Charging with a Vital Strike

Hi all,

I've been pouring over the new book (I'm going have to change my monk... AGAIN). I'm looking at the new vital strike series - I like them! I originally avoided them for my monk because I felt they would be "silly powerful." Now? They're pretty cool.

So, my question...

Most of the new feats for attacks mention they use a standard action (cleave, gorgon's fist, etc.). Vital strike does not - it's "part of an attack action." A single attack for extra damage (woot!). The rules for charging (which are oddly placed for such a major action, btw) mention you get an attack, and seem to imply that it works like the normal attack action. As such, I am of the opinion that you can vital strike as part of a charge.

Does that seem correct or incorrect to anyone else? Anyone else want to weigh in with an opinion?

Thanks!

If "attack action" were explicitly defined somewhere, we wouldn't get questions like this. :-P (Cf. "precision damage")

I think Jason mentioned in the preview for the fighter class that Vital Strike should be usable with a charge. But should Vital Strike be usable with a full attack, i.e. is a full attack just a bunch of "attack actions" that you can use Vital Strike on? I assume that's not the case!

Hi all,

I've been pouring over the new book (I'm going have to change my monk... AGAIN). I'm looking at the new vital strike series - I like them! I originally avoided them for my monk because I felt they would be "silly powerful." Now? They're pretty cool.

So, my question...

Most of the new feats for attacks mention they use a standard action (cleave, gorgon's fist, etc.). Vital strike does not - it's "part of an attack action." A single attack for extra damage (woot!). The rules for charging (which are oddly placed for such a major action, btw) mention you get an attack, and seem to imply that it works like the normal attack action. As such, I am of the opinion that you can vital strike as part of a charge.

Does that seem correct or incorrect to anyone else? Anyone else want to weigh in with an opinion?

Thanks!

I'm pretty sure the intention was that it could be used as part of a charge because Jason mentioned it could be used that way in one of his rule previews. However, this also implies you can use Vital Strike for one of your attacks (or maybe all of them?) during a full attack action (since charge is a full attack action too).

I would have prefered Vital Strike being worded as "As part of a standard action or a charge..."

Perhaps Jason actually meant for Vital Strike to be usable during a full attack action, but I'm definitely unsure based on the wording in the PFRPG.

Thats correct ... here is a quote from the Fighter preview:

"All of this assumes that Valeros begins his turn adjacent to an enemy. If not, he can charge up and make a single attack with his longsword using both Power Attack and Improved Vital Strike."

Ugh ... double ninja

Hi all,

I've been pouring over the new book (I'm going have to change my monk... AGAIN). I'm looking at the new vital strike series - I like them! I originally avoided them for my monk because I felt they would be "silly powerful." Now? They're pretty cool.

So, my question...

Most of the new feats for attacks mention they use a standard action (cleave, gorgon's fist, etc.). Vital strike does not - it's "part of an attack action." A single attack for extra damage (woot!). The rules for charging (which are oddly placed for such a major action, btw) mention you get an attack, and seem to imply that it works like the normal attack action. As such, I am of the opinion that you can vital strike as part of a charge.

Does that seem correct or incorrect to anyone else? Anyone else want to weigh in with an opinion?

Thanks!

Vital Strike may be used as part of a charge.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

... i.e. is a full attack just a bunch of "attack actions" that you can use Vital Strike on? I assume that's not the case!

If I remember the Beta correctly, Vs/IVS specifically said they required a full-attack action to use. I would have preferred the change read "standard attack" or "standard action."

-Skeld

If "attack action" were explicitly defined somewhere, we wouldn't get questions like this. :-P (Cf. "precision damage")

I think Jason mentioned in the preview for the fighter class that Vital Strike should be usable with a charge. But should Vital Strike be usable with a full attack, i.e. is a full attack just a bunch of "attack actions" that you can use Vital Strike on? I assume that's not the case!

When you choose to use Vital Strike, you only get a single attack.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

When you choose to use Vital Strike, you only get a single attack.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

I think that was the intent, but the wording of the feat says otherwise.

When you choose to use Vital Strike, you only get a single attack.

Specifically, it says you get a single attack "[w]hen you use the attack action". So is a full attack a bunch of attack actions or not?

It's pretty clear from context that you can't use Vital Strike more than once a round, but the wording is a bit sloppy.

I'm totally stealing the Vital Strike idea and making it a basic combat rule. If you have x number of attacks, your standard action attacks deal x[W] damage.

The feat says:
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

While the attack action bit makes it unclear, the intent of this feat is to allow a warrior to move (or charge) and get in a single attack that is more powerful than normal. It is not intended to allow someone to gain double weapon damage to every attack on a full attack.

For ease, assume that any action you take that includes an attack is considered a single 'attack action' in this case.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

Specifically, it says you get a single attack "[w]hen you use the attack action". So is a full attack a bunch of attack actions or not?

I don't have any materials in front of me, but I believe that a full-attack action is a singular action regardless of the number of weapons "swings" you get (as a result of BAB and fighting style). A standard attack action is likewise a singular action, but only incorporates a single "swing."

At least that's how I plan to interpret it until it's officially changed.

I agree though; the wording could be better.

-Skeld

The feat says:

"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

While the attack action bit makes it unclear, the intent of this feat is to allow a warrior to move (or charge) and get in a single attack that is more powerful than normal. It is not intended to allow someone to gain double weapon damage to every attack on a full attack.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

A full attack is a series of "attack actions", so yes the wording of Vital Strike could be clearer.

For a full attack, I could also see the interpretation being you get 1 attack at your highest attack bonus at x2 damage, then the rest of your attacks at normal damage.

I also believe this wasn't the intent and will be using "As a standard action or as part of a charge.." in my games.

It could be much clearer. Still, a single "Standard 'Attack' Action" or a "Full 'Attack' Action" are both one action. You may make multiple attacks within a Full Attack Action, but for wording's sake, you only make a single Attack Action. Even an Attack as part of a Charge is still a "Full Round Action".

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

hogarth wrote:

Specifically, it says you get a single attack "[w]hen you use the attack action". So is a full attack a bunch of attack actions or not?

I don't have any materials in front of me, but I believe that a full-attack action is a singular action regardless of the number of weapons "swings" you get (as a result of BAB and fighting style). A standard attack action is likewise a singular action, but only incorporates a single "swing."

Actually, it looks like both a full attack and a single attack (and charge attacks, presumably) are "attack actions". Consider this wording from the description of "Sunder":

"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

So an attack action consists of one or more attacks, presumably, and a full attack is just one attack action. Makes sense, I guess.

Actually, it looks like both a full attack and a single attack (and charge attacks, presumably) are "attack actions". Consider this wording from the description of "Sunder":

"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

So an attack action consists of one or more attacks, presumably, and a full attack is just one attack action. Makes sense, I guess.

Not to me. The wording is confusing and if I didn't know from the Beta discussions what the intent way, then I wouldn't know how to rule it.

The way I read it, Sunder works the same as Trip and Disarm as far as being able to substitute the combat manuevers for melee attacks. So why the different wording?

Not to me. The wording is confusing and if I didn't know from the Beta discussions what the intent way, then I wouldn't know how to rule it.

Same here. It is unclear how to use Vital Strike. What about:

My original interpretation was that you couldn't combine them. Charge gives you an "attack", rather than the "attack action". I'd really like to see an official ruling or errata though.

This is indeed very interesting as it can affect many possible combat combination.

I am, for now until there is clarification, going to make my ruling based upon intuition (which could be very wrong).

Under Standard Action it lists Attack. Now not Attack Action, just Attack.

Under Full Round Actions it lists Full Attack. Again not Full Attack Action.

My intuition tells me that that these are the "Actions" being referred to. Therefore an Attack Action would be a Standard Action, while a Full Attack Action would be a Full Round Action.

Further reading in Combat Maneuvers finds this quote, "When performing a
combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action."

This seems to indicate that the designers intended for an Attack Action to be a Standard Action, and a Full Attack Action to be a Full Round Action.

Additionally, Vital Strike clearly says you get one attack.

Now, Charge is a special full-round action, meaning it does not fall into the neat normal list of full-round actions- and has unique rules of its own. Part of these unique rules is that you get to make a single melee attack. A single melee attack is in essence an Attack Action, so I can see getting to use Vital Strike in this situation, and any similar situation where you can do something uncommon but only get a single attack.

For example, Whirlwind Attack- you give up your normal iterative attacks in a full-attack to get a single attack at your highest BAB upon every target in range. So here, you are still getting multiple attacks, where as Vital Strike is specific about just one attack, so I would say that, no, you do not get to combine Vital Attack with Whirlwind Attack or similar feats or attacks.

So, take this as you will. That is the way I am going to do it until I hear otherwise from On High. But that is no reason you have to do it this way. My reasoning might be flawed, or just downright wrong. But it works for me. :)

And BTW, seeing as I am using my intuition here, I'd really like a woman to double check and correct me... :)

Krome and Nethys are both correct. It's the "move and smack one guy good" feat. Good for dodge/mobility/spring_attack dudes with low STR who depend on weapon die damage.

Krome and Nethys are both correct. It's the "move and smack one guy good" feat. Good for dodge/mobility/spring_attack dudes with low STR who depend on weapon die damage.

Just as a question then, can it or can it not be used on an attack of opportunity?

There are a couple post on this now ... in at least one it says that you can NOT use Vital Strike with a charge. Gen Con GMs where told that the preview was wrong.

Hopefully we will get a further clarification ...

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.

Hope that helps...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.

Hope that helps...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Hm.. going away from What Is and to What Could Be (being the Protean supporter than I am), I have a question:

Do you think it would break the game to make Vital Strike available whenever you only make only one attack in your round (not for AoOs, of course)? And, for that matter, to get rid of the feats and make it a general option for everyone with BAB 6+/11+/16+?

I think it should work fine (I'm also in the preliminary stages for a "dual attack" thingy that covers standard actions and two-weapon fighting)

I'll admit that I'm REALLY confused as to what this feat chain is meant to accomplish. If I'm blowing 3 feats on a lousy +3d8 damage at 16th level (when my enemies have hundreds of hp), will it break anything to let me use that as part of a charge?

I'll admit that I'm REALLY confused as to what this feat chain is meant to accomplish. If I'm blowing 3 feats on a lousy +3d8 damage at 16th level (when my enemies have hundreds of hp), will it break anything to let me use that as part of a charge?

The point of the feat chain is to let fighters do more damage when they have to move in a round. Or if they're facing a foe that their secondary and other attacks simply can't really hit. Whenever you lose the option to make those additional attacks, you can simply transfer the damage over to the attack you DO get.

I'll admit that I'm REALLY confused as to what this feat chain is meant to accomplish. If I'm blowing 3 feats on a lousy +3d8 damage at 16th level (when my enemies have hundreds of hp), will it break anything to let me use that as part of a charge?

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the official ruling on not combing a Vital Strike into anything that involves a damaging attack. It should work fine with a Charge (and thus, a Spirited Charge), a full attack (benefiting only the first attack) or any other "attack" action save those explicitly prohibited - touch attacks and attacks that deal no damage (most combat maneuvers).

Vital Strike makes a horseman once more a fearsome foe to be dealt with promptly when it can work with a charge/spirited charge, IMO.

Ah well - that's what house rules are for! :)

The point of the feat chain is to let fighters do more damage when they have to move in a round. Or if they're facing a foe that their secondary and other attacks simply can't really hit. Whenever you lose the option to make those additional attacks, you can simply transfer the damage over to the attack you DO get.

So, if my fighter wants to finish off the guy he's fighting and then move to soak damage for a friend, in theory I could Vital Strike and then make a full move. That would be one potential use... except that if that first strike misses, or fails to quite kill the guy, I'm out of luck as far as that movement goes, because I'm provoking attacks of opportunity from him and also leaving a live enemy to flank me next round. So I certainly wouldn't use it in that case -- and most certainly wouldn't spend 3 feats on it.

And I can't use it when charging, so if I move up to someone to attack him, I need to move up to within 30 ft. first, and then go after him the next round -- the fight may be over by the time I get in a full attack on round 3. Again, something I personally wouldn't spend 3 feats on.

Which leaves us with the last case: enemies you can't hit with iterative attacks. In which case the 1st attack is also likely to miss, and having 4 chances to try for a "20" and do SOME damage is probably a lot better, mathematically, than getting only one try to maybe do a very small amount of additional damage. So I wouldn't use it in that instance either.

Which means that's one chain of feats I don't need to worry about!

Which leaves us with the last case: enemies you can't hit with iterative attacks. In which case the 1st attack is also likely to miss, and having 4 chances to try for a "20" and do SOME damage is probably a lot better, mathematically, than getting only one try to maybe do a very small amount of additional damage. So I wouldn't use it in that instance either.

Which means that's one chain of feats I don't need to worry about!

I think you misunderstood. Lets say there is an enemy with an AC of...30, sure why not? If you have a attack bonus of 15, that hit is probably your best chance at doing anything, as all subsequent attacks will be requiring you to confirm crits, in order to hit. THis means that that one hit is your BEST chance at getting some decent damage in, so you use vital strike to get things going.

Second case, you must fight an awful lot in wide open areas, because I Seldom find myself more than thirty feet away from enemies in a dungeon. Maybe that's just your play style, and fine by that. But the rest of us, who play the Adventure paths, that often have use being jumped, or in tight quarters and well within a single move action, will appreciate that when we have to move to get into position to smack the BBEG, we can still do some decent damage. As opposed to hoping that at least ONCE during the fight, we'll get to unload a full attack action.

Which is highly unlikely in any case.

This Dungeon Crawler has learned that a full attack is a rare and wondrous gift, we don't waste such things. Yet we also realize that vital strike is GIVING us this rare and wondrous gift, on many turns.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'll admit that I'm REALLY confused as to what this feat chain is meant to accomplish. If I'm blowing 3 feats on a lousy +3d8 damage at 16th level (when my enemies have hundreds of hp), will it break anything to let me use that as part of a charge?

The point of the feat chain is to let fighters do more damage when they have to move in a round. Or if they're facing a foe that their secondary and other attacks simply can't really hit. Whenever you lose the option to make those additional attacks, you can simply transfer the damage over to the attack you DO get.

Those are good and welcome points, but I agree with Kirth on this. If you have this feat chain, why bother to charge at all… other than to move more than your regular movement and still get an attack? You can do more damage by taking a normal move than charging a foe, which really doesn't make any sense.

I haven't thoroughly looked at all of the feats yet, but this clarification and the changes to Power Attack have really taken a big bite out of actually Charging something. Was that a conscious decision?

Also to bring to light: You can charge as a standard action, but only if you are restricted to a standard or move-action each round. Technically, you could Vital Strike in this special case no?

Lets say there is an enemy with an AC of...30, sure why not? If you have a attack bonus of 15, that hit is probably your best chance at doing anything, as all subsequent attacks will be requiring you to confirm crits, in order to hit. THis means that that one hit is your BEST chance at getting some decent damage in, so you use vital strike to get things going.

That would work if your DM generously announces all of the monsters' ACs, so that you know when to do it. Alas, mine don't. So I don't ever know if I'm missing because I rolled a 14 and needed a 15, or whether I actually needed a 20.

Yet we also realize that vital strike is GIVING us this rare and wondrous gift, on many turns.

I'd hesitate calling anything costing so many feats for so little return a "gift," much less a rare and wondrous one, but YMMV. If plan and using it, and have the feats to spare, then go for it!

Dissinger wrote:

Lets say there is an enemy with an AC of...30, sure why not? If you have a attack bonus of 15, that hit is probably your best chance at doing anything, as all subsequent attacks will be requiring you to confirm crits, in order to hit. THis means that that one hit is your BEST chance at getting some decent damage in, so you use vital strike to get things going.

That would work if your DM generously announces all of the monsters' ACs, so that you know when to do it. Alas, mine don't. So I don't ever know if I'm missing because I rolled a 14 and needed a 15, or whether I actually needed a 20.

Dissinger wrote:

Yet we also realize that vital strike is GIVING us this rare and wondrous gift, on many turns.

I'd hesitate calling anything costing so many feats for so little return a "gift," much less a rare and wondrous one, but YMMV. If plan and using it, and have the feats to spare, then go for it!

I wouldn't go so far as to say the feat chain is useless. I think it's far from it if you go with a big weapon such as a greataxe or greatsword… 3d12 and 6d6 extra damage is nothing to sneeze at.

But is may or may not be costly feat-wise. I think you can compare it with Power Attack, which costs one feat to see if the chain balances or not. Just eyeballing it I can see arguments for and against the feat cost:

Power attack Pros:
1) works on standard and full-attack
2) gets better with bigger weapons
3) scales with level
4) costs one feat
5) multiplied on a critical

Cons:
1) melee attacks only
2) penalty to attack rolls

Vital Strike Pros:
1) works on standard actions where you can only perform one attack
2) can be combined with Power Attack
3) works with melee and ranged weapons
4) gets better with bigger weapons

Cons:
1) costs 3 feats
2) can't use when performing multiple attacks
3) damage isn't multiplied on a critical

I'm sure there are other pros and cons for both…

I'm not concerned with the feat cost, especially since it can be combined with Power Attack for instance. I think my only contention is that the Vital Strike feat tree doesn't work in conjunction with charging. If the purpose of the feat chain was to allow extra damage when you could only perform one attack per round due to movement and not being able to full-attack, then it should be beneficial any time you are allowed only one attack per round and move more than 5'.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the feat chain is useless. I think it's far from it if you go with a big weapon such as a greataxe or greatsword… 3d12 and 6d6 extra damage is nothing to sneeze at.

That's my other big gripe with it: that it actively encourages all of that monkey-grip giant Anime sword stuff. Great for a BESM game, but less desireable, IMHO, for D&D (although I understand a lot of the younger players can't get enough anime in their roleplay, and that a lot of the Paizo artwork fans want to play the types of weapons depicted: 15-foot long swords, and earthbreaker hammers big enough to outweigh elephants). But, from a personal standpoint, I feel that at the point where you're investing 3 feats in a maneuver and have a BAB of +16, weapon size should be irrelevant, and that skill in wielding a weapon should count for more.

Thus my houserule: use it as a standard attack or as one attack at the end of a charge, for +2d6 at BAB +6, +4d6 at BAB +11, and +6d6 at BAB +16.

Thus my houserule: use it as a standard attack or as one attack at the end of a charge, for +2d6 at BAB +6, +4d6 at BAB +11, and +6d6 at BAB +16.

Something close to this is exactly what I was hoping vital strike was going to be. I also agree with 'weapon size should be irrelevant'.

Something close to this is exactly what I was hoping vital strike was going to be. I also agree with 'weapon size should be irrelevant'.

Why DO we have different damage for different weapon sizes, anyway? If you're that size, you have a higher STR score, so you're going to do more damage anyway. Why does a larger weapon translate to larger damage die?

I understand that a larger weapon is going to hurt you more than a smaller weapon most of the time, but wouldn't a better way to show that be going from a d8 to 2d4? Damage is variable, so stepping up the minimum damage would reflect that a bigger weapon is going to hurt more often.

Just a thought that struck me, and I had to get it out there.

stuff

Some more pros and cons for both :-)

Power attack Pros:
6) can be combined with a charge
7) works on attacks that are neither full attacks nor standard attack (if previous attack was made with power attack). Such as AoO, The barbarian Unexpected Strike, etc.
8) can be combined with Cleave and great cleave.

Cons:
3) PA doesn't get better with bigger weapons ;-)

Vital Strike Pros:
5) no penalty to attack roll

Cons:
4) Does not work on attacks that are neither full attacks nor standard attack. Such as AoO, The barbarian Unexpected Strike, etc.

I always announce the AC. If I didn't, my players would note down every goddamn missed and hit attack in an attempt to figure out the AC. Which would drive me and them crazy and slow down the combat even more.

I always announce the AC. If I didn't, my players would note down every goddamn missed and hit attack in an attempt to figure out the AC. Which would drive me and them crazy and slow down the combat even more.

^this.

Experienced players aren't dumb, they can usually estimate the AC of their target after a few misses. Also, not every GM has a poker face and that can teach you more about what you're fighting than anything else short of viewing the monster block. Hell even I sit there and average rolls. When I want to make a point of how messed up something is, I go "This is minimum damage. This means if you roll all ones, you cannot POSSIBLY do less damage than this, all things considered equal."

When I want to sell the potential, I go to average. Its also usually about .5 higher than half. d6 = 3.5 ect ect. So, it doesn't take me long to figure things like what my odds of hitting are, and how badly I need those points of BaB.

Vital Strike allows me to make a calculated risk, especially when I can figure out the AC after about three or four misses, and three or four hits, given an even spread.

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two.

The explanation so far still leaves me wondering if Vital Strike applies to PARTIAL Charges...???

Even without being charge-compatible it's still a worthy feat. Before, in 3.5, there was NO option for a fighter doing a move and an attack... now there is "something"

Note that the benefit of a charge is that you get to move double your speed before an attack... to move twice and deal damage equal to multiple attacks would be a little too much on the good side.

QUESTION: the pounce ability that lions have is awesome. Is there a way a PC can get a similar ability via PRPG feats? (as far as I know, no, but Whirlwind Attack basically achieves the same thing, except for the fact that you move only once instead of twice... pounce is just awesome: move twice and do five attacks... claw,claw,bite,rake,rake, and the bite has improved grab tagged unto it... wow!)

I had this exact same discussion yesterday with my DM, but I hadn't seen Jason's post.

My reading of the feat was the same as many here, and that the intent was to make single attaks more lethal (using up to three feats).

I've heard the rule argument, and it is solid, except perhaps for partial charges.

But what about the intent? Restricting it to a partial charge (single move) doesn't appear broken and respect the intent, no?

DW

I don't understand why Vital Strike doesn't just state it requires a standard action to perform. This would have dispelled any confusion.

Having used some Tome of Battle maneuvers in my games, I find additional weapon dice hardly a game breaker.

Suggestion:

Feat: Vital Strike (Combat)

You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: Usable once per round. Declare before making any attacks. Forfeit additional attacks, if any. Double weapon damage dice upon successful attack.
Special: Multipliers from confirmed critical and other rules do not apply to added weapon damage dice.

Improved Vital Strike (Combat)

Prerequisites: Vital Strike, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: As per Vital Strike, but your weapon damage dice are tripled.
Special: As per Vital Strike.

Greater Vital Strike (Combat)

Prerequisites: Improved Vital Strike, base attack bonus +16.

Benefit: As Vital Strike, but your weapon damage dice are quadrupled.
Special: As per Vital Strike.

----

Regards,
Ruemere

Whenever Jason gets around to answering this more fully/ updating the Errata with a clearer wording:
(just to check: vital strike works on a single attack when using Cleave? (1st attack only) +Partial Charge?)

I'd also be interested to know WHY reducing # of Iterative Attacks for extra damage was dropped,
rather than combining with the new Standard Attack usage of Vital Strike.
AFAIK, the goal of simplifying play still stands, and reducing superfluous rolls would seem to support that...

I'm guessing it was too favorable to 2WF builds?
Still, it could have applied just to the first attack/ a single attack in any given round..?

I've wondered how vital strike and haste works - Do you get two hits with vital strike or just one and a normal attack?

I've wondered how vital strike and haste works - Do you get two hits with vital strike or just one and a normal attack?

Haste only gives an added attack on full round attacks. Vital strike can't even be used as part of a full round attack. So, no benefit there.

It really wasn't all that favorable to 2wf builds to use the old vital strike series. Give up your last two shots, everything else got 2 extra dice of weapon damage. If your using shortswords you go from 1d6 to 3d6 per hit, if your using a greatsword you go from 2d6 to 6d6 per hit. (Also remember that Power Attack favors the Greatsword with a 1.5 to 1 ratio vs dual-wielders who would also still be eating an extra -2 penalty on attack rolls)

In the end it balanced out reasonably well. Anyways, below is my houserule, for any interested in it.

Vital Strike (Requires +6 BAB): When making a single attack during your turn (whether via charge, standard action attack, or any other options available to you) roll your weapon's damage twice. (At +11 BAB this is increased to rolling your weapon's damage three times, and at +16 this is increased to rolling your weapon's damage four times)

Vital Strike Barrage (requires Vital Strike and +6 BAB): When making a full attack action, you can declare that you are making an Vital Strike Barrage, sacrificing your weakest attack to roll the weapon's base damage dice an additional time for each strike. (At +11 BAB this may sacrifice two attacks for two extra weapon dice per hit, and at +16 this may sacrifice three attacks for three extra weapon dice per hit.) Note this option does apply to Attacks of Opportunity.

just to be sure :
Since Vital Strike is a standard action, You can't use it with a charge, during a full round action. But you can use it with Power attack, so that means that you can use Vital Strike only before or after having make your movement, doesn't it?

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'll admit that I'm REALLY confused as to what this feat chain is meant to accomplish. If I'm blowing 3 feats on a lousy +3d8 damage at 16th level (when my enemies have hundreds of hp), will it break anything to let me use that as part of a charge?

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the official ruling on not combing a Vital Strike into anything that involves a damaging attack. It should work fine with a Charge (and thus, a Spirited Charge), a full attack (benefiting only the first attack) or any other "attack" action save those explicitly prohibited - touch attacks and attacks that deal no damage (most combat maneuvers).

Vital Strike makes a horseman once more a fearsome foe to be dealt with promptly when it can work with a charge/spirited charge, IMO.

Ah well - that's what house rules are for! :)

I am in agreement that the Vital Strike feat tree should work with Spirited Charge. It requires the commitment of 6 feats but the pay off at 16th/17th level is worth it in a campaign that uses mounted combat. As is the Vital Strike chain will mostly be used by those favoring Spring Attack.