# Fighter level 1 damage math.

Assuming 1 action to move, and 2 to attack.

First attack = 50% hit, 10% crit (*2 damage = .2)
Second attack = 30% hit, 5% crit (*2 damage = .1)

Exacting strike (d12, doesn't do anything with just 2 attacks) = 11.55 (+ stronger OA)

Spoiler:

1d12+4 = 10.5
* .5 = 5.25
* .2 = 2.1
= 7.35

10.5
* .3 = 3.15
* .1 = 1.05
= 4.2

Power Attack (d12)= 11.9 (+ stronger OA)

Spoiler:

1d12+4+1d12 = 17
* .5 = 8.5
* .2 = 3.4

Reactive Shield (d8, 2 Strike)=9.35 (+shield)

Spoiler:

1d8+4 = 8.5
* .5 = 4.25
* .2 = 1.7
= 5.95

1d8+4 = 8.5
* .3 = 2.55
* .1 = .85
= 3.4

Reactive Shield (d6, Agile)=8.625 (+shield)

Spoiler:

1d6+4 = 7.5
* .5 = 3.75
* .2 = 1.5
= 5.25

7.5
* .35 = 2.625
* .1 = .75
= 3.375

Double Slice (1d8+d6 agile) = 11.2 (- cost of 2 weapons)

Spoiler:

1d8+4+1d6+4 = 16
* .5 = 8
* .2 = 3.2
= 11.2

Snagging Strike (d8 weapon)= 9.86 (+ whatever flat footed gives your allies)

Spoiler:

1d8+4 = 8.5
* .5 = 4.25
* .2 = 1.7
= 5.95

8.5
* .4 = 3.4
* .1 = 0.85
= 4.25 * 60% (chance of being flat-footed)
= 2.55

8.5
* .3 = 2.55
* .1 = 0.85
= 3.4 * 40% (not flat footed)
= 1.36

Snaggling Strike (d6, agile) = 9.075 (+ whatever flat footed gives your allies)

Spoiler:

1d6+4 = 7.5
* .5 = 3.75
* .2 = 1.5
= 5.25

7.5
* .45 = 3.375
* .1 = .75
= 4.125 * 60% (chance of being flat-footed)
= 2.475

7.5
* .35 = 2.625
* .1 = .75
= 3.375 * 40% (not flat footed)
= 1.35

Point Blank Shot (Composite Shortbow, within 60', 3 attacks) = 9.225 (+range)

Spoiler:

1d6+1Str+2 Stance = 6.5
*.5 = 3.25
6.5 * 2 + 1d10 = 18.5 (crit)
* .1 = 1.85
= 5.1

6.5
* .3 = 1.95
18.5 * .05 = 0.925
= 2.875

6.5
* 05 = 0.325
18.5 * .05 = 0.925
= 1.25

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exacting Strike is a Press. Example 3 (EDIT: not 2, sorry. Miscounted) doesn't work, because you can't use it for the first attack, and it does nothing for the second. You need it for the third attack.

Also, with the bow example, you don't need to move, unless you're dealing with Volley, which shortbow doesn't have.

(EDIT 2: editing this in to say it looks like the first attack missed line in exacting strike has been edited out.)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also double slice should use one non agile weapon, so 11.2 total by your calculations.

james014Aura wrote:
Exacting Strike is a Press. Example 3 (EDIT: not 2, sorry. Miscounted) doesn't work, because you can't use it for the first attack, and it does nothing for the second. You need it for the third attack.

Thanks. I missed that.

Quote:
Also, with the bow example, you don't need to move, unless you're dealing with Volley, which shortbow doesn't have.

Yea, that's fair. Added in a third attack, not that it does much.

And fixed the crit damage, which I was doubling twice.

citricking wrote:
Also double slice should use one non agile weapon, so 11.2 total by your calculations.

Fixed.

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

Martialmasters wrote:

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

That's a really bad idea. It's much better to get 2 strikes to the enemy's 3 strikes than to get 1 strike to the enemy's 2 strikes. Second strikes are a lot more impactful than third strikes.

citricking wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

That's a really bad idea. It's much better to get 2 strikes to the enemy's 3 strikes than to get 1 strike to the enemy's 2 strikes. Second strikes are a lot more impactful than third strikes.

So it is like trading a 1st strike's worth of damage in order to give the enemy the winning initiative. The enemy is still going to come out with a big burst of damage first.

What about Sudden Charge with a reach weapon? Charge in, attack, retreat. Then AOO them without the MAP as they move up to attack you. The strategy is sorta countered by someone ELSE with both reach and AOO (and weaker against someone with reach, but not AOO), but AOO is rarer now. That way, you get two attacks to their two, and bring them closer for your buddies to kill next round.

lemeres wrote:
citricking wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

That's a really bad idea. It's much better to get 2 strikes to the enemy's 3 strikes than to get 1 strike to the enemy's 2 strikes. Second strikes are a lot more impactful than third strikes.
So it is like trading a 1st strike's worth of damage in order to give the enemy the winning initiative. The enemy is still going to come out with a big burst of damage first.

then you ready an action, my point is to not attempt -10 map and end next to the enemy, at least force them to spend an action to get to you.

Martialmasters wrote:

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

Shoot with a bow twice, drop it and draw your melee weapon.

citricking wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

That's a really bad idea. It's much better to get 2 strikes to the enemy's 3 strikes than to get 1 strike to the enemy's 2 strikes. Second strikes are a lot more impactful than third strikes.

It can be a good idea if you've got better mobility than them (ie: they need to spend two actions to get to you). It's also potentially a good idea if they're higher level than you, depending on how much higher, or if they have things to attack multiple people at once (well, it's a good idea for all but one melee person to do in that case).

It's a very good idea if both those things are true. A not uncommon state of affairs when dealing with a 'boss'. The reach weapon idea mentioned above would also make this work pretty well.

It's certainly situational, but saying it's a bad idea is at least as untrue as saying it's a good one.

citricking wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Assuming you went before the enemy.

At level 1 if it's not dead. You've ended your turn next to them.

They get 3 actions Worth of attacks and now your most likely in death saves and unconscious.

Better to sudden charge in then back out. Imo.

That's a really bad idea. It's much better to get 2 strikes to the enemy's 3 strikes than to get 1 strike to the enemy's 2 strikes. Second strikes are a lot more impactful than third strikes.

It can be a good idea if you've got better mobility than them (ie: they need to spend two actions to get to you). It's also potentially a good idea if they're higher level than you, depending on how much higher, or if they have things to attack multiple people at once (well, it's a good idea for all but one melee person to do in that case).

It's a very good idea if both those things are true. A not uncommon state of affairs when dealing with a 'boss'. The reach weapon idea mentioned above would also make this work pretty well.

It's certainly situational, but saying it's a bad idea is at least as untrue as saying it's a good one.

A fighter being more mobile than the enemy is not a common state of affairs. And if the enemy is higher level it's still much worse. Reach makes it good, but the original post had a fighter using a great sword, and nothing in the reply mentioned a reach weapon.

Saying it's a bad idea is true because it's generally true, even if there are situations where it isn't.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
A fighter being more mobile than the enemy is not a common state of affairs.

It's not that uncommon either. Oozes and various other slow things are not uncommon at all, especially as boss type monsters. Fighters in Heavy Armor specifically run into this less often, but that's hardly all Fighters, and increasing your mobility is very doable, as is reducing that of your opoonents, for that matter.

citricking wrote:
And if the enemy is higher level it's still much worse.

Depends on how good their third attack is. If it's better, as a percentage of your HP, than your second is as a percentage of theirs, then it's a good plan sometimes.

For example, a 1st level Fighter has +9 to hit for 1d12+4, AC 18 or so, and probably 20 HP. An Ogre, meanwhile, has +12 to hit, 17 AC, and 50 HP.

The Fighter's second attack vs. the Ogre has a DPR of about 4.725. Meanwhile, the Ogre's third attack DPR vs. the Fighter is around 4.375.

So, if you look at that in a vacuum, yes the Fighter deals more damage than the Ogre in that exchange...but it's more than 20% of the Fighter's HP, and less than 10% of the Ogres. That's an exchange it can be well worth it to avoid making.

With Ogres specifically, their Reach makes this a tad less true (though there are still times you'll want to), but for similarly overleveled foes without Reach it's definitely a valid tactical option (vs. a centaur, for example, it's 3.15 DPR for the Fighter, vs. 2.625 for the Centaur, but the centaur has 40 HP to the Fighter's 20).

citricking wrote:

Reach makes it good, but the original post had a fighter using a great sword, and nothing in the reply mentioned a reach weapon.

Saying it's a bad idea is true because it's generally true, even if there are situations where it isn't.

I strongly disagree with how commonly you seem to think this is a bad call. It's certainly not universally a good plan by any means, but it's a good one in certain fairly common situations.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
It's certainly not universally a good plan by any means

Which is what it was presented as, and I disagreed with.

You're being very combative…

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Which is what it was presented as, and I disagreed with.

Sure. And I agreed with you that it wasn't always good. But it is sometimes, and I though that was worth acknowledging.

citricking wrote:
You're being very combative…

Certainly not intentionally. I just strongly disagree with your original assertion, which you reasserted in your previous post, that it's almost always a bad idea.

You should also probably look at your example with the ogre more closely… it doesn't support your argument. If the fighter won't take that trade, there isn't any trade they should be taking…

citricking wrote:
You should also probably look at your example with the ogre more closely… it doesn't support your argument. If the fighter won't take that trade, there isn't any trade they should be taking…

I mean, you obviously need to take some damage in order to inflict damage in melee, but whether you want to minimize it as much as possible is a tactical choice, not something with one definitive answer.

I think the point in avoiding the trade is wasting some of the ogre's actions while the rest of your party can still attack it.

Megistone wrote:
I think the point in avoiding the trade is wasting some of the ogre's actions while the rest of your party can still attack it.

That's basically it in many ways, yes.

Making the Ogre take more turns to kill you (and with hit and run and not standing right next to your allies, we're talking turns rather than actions) is valuable inasmuch as it gives any ranged allies (and even melee ones to a lesser degree) more turns to kill them.

That's not always good depending on specific circumstances (and indeed probably isn't good if the whole party is melee), but it's often a solid choice when dealing with a single over-leveled melee opponent.

Tripping the ogre (assuming Assurance here) means that when it stands, AOO means you trade your MAP attack to get an attack without MAP later. If you're a fighter 1 or champion 6, anyway. Or you're basically giving your action to the Fighter.

So, you aren't even spending net actions, if you have the option to punish it for standing. Unless it chooses to remain prone... at -2 hit and flat-footed, in which case you spent an action to give it a HUGE debuff.