| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can Vital Strike be used in conjunction with spells that are considered weapons or armed attacks? Examples include Ray of Frost, or Shocking Grasp.
Rays are considered weapons for feats like Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot, so one would then have to conclude that you could Vital Strike a Ray as a caster.
Touch spells are treated as 'armed attacks' so they don't provoke. This would imply that they are weapons, and hence could be used with Vital Strike.
Discuss.
Vital strike is it's own standard action, and the casting of the spell, and the attack is its own action. However if you cast a touch spell*, and then wait until the next round then it should be legal.
AFAIK, there are no held ranged touch attack based spells.
If using any of those would be "using the attack action" then yes
As far as I know shooting a ray or make a touch attack are neither
Making a touch attack is part of casting the spell unless u hold it...making a touch attack afterwards is a specific standard action...same with rays and other ranged touch attacks from spells or that are spell based
making a touch attack afterwards is a specific standard action
Nope, wrong. You can make normal attacks with your held Shocking Grasp - those attacks are armed attacks, and touch attacks. There's no "make touch attack" standard action.
That isn't a touch attack...that's a normal attack at normal AC
Making a TOUCH ATTACK against an enemy is a standard action
Yes you can make a normal unarmed strike against the enemy and the spell will go off
However with VS you roll your weapon damage more...so if you had IUS and hit for 1d4+str damage+Shocking grasp at let's say 4d6 you would still only roll 4d6 for shocking grasp but roll you unarmed strike damage again
Pup is right. You can move and then make the touch attack as a free action. It is only a standard action if you wait until the next round IIRC.
edit: vital strike is for a normal attack action however so the unarmed strike or natural attack may be the only diced doubled...hmm I am not sure if the spell dice would also be doubled, and I am feeling lazy.
I will check back later to see if anyone found it.
I never said you couldn't do that either...but it's not using the attack action when you do it as part of the spell...doing it as a free action is NOT using the "attack action"
I never said you couldn't do that either...but it's not using the attack action when you do it as part of the spell...doing it as a free action is NOT using the "attack action"
I understand that..I was mostly just typing while I was thinking so I let it stay there.
I think by the RAW you have to make a normal attack and that(normal attack) damage is what would be doubled on vital strike, not the spell's damage.
Now if you have an SU that can cause damage as a touch attack or ranged touch attack then that might qualify. A dread wraith's touch attack would be a good example.
PS:I am aware that PC's don't play wraiths normally. It was just an example.<----had to type that before someone came in here and said something silly.
I would agree...however the damage it's doing is drain...not weapon damage...so VS is still out
At this point I know there is something that exists that works the way the OP is wondering...someone will find it...it's the forums...this is where out of the way crazy stuff is born lol
If and when I find the line about touch attacks I came across long ago I will post it here for clarification...I know it wasn't in any normal place so it may take me some time
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
I'm not seeing anything that says a touch attack is a standard action (am I missing it somewhere?). Without that specification it is just an attack, that happens to target touch AC, and a character with a BAB of 11, who holds a shocking grasp charge, could attempt 3 touch attacks in the round to try and discharge it.
However, shocking grasp, while counting as an armed attack, does not count as a weapon for purpose of feats that require weapons (e.g., you cannot take weapon focus touch attacks/shocking grasp). This disqualifies it from Vital Strike as vital strike doubles a weapons damage.
A ray, if it could be held, could be used with vital strike.
As I said in the post above it was in an out of the way place in the rules...I know where touch attacks are in the combat and magic sections...these are not "out of the way" places
I take it as a small insult actually that you would post both of those in an attempt to make me look stupid...I don't appreciate it
I have already said when I find it I will post it so until then please take your time to insult someone other then me...or at least do a better job of it
And to be a stickler...it actually does say that even touching a friend is a standard action...this is not the part I myself am speaking of, however it was the reason I had looked this up in the first place long ago
I take it as a small insult actually that you would post both of those in an attempt to make me look stupid...I don't appreciate it
Don't take offense where none was intended.
I started my post before your other one, stepped away from my computer for ~15 minutes, came back and finished it.
Then I apologize
I have been away from the forums for a time and now only return sparingly to avoid frustration over what I consider utter ignorance...that's not meant for anyone on this thread by the way...talking about threads from way back that made me leave lol
I will find it...but in the meantime I believe the question was answered so I'll depart until I find it...May have to ask JJ if I cannot find it
I would agree...however the damage it's doing is drain...not weapon damage...so VS is still out
At this point I know there is something that exists that works the way the OP is wondering...someone will find it...it's the forums...this is where out of the way crazy stuff is born lol
If and when I find the line about touch attacks I came across long ago I will post it here for clarification...I know it wasn't in any normal place so it may take me some time
They also do negative energy damage, and my point was not about wraiths specifically but any SU that does damage on a touch attack or even a non touch attack.
Hmm I'll have to search myself and see if I can find one that does it on a normal attack...for now it's still weapon damage that get multiplied
I'm off to read it now but I think something like flame blade would work since it does count as a weapon
I'm not seeing anything that says a touch attack is a standard action (am I missing it somewhere?).
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
That is an exception to the normal rule of an attack being a standard action, and it only applies in the round you cast the spell. An attack only targeting touch AC does nothing to change the action required to use it.
Ok read flame blade and I don't believe vital strike would work but will research more
it actually does say that even touching a friend is a standard action...
This is correct. :)
Ok read flame blade and I don't believe vital strike would work but will research more
That is a good example since it works on a normal attack so I would say yes. It is just a sword made of fire instead of metal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't a touch attack...that's a normal attack at normal AC
Making a TOUCH ATTACK against an enemy is a standard action
Yes you can make a normal unarmed strike against the enemy and the spell will go off
There's no "make a touch attack" standard action in the combat rules. Go look it up. There IS a standard action to touch a single ally, but that's hardly relevant.
Making a touch attack is an attack; it can be done with an "attack" action, a "full attack" action, as an Attack of Opportunity or any other time you'd be allowed to make a melee attack.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round.
Fighting with a held touch attack spell is exactly like making armed attacks, except that you're targeting Touch AC.
To repeat: There is no "make a touch attack" standard action.
AFAIK, there are no held ranged touch attack based spells.
Maybe this one?
AFAIK, there are no held ranged touch attack based spells.Maybe this one?
I thought about that when the flame blade spell was mentioned. I think that would also work.
Ugh, had to go to the store and buy baby supplies and then come back home and put the baby to sleep, or I would have expanded on this.
The question came up in another thread on melee builds that are good with Vital Strike. The example specifically was a Magus using Spellstrike. He could, theoretically, just hold the charge on his weapon, and then the next round, vital strike the Shocking Grasp on his sword.
I then proposed using Vital Strike with Rays like Scorching Ray. I did forget about Vital Strike being it's own standard action (as my group houseruled that Vital Strike can be used anytime you only make a single attack).
There are some pros and cons to being able to Vital Strike with spells. For one, you might see some lesser used Rays being valuable again as they get augmented, without needing to increase the spells level, like with metamagic.
However, there would have to be some specific language that only hit point damage can be used with vital strike, otherwise you might see someone with a Wand of Enervation and Vital Strike sucking away levels like crazy.
A touch attack of any sort, can crit (though a crit might have no effect for some touch attacks, like Ray of Exhaustion). Shocking Grasp, despite not being able to be augmented by Weapon Focus (touch attack) or something, can crit, with or without a Magus.
Whether or not Shocking Grasp can be used with Vital Strike, seems to depend entirely upon whether or not Shocking Grasp is treated as a weapon. If it is a weapon, then it can be vital striked, if it isn't a weapon, then it can't be.
Spells other than Shocking Grasp that would benefit, would be spells like Chill Touch, which allows multiple attacks with 1 casting, or Cure/Inflict X Wounds.
This then brings up another question, can you use Vital Strike with a Cure spell to heal more damage? This would be an interesting mix as it could really boost healing spells. Keep in mind, it would only effect the dice roll, not the static bonuses from the caster level. So a Curse Critical Wound could be used with Vital Strike to heal 8d8+7 points of damage, instead of 4d8+7 points of damage.
At the same time, a Magus could really exploit this. One would have to clarify whether or not Intensify's bonus dice could be used with Vital Strike. An Intensified Shocking Grasp could deal 10d6 Shock damage, then Vital Striked to 20d6 (or 30d6 with Improved Vital Strike).
However, that's the only real Touch spell that immediately comes to mind that breaks this ability. But it breaks it in so much that it might be worth saying, "No" just because of that spell.
There are Pros and Cons to allowing Vital Strike with touch spells (like Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict X Wounds and Chill Touch). I would say more Pros than Cons, but the 1 big Con it has is a very big one.
[Edit] Forgot to mention, that as for Rays, there are some creatures who get rays for attacks, like Lantern Archons, or Ghaele Azatas. They could use Vital Strike with those Rays to make them really hurt (especially since they ignore DR).
So would Vital Strike work with those Rays?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure spell damage dice don't count as weapon damage dice. If they did, they'd go up or down based on the size of the caster.
That is an exception to the normal rule of an attack being a standard action, and it only applies in the round you cast the spell. An attack only targeting touch AC does nothing to change the action required to use it.
What? An attack isn't a standard action. The attack action, which lets you make one attack, is a standard action. But an Attack of Opportunity, or a free attack from Panther Claw, is just as much an attack as one from an attack action.
Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, not on an attack. And attacking with a held spell can totally be done as an attack action.
You could hit the FAQ button so the PDT could clarify it.
I think for the magus the sword damage would be affected not the spell damage. The spell is a rider affect. As an example if you have a +1 flaming longsword the 1d6 fire damage would not be double by my reading of the rules.
Now if someone did a direct shocking grasp I can see it applying by RAW, but I dont know if it is RAI, but I am about 99% sure that sword+magic combo is not happening.
As for damage I am assuming it means hit point damage so no shadows doing 2d6 str drain or damage. Of course I can't prove it by RAW, but most damage means hit point damage.
Energy drain is never listed as damage in the book as far as I know, and I don't even think if it is doubled on a crit per the rules.
I would not allow it for ability damage, or any for any other rider affect. Shocking grasp makes me want to limit it only to weapons
That is an exception to the normal rule of an attack being a standard action, and it only applies in the round you cast the spell. An attack only targeting touch AC does nothing to change the action required to use it.
What? An attack isn't a standard action. The attack action, which lets you make one attack, is a standard action. But an Attack of Opportunity, or a free attack from Panther Claw, is just as much an attack as one from an attack action.
Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, not on an attack. And attacking with a held spell can totally be done as an attack action.
Did you really not know what I meant or were you correcting me for not being more precise with my writing?
I think for the magus the sword damage would be affected not the spell damage. The spell is a rider affect. As an example if you have a +1 flaming longsword the 1d6 fire damage would not be double by my reading of the rules.
Now if someone did a direct shocking grasp I can see it applying by RAW, but I dont know if it is RAI, but I am about 99% sure that sword+magic combo is not happening.
Completely agree, if you're spellstriking with a weapon, or making a regular unarmed attack while holding the charge, the spell is a rider.
Did you really not know what I meant or were you correcting me for not being more precise with my writing?
I corrected you for being imprecise, because 99% of all Vital Strike questions hinge on the difference between "attack" and "attack action".
@pupsocket
ONCE again...it was in an out of the way place that I found it...AGAIN...when I find it I will post it...bringing up the combat rules or saying I should go look is at this point useless since I have already said it was not in an easily found place...be calm and I will find it
Also again...yes you can deliver the spell with a normal attack that is unarmed...however this is not a touch attack when you do it...it's a normal attack aimed at the normal AC of your enemy
Making a touch attack is specifically different...you cannot make multiple touch attacks with a higher BAB like you can regular attacks...while touch attacks have "attack" in their name they are not the same as using the "attack action" standard action
When found I will post where this comes from...please be patient I'm only so invested and quick at 4am
I corrected you for being imprecise, because 99% of all Vital Strike questions hinge on the difference between "attack" and "attack action".
Did you really not know what I meant or were you correcting me for not being more precise with my writing?
So so true....:|
@pupsocket
When found I will post where this comes from...please be patient I'm only so invested and quick at 4am
Please do. Until now, you've made several claims that contradict the rules I've quoted, with zero support.
Ok that post was pointless and is leading to be insulting...are you really wanting this to become a war over this? There was no reason for your last post beyond "calling me out" I have always followed through on the forums and have a great record for being correct in my interpretations of the rules and even when they are "squiffy" I have a great record for calling them right
If I have to keep coming back to defend myself on here against what I am now taking as hostility I will not have time to find the quote you are now demanding
If you wish to make this personal then please message me and keep it off the forums
Also nothing I have said has contradicted the rules you have quoted...beyond making touch attacks with spells to deliver them nothing mentions touch attacks or what action they are to use
Given that you can take the attack action with a held charge - and I don't think the rules bit that Drakkiel remembers actually exists - the question remains whether the phrase "Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together" applies.
Let's see what the FAQ says:
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11
....s%#&, that doesn't actually prove my case. Shocking Grasp and Flame Blade have significant defenses. But still. You count as "armed" when making touch attacks with a held spell, you can crit with a touch spell like you can with a weapon.
It's not like it's even particularly overpowered.
Just out of curiosity, it seems like this started in another thread. What rule is he(Drakkel) looking for?
Just out of curiosity, it seems like this started in another thread. What rule is he(Drakkel) looking for?
No, in the beginning of this thread, Drakkiel asserted that attacking with a held spell uses the "make touch attack" standard action. Which, as I have demonstrated, doesn't exist.
Ok that post was pointless and is leading to be insulting...are you really wanting this to become a war over this? There was no reason for your last post beyond "calling me out" I have always followed through on the forums and have a great record for being correct in my interpretations of the rules and even when they are "squiffy" I have a great record for calling them right
If I have to keep coming back to defend myself on here against what I am now taking as hostility I will not have time to find the quote you are now demanding
If you wish to make this personal then please message me and keep it off the forums.
Nothing personal.
You say that you have a great record of being correct. That tells me you value correctness.
So, if you find yourself in a thread where you've pointed out what the rules in question actually say, quoted the relevant section of the Core book, quoted the relevant FAQs, and another poster keeps repeating "dude, it's not like that, I remember reading it differently somewhere, I just don't remember where" - doesn't that annoy you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, seriously Drakkiel, you are the only one being hostile up until now. It is expected that if someone were to make a claim about rules, they back it up with a quote or link, as bbangerter did up-thread.
Now you've indicated that you think you know of a rule, and are searching for it. Instead of searching for it, you are, instead, here throwing a hissy fit about people questioning you.
Citing your 'rules history' doesn't make any difference. You could be right a thousand times, but if you're wrong, you're still wrong, regardless of how often you are right.
As it stands, there are some very good arguments as to why Touch spells would work with Vital Strike, though I fully believe this was never the intention.
There is also some very good reasons as to why Vital Strike should work with Touch spells.
There is only 1 reason why it shouldn't and that's more because of the nature of the spell, then anything else, combined with the feat(s) makes a very strong combo.
Pupsocket even just quoted a FAQ that basically says Vital Strike can work with Rays. The problem is that Rays tend to be spells cast, and Vital Strike is it's own action. If you have some sort of method of holding a Ray, such as Produce Flame, then it seems you can Vital Strike with that Ray. If you have a natural attack ability that produces a Ray, such as a Lantern Archon, you can Vital Strike with that ability.
Side Note: As near as I can tell, this is what you were looking for, but it only says touching an ally is a Standard action, says nothing about an enemy.
Just out of curiosity, it seems like this started in another thread. What rule is he(Drakkel) looking for?No, in the beginning of this thread, Drakkiel asserted that attacking with a held spell uses the "make touch attack" standard action. Which, as I have demonstrated, doesn't exist.
There was a thread where that consensus(not claiming 100%) was reached, IIRC. Maybe that is what he means, but I know it is not in the book that "touch attacks" are called out specifically.
Ok that post was pointless and is leading to be insulting...are you really wanting this to become a war over this? There was no reason for your last post beyond "calling me out" I have always followed through on the forums and have a great record for being correct in my interpretations of the rules and even when they are "squiffy" I have a great record for calling them right
If I have to keep coming back to defend myself on here against what I am now taking as hostility I will not have time to find the quote you are now demanding
If you wish to make this personal then please message me and keep it off the forums
Also nothing I have said has contradicted the rules you have quoted...beyond making touch attacks with spells to deliver them nothing mentions touch attacks or what action they are to use
Requiring rules support for rules claims in the rules forum is in no way rude. Twice this thread you've called posts "insulting" because they state (or in the first case, implied) that before there is an actual rules support for your argument, it is a very weak argument.
If there's something that can lead to a thread becoming a flame thread/war, it's being so overly sensitive to requirements of support for one's arguments and calling people insulting when there is nothing insulting in it. It's not made better when you two hours after the initial claim still haven't posted support for your claim, yet persist in actively making the claim and using "...and I'm usually right" as if that's worth something.
No-one here is making this personal except you.
I was thinking, a good application of this might be with an improved familiar, if you can manage to scrape together the cash for a Wand of Calcific Touch that'd be very powerful. Or even just a scroll or three perhaps. Even basic vital strike would mean 2d4 dex damage per round for 7 rounds, which can quickly break certain large creatures (dragons, I'm looking at you).
|
doesn't vital strike just add weapon damage dice?
so yes, if you have a magus storing calcific touch or shocking grasp in the sword, the sword's dice will be added to , but the spell's won't.
some spells work great like weapons, flame blade and produce flame, because they use the attack action.
but if you're touch attacking someone, your spell isn't a weapon if you're just armed with calcific touch. if you punch someone to deliver the spell, you would just vital strike the unarmed strike damage, not the spell.
even sneak attack wouldn't work with calcific touch, you need a spell that deals hit point damage. so there's precedent for the spell needing to actually deal hp damage, and be delivered through an attack action.
i'd love to add vital strike to my flame-blade / lightsaber druid though now. =D
thanks guys.
I read vital strike in my CRB. It only mentions modifying the ATTACK, not the WEAPON. Then I went to the PRD:
Vital Strike (Combat)You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
So, the wording is different from my CRB to what's on the website. NOW I understand why this is being so hotly debated.
Frankly I'd houserule it for the wizard/magus/sorcerer. If they're willing to sink a feat into VS, get the BAB prereq, and then go toe-to-toe w/a touch attack, it's worth it to have the thing blitzkrieg and incinerate their foe.
I only wish my familiar could retrain when it's BAB got high enough and take VS as it's feat. Can you imagine? "Oh look, here's the cute little owl off the wizard's shoulder...why are it's talons crackling with electricity..." ZZZOOOOORRRRTTTTTT!!! 10d6 lightning damage baby!
Is there any source to calcific touch not being a weapon when attacking with the attack ction?
|
|
its not doing hit point damage. what weapon damage would calcific touch be adding to?
there's no source for it, just reference the PRD on vital strike.
it clearly requires a physical weapon of some sort. even making a note to apply bonuses from the weapon once in the end.
Your touch progressively transmutes the substance of creatures you touch into stone. Once per round, you may deliver a touch attack that inflicts 1d4 points of Dexterity damage and slows the target (as the spell) for 1 round. A successful Fortitude save negates the slow effect but not the ability damage. A target reduced to 0 Dexterity is petrified permanently. Break enchantment, restoration, or stone to flesh can reverse the effects of calcific touch.
not only does it not have a weapon damage listed, its "once per round, you can may deliver a touch attack".
that's definitely NOT compatable with vital strike.
vital strike requires you to be using your standard action attack action to make this vital strike maneuver.
calcific touch, like many touch spells, allows you to make an attack as a standard action.
its kind of like how you can't combine vital strike and spring attack.
check the difference in flame blade. you get to have a weapon, it tells you how much damage that weapon deals. so you can then take a standard action and use vital strike with that weapon.
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
The thing is, Vital Strike just mentions damage, so using Vital Strike with Calcific Touch is possible depending on whether or not touch attacks can be Vital Striked.
There seems to be some ambiguity there, so I'd FAQ it :P
its not doing hit point damage. what weapon damage would calcific touch be adding to?
there's no source for it, just reference the PRD on vital strike.it clearly requires a physical weapon of some sort. even making a note to apply bonuses from the weapon once in the end.
I don't see where it "clearly" claims the weapon has to be physical. If spells are considered weapons (which is the tipping point), then the weapon damage dice would be the dice you roll to determine the damage of the attack. In the case of calcific touch, the d4 for the spell's dexterity damage.
Unfortunately, "weapon" is not a defined game term.
The closest thing to a definition of weapon that denies the usage of calcific touch is this:
"All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon. " -Weapon chapter.
However, that also makes the whip and unarmed strike a non-weapon:
"When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. " - Combat chapter.
not only does it not have a weapon damage listed, its "once per round, you can may deliver a touch attack".that's definitely NOT compatable with vital strike.
Why? Are you trying to vital strike several times the same round?
vital strike requires you to be using your standard action attack action to make this vital strike maneuver.calcific touch, like many touch spells, allows you to make an attack as a standard action.
its kind of like how you can't combine vital strike and spring attack.
Not really. The general rules on touch attack weapons (which have been quoted upthread) note it as an attack, not a specific action. Nowhere does calcific touch override that.
so you can then take a standard action and use vital strike with that weapon.
Didn't you just say they required physical weapons? What makes a flame that burns enemy flesh more physical than a hand that calcifies them more physical in nature?
I'm not guaranteed it works. As is, it hinges on the definition of a "weapon", nothing more. And weapon is quite undefined by the rules, and lack of hit point damage is a very strange qualifier that leads to all kinds of weird results (such as no weapon focus (whip)), while having it noted in the weapon chapter as a qualifier leads to other even weirder effects that invalidates a lot of published material (such as no weapon focus (claws)).
Damage from spells is not (usually) weapon damage, nor are spells weapons (normally). So, generally no.
Do you have some kind of rules support for that?