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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="That One Guy" data-source="post: 4473263" data-attributes="member: 64672">Is Cadfan's assumption. While I think it generally holds true, I think it might be a simplification of the matter. So, if that assumption holds true, any attack that deals damage is strictly comparable to Reaping Strike and one can be calculated to be better than the other. But, I would argue that some of the things discussed entail alterations to how the attack is made and damage dealt. While it is an attack and damage is being dealt, I am not sure if Reaping Strike or one of these variations will be consistently superior numerically. I think we're trying to define the shtick of Sure Strike better and give it some way to achieve that shtick. In this case, the "more certain to get some damage" is really not what we're (or I'm not, at least) going for. While that is how sure strike is right now, what I want is "a greater chance of getting a successful hit". This is different in that getting a hit can have rider effects that a miss may not get (such as a leader bonus).I'm trying to get the most responses possible to try and consider which one might be numerically similar to Reaping Strike (and possibly worse, but not as awful as Sure Strike), but also succeed in the greater chance of a successful hit. Then test which ones work in play situations (if I somehow have time). Whichever one succeeds the most in the desired fashion will become my house rule Sure Strike for whenever I pick up my old game, or if I DM over here.(And while I was typing Cadfan posted!)Thanks for weighing in with that problem w/ the WIS bonus getting too powerful at higher levels. For the purpose I mentioned above, is there any idea that works the best? I do like Nifft's setup attack thing. A lot. I'm just trying to find whatever might be the best option for my purposes and create a discussion to exchange and compare solutions to a generally shared problem.</blockquote>

Verification