already showed you with mathe that using brash strike only is better than alternating between both damagewise if you don´t count in combat challenge. (Even better than using feint feint brash strike)

strictly alternating without thinking doesn´t give you intended results.

Cleave is better with Shield Feint? If so, how?
Reaping Strike is better with Shield Feint? If so, how?
Tide of Iron is better with Shield Feint? If so, how?

1. cleave does minion clearing better than brash strike. Not in combination with shield feint of course, because a mnion is dead. But dismissin cleave as an at will will cost you your minion clearing power. (brash strike is not s bad for that too, because minions don´t get CA if they are dead)

2. Reaping strike is also not intended to use in combination with shield feint, but a power you can always use after encounters and dailies are used up for good damage and no CA, of course, not in combination with shield feint.

3. Same as above: a great power to have

4. shield feint to set up encounter powers with effects like daze etc.

You are giving reasons why it is not great but ok. OK is very suboptimal if you have better choices most of the time. So it is a terrible thing to think it is worth having both of them for the alternating +0 +5...

I don´t even say brash strike is bad with a sword... i don´t even say, it is a bad idea to have both, but IMHO not having cleave and tide of iron/reaping strike is too much a tradeoff.

Although i am a bit on the fence with brash strike/cleave if you have a good controler that clears clumped minions for you... but even if I had both, i would not ALTERNATE each round, because the result is quite suboptimal... better use the right one for the right situation.

 

[renau1g]

TBH I've never considered minion clearing to be the fighter's modus operandi. I would leave that to the controllers or area strikers (sorcerers) who are better equipped for that as you mentioned. One time I can see wanting the +3 from shield feint and the +2 from brash strike is if you plan to drop your weapon's daily item power and want to make sure that it hits. (not that you lose it if it misses, but say you are using a gith silver sword and really want to remove that enemy from the board for a round, at least)

 

[Amaroq]

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

That's my philosophy.

It so happens that my Saturday session's last fight was as the party Fighter, L14, vs an Ancient Black Dragon (L20 Solo Brute).

It was hardly a fair fight: he hit us almost every round, hitting even against my higher-than-party-average AC on a roll of '4' at one point. One of our players figured out that, before bonuses, he needed a natural 20 to hit in return.

Using a Dragondaunt Shield to resist 5 against his melee attacks, and a Ring which gave me a resist 10 against his acid attacks - and most importantly, his ongoing acid damage.

I was hit for a total of 342 HP of damage in the fight; I have 110 HP and a Healing Surge value of 27.

 30 - down 30 HP at end of battle

108 - 4 surges I was able to give myself, 27 HP each
 11 - from +3d6 on one of my surges

 54 - 2 surges granted by leader, 27 HP each
 10 - additional healing from leader

 14 - blocked with "ultimate parry"
 10 - reduced using shield's daily power

 40 - resist 10 acid vs 4 breath weapons
 30 - resist 10 acid vs ongoing 20
 20 - resisted 5 vs 4 claw attacks
 10 - resisted 5 vs 2 tail-swipes
  5 - resisted 5 vs 1 bite attack

Out of that 342 total, I was able to heal myself for 119 HP, and resist 129 HP ... so more than half of the damage, I was able to take care of on my own, which let the Leader take care of the other party members ... and it also let me apply my mark every single round with 100% confidence that, mathematically, even though he was going to hit me, it was better that he hit me than that he hit my teammates.

Cost: 1 feat (warlord self-heal), 1 utility (self heal on a minor), 1 paragon path ability (parry), 2 magic items.

Value: Priceless. We survived, bloodied him, and convinced him to retreat for the time being.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

TBH I've never considered minion clearing to be the fighter's modus operandi. I would leave that to the controllers or area strikers (sorcerers) who are better equipped for that as you mentioned. One time I can see wanting the +3 from shield feint and the +2 from brash strike is if you plan to drop your weapon's daily item power and want to make sure that it hits. (not that you lose it if it misses, but say you are using a gith silver sword and really want to remove that enemy from the board for a round, at least)

Yes, one good way to look at it.

 

[KarinsDad]

TBH I've never considered minion clearing to be the fighter's modus operandi. I would leave that to the controllers or area strikers (sorcerers) who are better equipped for that as you mentioned. One time I can see wanting the +3 from shield feint and the +2 from brash strike is if you plan to drop your weapon's daily item power and want to make sure that it hits. (not that you lose it if it misses, but say you are using a gith silver sword and really want to remove that enemy from the board for a round, at least)

This is an example of a Fighter setting himself up.


There are a ton of ally powers for which this would as well.

Astra Seal. Fighter hits with Shield Feint, Cleric hits with Astral Seal, Fighter tries to hit with Brash Strike at +5 for the healing.

Firemetal Shot. Fighter hits with Shield Feint, Bard hits with Firemetal Shot, Fighter tries to hit with Brash Strike at +5 for the extra fire damage.

There are probably hundreds of powers for which this type of combo would work.


The group just knows that in order to get a good chance for the extra effect of their power, that they should use that power on the foe that the Fighter was just successful with Shield Feint on because the followup Brash Strike is going to hit most of the time.

 

[renau1g]

Amaroq -

That's good although I meant more in the class features as anyone can use that shield or ring. Ultimare Parry's a good one. Is that from Kensai?

A minor quibble, healing is different than reducing damage as you needed to take an action + a surge to heal up.

Also the cost of the reduction is pretty high. You're level 14 and your level 14 item and level 16 item are used for this to be the case. Not that it isn't important, but you also need the neck, armor, and weapon slots filled and have a significant amount of your expected wealth invested in pretty situational items. (ok the primordial ring is less situational, but still)

 

[DracoSuave]

There are probably hundreds of powers for which this type of combo would work.

However the vast majority of them are -not worth- the cost of giving up an at-will slot for Brash Strike.

I mean seriously.

'But because you're a shield fighter you can take the combat advantage'

Wrong. Because you're a shield fighter, that +2 to AC and Reflexes is WHY you're taking the hits in the first place. Might as well have just gone two-handed if extra damage is important to you. It's NOT.

Simply put, Brash Strike is situationally worse than whatever you'd put on those other two slots, which you -want- as utility. Because you ARE a utility character. With Shield Push and Footwork Lure, for example, you have control over the battlefield, and with some help from your party, combat advantage is something you help -avoid.-

See, here's the other thing... you don't -want- to simply HAND the enemy combat advantage. If the enemy can use its valuable movement and such getting into such positions around you, well, thats to your advantage as a fighter, as you can punish that very .

But if you make it so they don't move -at all- to do it, now you've let -them- decide what position to take. Instead of sending a guy around your back that your team can goon squad, they can stand closer together and make flanking a lot harder for YOU to get.

Brash Strike -was- awesome with the old BRV, but even if you were using the old BRV, this character is NOT a BRV, and doesn't have the Con to support the BRV.

But hey, if you want to play a control defender like a damage striker, be my guest. You won't punish as hard as the damaging defender should, you won't control as hard because you're trying to use a one-handed heavy blade like a two-handed hammer, you don't have the same pool of hps cause your Con is lower, and your entire play style involves an attribute build that requires spending more healing surges while having less surges...

...but hey. You got +2 to hit every so often when an Astral Seal hits! That's awesome!

In other news, I'm going to build a Strength Cleric with Pacifist Healer. Because that's good synergy.