Sure Strike revisited

[Omnifarious Grey]

Sure Strike and Careful attack both fall into the same grouping as Furious Smash for the Warlord. The power is weak and is going to remain as such as they stand. Therefore, the problem lies in making the power better, as per OP idea. We just need to figure out how to make it better without going overboard.

I don't think you want to try and get Careful Attack to be as good as Twin Strike because that is practically trying to munchkin the ranger's powers. So we would have to give it some sort of advantage for a different scenario over Twin Strike, such as dealing with designating hunter's quarry. Although, one idea that just hit me is to make Careful Attack similar to how Elven Accuracy works and have the attack start with a +2 to hit, but if you miss you get to make a basic ranged attack against the same foe or just re-roll the attack once. Thoughts on that?

Sure Strike I think is on the right track with getting multiple marks in. I think the ability to spread marks around as an at-will for a fighter is key, especially since people had hoped cleave was going to do that for them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

LOL, yeah, well I have a bit of a counter argument. Sure you get 2 at-wills, but in the case of the fighter there isn't really a whole lot to distinguish them, it is like 'it chops' and 'it dices'. Say you have Cleave and Reaping Strike, they aren't ABSOLUTELY identical, but in 95% of cases the choice between them is splitting hairs. So a fighter that traded Cleave for Sure Strike has lost relatively little. If he just REALLY has to enjoy that extra minion clearing function there are always encounter powers etc he can bring to play in the vast majority of cases.

Overall I'm not really arguing that Sure Strike is 'as good as' the other at-wills, but I am arguing that you cannot simply compare one at-will to another in isolation and have that be much of a meaningful comparison. Characters are a totality of all their abilities and each ability fits into the whole. Thus there can exist some powers which are on average weak in direct comparison, but provide a certain missing piece which a character might want to have.

Sure Strike probably should be a bit better than it is, but it doesn't terribly bother me if there are a few powers here and there that people rarely use. Others will surely be added over time.

 

[Garthanos]

LOL, yeah, well I have a bit of a counter argument. Sure you get 2 at-wills, but in the case of the fighter there isn't really a whole lot to distinguish them, it is like 'it chops' and 'it dices'.

That might be seen as an entirely different issue or just another reason to make sure the other option is worthwhile.

Sure Strike probably should be a bit better than it is, but it doesn't terribly bother me if there are a few powers here and there that people rarely use. Others will surely be added over time.

I actively like the "idea" of sure strike, so thats in part my issue. ... and while Martial powers certain did add other options, I love the battlerager fighter, they are for instance complete inverses. I guess I've been picturing a precise (or even intellectual) defender yup... not partially a leader or controller or striker. Reaping strike is one option for that but it needs a fixed Sure Strike to be a reasonable side kick.

This idea of a re-roll has some intriguing elements.
"noting the false opening just in time you weave a second plan into your attack".
Though here I go again wanting a mental factor... perhaps wisdom, but not sure how.

hmmm guess that fluff just supports using insight against the bluff -- sigh.

 

[Garthanos]

If he just REALLY has to enjoy that extra minion clearing function there are always encounter powers etc he can bring to play in the vast majority of cases.

[OT]
Minion clearing is yummy --- are we playing heroic types? --- down goes another of king johns guardsman --- yes we are!.
[/OT]

 

[lgw]

I adjusted these two powers as houserules for the DnD group I ran, and after nine levels everybody was reasonably happy about the changes. Especially the human fighter (pre Martial Power) really apprecheated the versatility, and that was on top of him taking No Opening as Level 2 Utility.
(changes in italics)


Fighter

Sure Strike
rename to: Guarding Strike
Fighter Attack 1
You trade power for defense.
At-Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength damage. The target cannot benefit from Combat Advantage against you until the end of your next turn. Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength at 21st level.

Ranger

Careful Attack
Ranger Attack 1
You study the enemy, looking for a gap in his defenses. Only when you find it do you strike.
At-Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee or Ranged weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength + 2 vs. AC (melee) or Dexterity + 2 vs. AC (ranged).
Hit: 1[W] + Strength damage (melee) or 1[W] + Dexterity damage (ranged). Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength (melee) or 2[W] + Dexterity (ranged) at 21st level.

Twin Strike
Ranger Attack 1
If there's more than one enemy, there's also more than one target.
At-Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon.
Targets: One or two creatures
Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee; main weapon and off-hand weapon) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged), one attack per target
Hit: 1[W] damage per attack. Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level.

 

[Garthanos]

Although, one idea that just hit me is to make Careful Attack similar to how Elven Accuracy works and have the attack start with a +2 to hit, but if you miss you get to make a basic ranged attack against the same foe or just re-roll the attack once. Thoughts on that?.

Hmmm hesitance... dont want to rob the elven accuracy of its awesomeness much.... ?? but it is another way to mechanically produce a more accurate attack

 

[Garthanos]

I adjusted these two powers as houserules for the DnD group I ran, and after nine levels everybody was reasonably happy about the changes. Especially the human fighter (pre Martial Power) really apprecheated the versatility, and that was on top of him taking No Opening as Level 2 Utility.
(changes in italics)


Fighter

Sure Strike
rename to: Guarding Strike
Fighter Attack 1
You trade power for defense.
At-Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength damage. The target cannot benefit from Combat Advantage against you until the end of your next turn. Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength at 21st level.

Did this upset any Rogue players when faced by fighter bad guy types being cautious? I would call it "Guarded" strike, which in context would mean cautious. Guarding would be a variant that gave allies an extra boost to there defenses ;-)
Which would be cool too.. it enhances the quality of your mark! not the quantity of it!!

 

[lgw]

Did this upset any Rogue players when faced by fighter bad guy types being cautious? I would call it "Guarded" strike, which in context would mean cautious. Guarding would be a variant that gave allies an extra boost to there defenses ;-)

I never used PC powers for NPCs.
Beyond that we switched GMs now, so I can play a bit, and I do play a rogue heavily relying on my CA. And I would not mind it at all, because it has to hit first - and I am very rarely in melee with a target that is not either marked by a defender or suffering a something like daze or worse. And still, should I get hit by it, it would make for a nice change of pace - I still have other targets left or the ability to fight from range with restealthing.
On the other hand as GM it annoyed me more than once, when I couldn't get my 2d6 bonus damage in for my skirmishers, or couldn't make full use of my dual Skeletal Tomb Guardians flanking him, which saved him from dropping that day. But hey, after all it I intended the power to be useful for him.

And yeah, of course feel free to rename it however you like.

Which would be cool too.. it enhances the quality of your mark! not the quantity of it!!

I wouldn't do that. I don't feel it fits the schtick of fighters, especially as the Paladin has quite some kind of these powers already (just check his at-wills and level 1 encounters). And furthermore removing combat advantage is, as you already hinted, by far not only about the +2 bonus to hit.

 

[Garthanos]

I wouldn't do that. I don't feel it fits the schtick of fighters, especially as the Paladin has quite some kind of these powers already (just check his at-wills and level 1 encounters). And furthermore removing combat advantage is, as you already hinted, by far not only about the +2 bonus to hit.

I am engaging a "body guardish" feel which seems wrong for the religious champion flavorwise.... I am thinking it might be an effect rather than a hit

"Guarding Stance" no bonus on to hit but equivalent to the classes standard attack or perhaps since you are calling it paladin-ish it could be based on wisdom and have a bonus (you are having to be perceptive). might prevent you and 1 selected adjacent ally from being affected by CA perhaps a more useful option would be prevents an adjacent ally from granting combat advantage once... so you dont have to pick exactly who you are protecting (except by being adjacent to them) until they are about to be threatened.
Perhaps if it was just a selected ally it could also grant them a +2AC.

hmmmm you may have called it with the palidan,
The palidan does do some boost allies AC with a magic shielding effect.. which is nice too as it is about closing general holes in the allies defense not just high vulnerability spots... and "Guarding" might indeed feel paladin like from a more original definition of a palidan which gave a little more overture to kings forthright noble guardian than religious dude who smites with a sword.

 

[Styracosaurus]

My main concern would be how to measure the value of a Mark.

If you allow Sure Strike to mark a second adjacent creature on a hit, then how does it compare as an at will?

It might be too much, because a fighter's Mark is potent.