nuff said really

nuff said really

On another note, how would a Improved Critical work with rays?

Improved Critical (Rays)? That's the way I see it.

No. You never use the attack action with a ray; the attack roll is part of casting the spell (or otherwise activating the ability).

Touch spell after holding the charge, yes. Also produce flame ranged attacks. But not disintegrate, sorry. :)

Xum: it's Improved Critical (ranged touch), I believe.

Concur... Makes sense.

In my head, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike both require full-attack actions, and sacrifice the iterative attacks to add the bonus damage to a single attack. That would preclude spell attacks, since none of them can be used as part of a full-attack / iterative attack situation (barring the Warrior of White Flame PrC, anyway), not even those that get multiple rays, like scorching ray. Possible exceptions even under this interpretation of Vital Strike would be chill touch or one of the other touch attack spells, like inflict moderate wounds.

Of course, in the text in my book, nothing of the sort is said, and I could theoretically Vital Strike with each of my iterative attacks in a full-attack action. Funky. Eye-opening, even.

Under the much-more-powerful-than-I-thought rules, if you have to make an attack roll, it's an attack, as I understand it, so a scorching ray should be quite suitable for Vital Strike use.

The mention of produce flame, upthread, makes me want to introduce a special training or item of some sort that allowed a spellcaster to surge the effects of a spell that normally lasts an extended period of time and allows multiple low-damage attacks (chill touch, melf's minute meteor, produce flame, call lightning, etc.) to be expended all at once as a larger single attack.

In my head, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike both require full-attack actions, and sacrifice the iterative attacks to add the bonus damage to a single attack. That would preclude spell attacks, since none of them can be used as part of a full-attack / iterative attack situation (barring the Warrior of White Flame PrC, anyway), not even those that get multiple rays, like scorching ray. Possible exceptions even under this interpretation of Vital Strike would be chill touch or one of the other touch attack spells, like inflict moderate wounds.

Of course, in the text in my book, nothing of the sort is said, and I could theoretically Vital Strike with each of my iterative attacks in a full-attack action. Funky. Eye-opening, even.

Under the much-more-powerful-than-I-thought rules, if you have to make an attack roll, it's an attack, as I understand it, so a scorching ray should be quite suitable for Vital Strike use.

Vital Strike does not allow you to sneak out extra damage with spells unless that spell works like a weapon.

You could vital strike with a flame blade. Not with a scorching ray.

You can't make a Scorching Ray attack with the "Attack Action", so no Vital Strike.
When is the Errata on this (and everything else) scheduled to come out?
Even a ball-park figure would be nice.

You can't make a Scorching Ray attack with the "Attack Action", so no Vital Strike.
When is the Errata on this (and everything else) scheduled to come out?
Even a ball-park figure would be nice.

Would be good to stop that gleam in the sorcerous necromancers eye ever since he got vampiric touch as I know his planning a massive whiney assault when he gets to +6 BAB .. joy !!

In other words, you can get resource efficiency at the expense of action efficiency. It's actually one of the most "balanced" trade-offs the system has to offer.

insaneogeddon wrote:

Would be good to stop that gleam in the sorcerous necromancers eye ever since he got vampiric touch as I know his planning a massive whiney assault when he gets to +6 BAB .. joy !!

Err... actually, vampiric touch with Vital Strike is 100% kosher. You have to cast it one round (or quicken it), then spend a subsequent standard action on The Attack Action, Activating Vital Strike (trademark, patent pending).

In other words, you can get resource efficiency at the expense of action efficiency. It's actually one of the most "balanced" trade-offs the system has to offer.

Now... couple that with Flyby Attack (or spring attack if you don't have a means of flight)

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Now... couple that with Flyby Attack (or spring attack if you don't have a means of flight)

Flyby sure, but Spring Attack is debated whether or not it works with Vital.

Not to dash people's hopes, but I was just mentioning the Standard Acton Casting =/= Vital Strike in addition to James' comment. The Feat is being re-worded, but from James and Jason's comments, only 'weapon damage' will be multiplied. Flame Blade is a unique spell in that it counts as a weapon. Most don't.

When is the Errata on this (and everything else) scheduled to come out?
Even a ball-park figure would be nice.

As for a FAQ, that's more hazy. Jason'd be the one to write and organize the FAQ, and he's currently hard at work on the Advanced Player's Guide new base classes and will be for a bit longer. I'd like to get the FAQ up by February, though. Not sure if that's at all possible.

Vital Strike probably DOES need to be reworded. But yeah... it's not supposed to work with spells. Just weapons. And spells that are functionaly weapons, which are pretty rare. Flame blade counts, since it says it's "wielded as a scimitar," but something like vampiric strike does not count.

In my head, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike both require full-attack actions

The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.

But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.

It wasn't ever intended to give spellcasters a way to double their damage dice, and you can expect it to be reworded in an upcoming FAQ sooner or later to enforce this role.

The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.

But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.

It wasn't ever intended to give spellcasters a way to double their damage dice, and you can expect it to be reworded in an upcoming FAQ sooner or later to enforce this role.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

That seems like a lot to me...for a fighter who is still moving. I am not trying to be snarky or anything at all but am I one of the only people that thinks that seems sort of fair?

I turned them into bonus feats for everyone who has the necessary BAB. I also changed it that whenever you can make only one attack with a weapon against one target, you get to use it.

Move and attack, spring attack, wingover - the works.

I turned them into bonus feats for everyone who has the necessary BAB. I also changed it that whenever you can make only one attack with a weapon against one target, you get to use it.

Move and attack, spring attack, wingover - the works.

KaeYoss wrote:

I turned them into bonus feats for everyone who has the necessary BAB. I also changed it that whenever you can make only one attack with a weapon against one target, you get to use it.

Move and attack, spring attack, wingover - the works.

Too powerfull, it steal the Fighters Thunder. If anyone can do it, they get nothing new, the way it is is fine by me, maybe one less feat in the chain. But that's pretty much it.

Fighters have weapon training and feats that only they can use, some of which are quite nice. And they still get tons of feats.

Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.

James Jacobs wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.

There are so many yummy ones out there.

KaeYoss wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.

There are so many yummy ones out there.

A good reason for a fighter to spend one of his feats to take Leadership and get another fighter as a cohort, I guess.

I did idly stat up a 13th-level fighter the other day (just a small study to see what he'd be capable of - my Dervish Dance paladin/duelist has been accused of being too powerful, and by extension the paladin and his new smite evil, so I wanted to show them what kinds of hurt a straight fighter could give to people with every single attack.

I found that trying to juggle getting all the weapon enhancer feats (Weapon Focus and follow-ups) some critical feats and the Disruptive and Dazzling Display chains is quite the challenge.

Even a fighter has to make choices, he can't have everything.

He can have a nice init, several strong attacks (with both attack and damage being close to the Dervish's gala performance, and that all the time) ouchy crit rider effects, ways to build up killer combos or work well together with others (dazzling display) and make spellcasters really hate them (Step Up, Disruptive, Spellbreaker).

The spellcaster who lets that one catch him with his pants down is a dead spellcaster.

Yes, it is not a fighter only feat and yes most classes can benefit for it. But when u give it to everyone the fighter looses the fact that he gets TONS of feats and could buy it easier than most and get it sooner.

Besides, if u give it to anyone it looses its charm, and ur players better be ready for the Gargantuan monster moving more then anyone in the room or flying and simply ginving ONE devastating attack that makes no sense at all.

James Jacobs wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.

I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)

It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.

When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.

There are so many yummy ones out there.

A good reason for a fighter to spend one of his feats to take Leadership and get another fighter as a cohort, I guess.

When I use a cohort as a weapon, can I use his feats when I make attacks?

You Sir, are a genius!
I just thought of a great Ettin with dual monkey navigators encounter...

DEFINATELY

The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move.

As for a FAQ ... Jason'd be the one to write and organize the FAQ, and he's currently hard at work

We'll generally be issuing errata whenever we send the book out for a new printing. We've already had one out to coincide with the 2nd printing, and a 3rd one will probably be happening pretty soon (within 3 months, I would guess).

As for a FAQ, that's more hazy. Jason'd be the one to write and organize the FAQ, and he's currently hard at work on the Advanced Player's Guide new base classes and will be for a bit longer. I'd like to get the FAQ up by February, though. Not sure if that's at all possible.

I can see how it makes sense to release Errata at the same time you're releasing a new print edition (or at least when you hand it off to the printers), but in this case, the FAQ schedule doesn't sound like it will be any earlier than the Errata/new print run which hopefully will clarify the confusing wording and out-and-out errors itself. I guess all I can say is good luck and you can probably count on a repeat customer for the "Pathfinder, 3rd Print Run, Fully Edited version". :-)

To move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?

Thanks for the answer, though it wasn't exactly the one I was hoping for.

I can see how it makes sense to release Errata at the same time you're releasing a new print edition (or at least when you hand it off to the printers), but in this case, the FAQ schedule doesn't sound like it will be any earlier than the Errata/new print run which hopefully will clarify the confusing wording and out-and-out errors itself. I guess all I can say is good luck and you can probably count on a repeat customer for the "Pathfinder, 3rd Print Run, Fully Edited version". :-)

We'll get the errata and FAQ up as soon as we can, but there are much more critical problems still in the process of being solved still, in other words.

We'll get the errata and FAQ up as soon as we can, but there are much more critical problems still in the process of being solved still, in other words.

...One thought: if an official FAQ doesn't look likely before the next Errata, it would be very useful if one of your interns could collate all the "official" rules answers you and Jason have posted on the boards into one "sticky" post. I personally wasn't able to find Jason's post re: VS + Cleave because it didn't show up in the Search system (and I already knew exactly what I was looking for). This ideally could be linked directly from the PRPG product page, as well as at the top of the "Rules Questions" section.

The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.

But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.

It wasn't ever intended to give spellcasters a way to double their damage dice, and you can expect it to be reworded in an upcoming FAQ sooner or later to enforce this role.

So you can't use it with a bow?
Thanx for the answer on vital strike and spring attack :-)

While it's not quite official, I have to say that I agree with the Spring Attack synergy as well. That's a pretty hefty feat investment, no reason to nerf. :)

James Risner wrote:

To move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?

I'd certainly let my players do that in games I run.

I'm taking your response as "officially yes they work together", please let me know if that isn't your intent.

I think he meant in his games he allows it. He has said a few times Jason is the last word on what does and does not work, so he may not see it the same way