Mercutio01
First Post
I'm just having a hard time believing that Sure Strike is underpowered.
Sure strike and careful strike, my house rule.
- Thread starter Kitirat
- Start date
keterys
First Post
It's good for killing minions who aren't near other targets, and good with combat superiority and heavy blade opportunity... like, it has a real use in a fighter/warpriest hb opp build.
Though I suspect the warpriest challenge/OA mechanism will get nerfed at some point, making it less useful.
Though I suspect the warpriest challenge/OA mechanism will get nerfed at some point, making it less useful.
Statistically careful strike does not hold a candle to twin strike. And why many say they should not be compared, having one ability completely surpassed by another of the same level and type is a bit irritating, hence the fix. Sure strike is less of an issue, but would anyone seriously take it over reaping strilke, cleave or tide of iron except in the figher/warpirest build?
Interesting quest in itself.
keterys
First Post
I will say that I think part of the problem with Careful Strike is it's not quite good enough... and the other problem is purely with Twin Strike. It's really far too good.
If you made twin strike melee only, for instance, that would quickly give careful strike a reason to exist... and it wouldn't even need much of an increase at that point.
If you made twin strike melee only, for instance, that would quickly give careful strike a reason to exist... and it wouldn't even need much of an increase at that point.
Mercutio01
First Post
I wouldn't take it over any of them, but as the third at-will for a two-handed weapon human fighter, it makes a lot more sense than Tide of Iron. Again, I don't see Sure Strike as too weak, but it is suboptimal unless you are doing mainly aggro control and want something to help with the mark.
erik_the_guy
First Post
Consider greataxe (1d12, high crit)
The average damage of a high crit weapon with a 50% chance to hit and a +4 damage mod (str) is
50% * (1d12+4=10.5) from hits = 5.25
5% * (12+4+1d12=22.5) from crits = 1.125
Total = 6.375 average damage
Now consider a careful strike, +2 to hit (60% hit chance), +0 to damage, 18-20 crit.
60% * (1d12=6.5) from hits = 3.25
15% * (12+1d12=18.5) = 2.775
Total = 6.025 (less)
So it is balanced at heroic tier, in fact it is a little weak.
As characters level up they gain additional bonuses from critical hits. This would make the suggested 18-20 crit more useable. Once you reach the higher tiers fighters can take feats to gain a 19-20 crit range with all attacks. The fighter must now choose between a 19-20 crit range with one of his powerful attacks (dailies, encounters) or an 18-20 crit range with a weaker at-will.
The problem with sure strike is it doesn't have a good niche.
Having a consistent attack is good for killing minions, except that cleave can autokill minions.
Having a consistent attack means more consistent damage...except reaping strike gives you automatic damage.
Basically, those at-wills make sure strike obsolete. Currently, I like the house rule that sure strike can be used as a basic attack (like magic missle). That gives it a solid niche that no other at-will has.
