Sure Strike and Careful Attack: How to Fix Them?

[Shroomy]

I think that the powers have their place for using accuracy to deliver extra additional damage which more than makes up for the lack of stat modifier damage (for example, if I was a human fighter multi-classed into rogue, I'd probably take sure strike as my third at-will just to insure my 1/encounter sneak attack always hit). IMO, the fighter is deficient in this area, but the ranger is not. However, twin strike is the awesome when you're making two attacks with roughly a 50-65% base chance of hitting, so we'd rarely see quarry damage delivered in this manner.

 

[Skallgrim]

The fighter at-will sure strike (+2 hit, no Str to dmg) and the ranger at-will careful attack (+2 hit, no Str/Dex to dmg) have been judged as being some of the worst at-wills in the game, and rightly so. My question is, what would it take to make them worthwhile?

a) How high would the attack bonus have to be in order to make them comparable with other at-wills? This seems like a tricky question for the ranger - twin strike's two chances of hitting would seem to outstrip nearly any accuracy boost on one attack.

At last year's DDXP, the pregen ranger's careful attack was +4 hit, with apparently no stat boost to damage.

b) Is there some other way to reform these powers?
As a jumping off point, in a friend's game they have houseruled the powers like so:

• Sure Strike: Str +2 vs AC, 1[W]+Str dmg, can be used as a basic melee attack
• Careful Attack: Str/Dex +2 vs AC, 1[W]+Str/Dex dmg, effect: +2 all defenses until the end of your next turn

Thoughts?

Well, first, Power Attack makes Sure Strike pretty attractive at Paragon and above, especially with a Two-Handed Weapon. Second, these are fairly attractive for those fighters and rangers with other bonuses to damage (such as Pitfighters, people with Marked Scourge, Hunter's Quarry, etc). Also, given the existence of minions, I'm not sure that increased chances to hit alone are bad. Given that some monsters will go down to any hit, the +2 seems very useful against them. Also given the existence of the many feats which allow a secondary effect on a hit, both powers seem well designed for characters with those feats.

I think that perhaps both of these At-Wills should be viewed in that light. Just as Tide of Iron is useless for a non-shield wielder, or Reaping Strike is less attractive for a one-handed weapon wielder, or useless for someone with Hammer Rhythm, Sure Strike is not the at-will for the "big damage" Fighter. It is the At-Will for the fighter who knocks prone on a hit, or has some other cool effect on a hit. Careful Strike is much harder to justify, since two attacks is generally statistically more accurate than one with a +2, so I can't speak as much to that one. However, Sure Strike, viewed situationally, isn't all bad. You just need to make sure that it is appropriate to your build.

 

[Cadfan]

What fighter knocks prone on a hit when he's using Sure Strike? That's kind of the problem. The idea that Sure Strike is great when hitting is more important than the damage you deal implies that you're dealing something other than damage when you hit. But barring weapon properties, you're probably not, because you're using Sure Strike and that doesn't do anything but damage.

If Sure Strike were a feat, things might be different, because you could combine the +2 attack -Str damage with secondary effects from your powers. But its not a feat, and you can't.

 

[Rechan]

These powers can't be fixed by increasing or decreasing accuracy or damage.

No matter what you do with them, they will be mathematically comparable to either Twin Strike or Reaping Strike. They will either win, lose, or tie given the ability scores of a particular character and the likely defenses of opponents that character faces. If they win, they render Twin Strike and/or Reaping Strike irrelevant, and we get threads about how to fix Twin Strike or Reaping Strike. If they lose, the problem hasn't been fixed. And if they tie, there's no reason for them to exist.

The only possible fix for these powers is to give them something non-mathematical. Something that can't be replicated with another power. Then they will no longer be mathematically comparable to other powers, and a reason will exist to use them.

This might alter the point of them, but how about:

Sure Strike
Attack: Str +2 vs. AC
Hit: 1[W], and you gain a +2 power bonus on your next attack against the target.

So in part, it's a setup strike.

 

[Cadfan]

This might alter the point of them, but how about:

Sure Strike
Attack: Str +2 vs. AC
Hit: 1[W], and you gain a +2 power bonus on your next attack against the target.

So in part, it's a setup strike.

That would work.

I'd take that power.

 

[chaotix42]

Now change the name to One Sure Strike, Coming Up!

 

[Ourph]

What fighter knocks prone on a hit when he's using Sure Strike? That's kind of the problem. The idea that Sure Strike is great when hitting is more important than the damage you deal implies that you're dealing something other than damage when you hit. But barring weapon properties, you're probably not, because you're using Sure Strike and that doesn't do anything but damage.

I think you're still looking at this from a 3e perspective where the characters are more self-contained. Yeah, Sure Strike might not look great as a stand-alone power (and I agree that, as-is, it's a little weak compared to things like Twin Strike), but in the context of an adventuring group in 4e, there are plenty of times when hitting right now is very advantageous. If your Warlord has given you a bonus to damage this round, (and note that neither Reaping Strike nor Cleave are going to benefit from that extra damage on a miss) it's advantageous to hit right now . If your Inferal Pact Warlock ally is really low on HP and one of his cursed enemies is a minion, it might be advantageous to hit that minion right now (and, again, Reaping Strike doesn't kill minions on a miss, while Cleave only kills them if they're near another enemy and you manage to hit that enemy).

So while Sure Strike may be a little vanilla on its own, in the context of an actual combat there are numerous situations where it has potential for synergy with other events. Again, I agree that as a "hit right now" power it's weak compared to something like Twin Strike, and that Careful Attack is clearly inferior to Twin Strike for Rangers. However, I think when considered within the Fighter's array of available powers, Sure Strike isn't all that inferior to the other choices.

:edit to add:

But I also like Rechan's power and if I were WotC I'd yoink that and put Setup Strike in my next martial splatbook.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the Martial Power at will that gives you +2 to attack rolls, you grant CA, and you add your con bonus to the damage is the sure strike replacement. That is an at-will worth taking (especially with uncanny dodge!)

Sure Strike still isn't worth it even with power attack. At paragon, I'm likely going to have a +6 strength, so power attack gives me the same bonus with sure strike...minus 1 feat.

 

[Phaezen]

There are feats in the Gladiator Article in Dragon 368 which modify at wills. A possible fix is too allow a character to choose one of the feats for free if they take Sure Strike or Careful Attack.

 

[Cadfan]

Ourph- The problem with your examples is that they're still incredibly narrow.

Damage bonuses from your warlord? That's an idea, except that Warlords almost never grant damage bonuses in that way, AND the damage bonus in question would have to be enough to outstrip the damage PENALTY that you accepted by using Sure Strike.

And killing a minion? I know that killing minions is the new thing, but I think people get too hung up on it. Not only would I not pick an at will power just to have something around that it slightly better at killing minions, but I'd also probably pick Cleave if killing off minions was a big concern for me. Plus, needing to kill a minion RIGHT NOW is not the sort of thing that happens frequently.