Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4466303" data-attributes="member: 40961">The problem with Sure Strike is that it doesn't perform its job.There are four at wills for Fighters.The "job" of Tide of Iron is to push people while dealing some damage.  It does exactly that.The "job" of Cleave is to give you extra damage spread around to multiple targets.  It does exactly that.The "job" of Reaping Strike is to increase your net damage to a single target.  It does that.The "job" of Sure Strike is...  umm...  well, its not to increase your net damage, because it decreases it.  And when it wants to compete for the job of "more certain to get some damage dealt" it fails, because Reaping Strike is almost as good.  For my Fighter, for instance, Reaping Strike gives me a guarantee of 4 damage with a chance for 2d6+7, average 14.  Sure Strike instead offers me only a slightly better chance of 2d6+3, average 10.My opinion on at wills in general is this- no two at wills for the same class should have the same job.  Because if they do, somebody will crunch the numbers and prove which one does that job better.  Like Careful Shot and Twin Strike- they both perform the task of increasing accuracy at the cost of damage, so you can prove mathematically which one does it better for which types of targets.Sure Strike needs an entirely new job, because its present jobs are taken by better powers.  Nifft's set-up attack idea is a good one if only for that reason: it provides an entirely new job that no other fighter at will power can perform.  Judging the power then becomes dependent on rating the value of its job (a somewhat subjective question) rather than dependent on the objective question of the power's strength in comparison to other, similar powers.Also, Nifft, I put a compendium post in my shadowcaster thread without all the red text you hate. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification