Sure strike sneaky fixes or not.

[Mort_Q]

I disagree. It's not a patch. Feats have always been a fun way to customize a PC. What better way than to tweak you at-wills? I just wish they were faster at getting these sorts of feats out there for other classes/power sources.

 

[Garthanos]

The fighter version does have ONE use: if the fighter gets HBO, then he can use it to make it more certain that a foe is stopped in his tracks when he moves past or away from the fighter.

That's pretty much it.

Sorry HBO is now thoroughly entrenched as home box office... I see the fighter turning on the tube to immobilize adversaries?

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree. It's not a patch. Feats have always been a fun way to customize a PC. What better way than to tweak you at-wills? I just wish they were faster at getting these sorts of feats out there for other classes/power sources.

I dont think in general they are patches... (but for an at-will which is sub par.. I was hoping there might be one)

 

[Garthanos]

Frequent use of Egg shell enemies... High armor class with low hit points... will also make sure strike more worth while.

Minions could certainly fall in to this category... (for me this is a big draw as a DM I can throw higher ac minions at people who chose sure strike - the local town gards qualify as minions (if they are fighting the pcs they are like the enemies of robinhood and zorro and surely are minions even if the monster manual doesnt say so))

 

[Nifft]

I meant to have proficiency with the superior weapon that costs a feat... so two feats EFS and a proficiency one.... and this is the cost to fix an at-will... which normally are already better than a basic attack and not "about equal" when your party is on the verge of being tpk'd

Many a Dwarf will take Dwarven Weapon Training and thereby get free Superior Axes & Hammers, so for the specific case of a Dwarf Fighter, certain Superior weapons are dirt cheap.

However, even with those feats available, I'd argue the Dwarf Fighter has better options. IMHO Sure Strike is still a poor choice.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

Draco You and your break even points... breaking even isnt good enough!.. so it becomes equal to a "basic attack" when used against an enemy usually 3 levels higher than you which yes you may run in to sometimes... and you just spent 1 of your two at=will choices for something that works as good as a basic attack.(and you better choose a big weapon not a sword and board fighter again) and further it gets progressively worse as your ability to damage by attribute bonus gets better over the life of your character even if you have a 16 attack and never increase it unlike power attack it doesnt scale up it almost scales down (except you will increase the weapon dice size) ...nor does it combine with every move you do like the power blow... so putting aside the weirdness of comparing a feat and a power.

Reaping strike does it in the dirt.... more reliable even when it is doing what it seems designed for.

The argument is this.

Power attack is -2 attack for +damage.
Not Sure Striking is -2 attack for +damage.

IT IS THE SAME THING. -Do you get this?-

The break even points show there there are points where one move becomes better.

So let's say you fight tons of AC 20 things. Fighting lots of hobgoblins perhaps. Then, if your break even point is 18, you know there's -advantage- to be had from this attack.

There being a break even point means that there's an area beyond that where there is profit to be had.

Reaving Strike isn't as great when you're down in strength compared to a +Str class.
Cleave isn't as great as Dual Strike for damage.
Brash Strike isn't great for Eladrin, and is terrible if you're against certain enemies.
Shield Push isn't all that if you're not one handed.
Humans generally have a third at-will choice they aren't sure what to do with.
Dual Strike is just a MBA against a single target.

And sometimes, it's just more important to hit than to maximize damage.

I hear 'Sure Strike is terrible' but it isn't. It's as good as any other at-will, -because- you get two. It's the -ranger- one which is bad, because rerolling attacks is more accuracy than +2. But Dual Striking the same target isn't a Fighter's thing any more.

 

[Stalker0]

The argument is this.

Power attack is -2 attack for +damage.
Not Sure Striking is -2 attack for +damage.

Not true.

Power Attack's mathematics can be applied to any power with an attack roll.

Sure Strike is not just a math adjustment, its also the choice of a power over other powers. By using sure strike, I am not using cleave or brash strike.

That's a big difference.

 

[Elric]

Here's something to consider.

If you think that taking -2 to hit for 4 damage is a bad tradeoff, then Sure Strike is actually a good power.

You can calculate the sweet spot for this power the same way as you can for power attack.

Level 1 Dwarf Battlerage Vigor Fighter, DWT as first feat, using Mordenkrad, 16 Strength.

Now, let's say you have Temp Hps. Not an unusual situation for a battlerager.

So, your choices are +7 to hit for 2d6(b1)+4 damage, or +5 to hit for 2d6(b1)+7.

(21+7-AC)*(12) > (21+5-ac)*(15)
28(12)-12AC > 26(15)-15AC
3AC > 390 - 336
AC > 18

So against monsters with greater than 18 AC (not at all unusual for 1st level characters to face) Sure Strike is the optimal choice!

Is Sure Strike suboptimal against a mathematicly contrived average? Yes. But against real world targets? It is a different story. Dwarf and Eladrin fighters might actually consider this attack simply because their lesser Strength makes the trade off for Sure Strike less of an issue.

And if your strength is 16 in these cases, not using it is -exactly- like using Power Attack. So, either you think Power Attack sucks and Sure Strike is therefore optimal, or you think Sure Strike sucks and therefore Power Attack is optimal...

...Or you understand each is situational and can be quantified in terms of when it is useful... then use said situation to judge.

Stalker0 says most of what needs to be said:

Not true.

Power Attack's mathematics can be applied to any power with an attack roll.

Sure Strike is not just a math adjustment, its also the choice of a power over other powers. By using sure strike, I am not using cleave or brash strike.

That's a big difference.

That using Sure Strike is occasionally better than a basic attack doesn't mean that Sure Strike is "optimal!" Said Dwarf Fighter most likely has 18 Con. If you compare to Brash Strike, the fighter would get +7 damage in return for giving up combat advantage for a round to the target of his attack. That's optimal (for a Dwarf BRV with a two-handed weapon)!

In fact, if you have Brash Strike available, it's suboptimal to take Sure Strike with this character, since you could have chosen Brash Strike instead of Sure Strike and if you already have Brash Strike, you could choose a much better second at-will as well (Crushing Surge).

 

[Garthanos]

Not true.

Power Attack's mathematics can be applied to any power with an attack roll.

Sure Strike is not just a math adjustment, its also the choice of a power over other powers. By using sure strike, I am not using cleave or brash strike.

That's a big difference.

Over conditional usefulness in an at-will is far worse than in an feat...
because the at-will is a smaller more precious resource and has to be compared directly to another at-will which provides similar benefits preferabley.. and to me reaping strike does indeed provide similar benefits (except against minions)
For me as a DM frequency of usefulness is significant if somebody spams me with one at will because the other is only "maybe" slightly useful 1 in 5 encounters that is an argument against that at-will. I cant say it compares worth beans for average damage dealing - maximum possible damge or reliability of that damage does even for his BRV fighter... versus a reaping strike done by the same fighter presented by DS see below....

An Example ..
ok lets say he fights an elite skeleton captain ac 20 that is a higher armor class on a level 3 enemy and pretty good deal better than the 18 quoted earlier.

Since he is fighting somebody higher level the odds of dwarf fighter having his brv hitpoints shrunk considerably since BRV has been nerfed but lets look with and without it

His chance to hit with a +5 attack he has to roll a 15 or better to hit that means 30 percent or 40 percent with sure strike.

the reaping strike does 2d6+2+3 damage on a hit and 3 on a miss...
3.6 + 2.1 or 5.7 damage average

and lets give 2d6+2 damage on a hit with a sure strike... well that is
3.6 + 0 or 3.6 damage.... oops.. bad sign there... its still outclassed

next round he does get his BRV damage boost... the crazy axemen gets
the damage becomes 4.4 ... doesnt compare vary well to reaping strike no not at all and that is an adversary with 20 AC.... more than a little better than the 18 quoted lets pick a higher yet adversary say

hmm his damages he quoted were 15 and 12 I have 14(12) and 11(9) I must have missed a point ( did he have a weapon focus feat I wasnt aware of?... the BRV is far from garanteed these days.

Lets pick a level 5 hobgoblin war chief shall we awesome 22 AC ....
wow to hit a 22 his poor dice will have to really dig deap a roll of 17 hits right that is 20 percent now the sure strike surely will shine better than a reaping strike.

reaping strike is now averaging 4.8 damage...sans brv bonus damage

but lets see... .3 x 9 is 2.7 and even 11 is 3.3 if

If your DM likes a lot of minions(they rock gotta love em) well that also provides very definite circumstances for using sure strike(cleave can lower its hand yes I know you can knock out two at one blow).