| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you have greater VS, does it really add only +6 damage? or is it +2 damage per die you roll, so with greater VS, you'll get +24 damage?
Dotted as I don't have my PDF's with me at work to look at the feat.
Dotted as I don't have my PDF's with me at work to look at the feat.
Benefit: Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved
Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, you gain a +2 bonus
on each extra weapon damage dice roll those feats grant
(+6 maximum). This bonus damage is multiplied on a
critical hit.
Dotted as I don't have my PDF's with me at work to look at the feat.Benefit: Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved
Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, you gain a +2 bonus
on each extra weapon damage dice roll those feats grant
(+6 maximum). This bonus damage is multiplied on a
critical hit.
so a 2 dice weapon (scythe, falchion, great sword)
vital adds 2 dice +2 each=4
improved adds 4dice +4 each =16
greater adds 6dice +6 each= 36
That's how it seems to read to me. I hate that it takes 4 feats to make Vital strike tasty (but i think it should scale with level rather than discrete feats) and then this feat would increase vital strike dice damage at a similar increase .
I think Greater adds 8 dice, since you quadruple the dice rolled.
Maybe I just suck at math.
I think Greater adds 8 dice, since you quadruple the dice rolled.
Maybe I just suck at math.
one set is from the base attack so quad *2=8 -2 for base dice = 6 dice is how in understand the interaction between feats.
But I could be an Idiot in this instance.
I find the idea of basing bonus damage on the number of dice the weapon does a little odd. Gives players weird motivations weapons wise.I think Greater adds 8 dice, since you quadruple the dice rolled.
Maybe I just suck at math.
That reminds me; I just came up with a great idea for a weapon that does 8d2 damage. ;-)
I find the idea of basing bonus damage on the number of dice the weapon does a little odd. Gives players weird motivations weapons wise.I think Greater adds 8 dice, since you quadruple the dice rolled.
Maybe I just suck at math.
Such as a Titan Mauler wielding a Huge Greatsword (since most people assume that's the intent), using this feat with Furious Finish and all the Vital Strike chain? Base damage of 4d6 would mean rolling 12 extra die :D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The key is that it is on each extra dice roll not on each extra damage die. Vital strike lets you roll the dice one extra time, improved twice, and greater three times, so the extra damage from the feat is only total +2, +4, or +6 respectively.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The key is that it is on each extra dice roll not on each extra damage die. Vital strike lets you roll the dice one extra time, improved twice, and greater three times, so the extra damage from the feat is only total +2, +4, or +6 respectively.
Hah.
Shows what I get for skimming the feat :D
Hate to imagine how many people just read it the way I did and get crazy with the 2-3 die weapons.
The key is that it is on each extra dice roll not on each extra damage die.
When I roll 8d2 damage, I roll each die separately. ;-P
(Yes, I agree with your interpretation.)
That's how it seems to read to me. I hate that it takes 4 feats to make Vital strike tasty (but i think it should scale with level rather than discrete feats) and then this feat would increase vital strike dice damage at a similar increase .
When looking at Vital Strike (which I think is great for some non-full BAB builds) one should remember monster's take feats too.
It's bad enough when a BBEG takes all three to crank out 100+ damage after moving, now imagine all high HD creatures with 1 feat doing that.
That's how it seems to read to me. I hate that it takes 4 feats to make Vital strike tasty (but i think it should scale with level rather than discrete feats) and then this feat would increase vital strike dice damage at a similar increase .
When looking at Vital Strike (which I think is great for some non-full BAB builds) one should remember monster's take feats too.
It's bad enough when a BBEG takes all three to crank out 100+ damage after moving, now imagine all high HD creatures with 1 feat doing that.
My reply is MEH good for them. If PA, CE, Deadly aim and other feats can scale with BAB so can vital strike otherwise it is too much of a feat tax, it cannot be combined with spring attack which is where it would be really gross for monsters and PC's both so it needs a lot of retooling/ reworking.
Especially if this feat only adds 2,4 or 6 damage meaning those 38 str behemoths aren't getting 4 attacks worth of flat top bonuses on vital strike (remember flats don't get multiplied) you may be better off this way.
My response was based on damage dice, thank you, not flat damage.
Vital Strike adding 2,4, or 6 damage would be what weapon? A PC's itty-bitty weapon? There's no argument that for medium creatures it's probably only the big weapon 3/4BAB people who benefit enough to take it.
(Tumble, smack; smack, tumble)
But Vital Strike is far more dangerous in the hands of monsters.
I'm talking about two-handed weapons in the hands of Huge or larger creatures (4d6+) or 4d10 bites, etc. There are many creatures in the Bestiaries that have Vital Strike (once, for 14-21+ damage), that would be tagging on another 28-42+ damage if you based Vital Strike on BAB. Some of them have only one or two attacks anyway so have little or no reason to full attack, especially if bonus Vital Strike damage is higher than their other attack.
Move in, smack (with reach most likely). Smack, move away (trading opportunity attack for iterative attacks and gaining opportunity attack and probably better positioning.)
I suspect the reason these creatures don't have all three Vital Strike feats (they could) is to keep them doing reasonable damage for their CR. Altering Vital Strike would require altering these monsters to keep them within CR guidelines (and maybe because PCs would have to save against death from massive damage every hit.)
As single attacks go, this is much more of an effect than PA, CE, or Deadly Aim could possibly achieve. (Full attacks are another matter.)
So, yes, I agree it's not a perfect feat, but the fix I keep hearing on these boards is too PC-centric. Plus I think it can work with Flyby Attack. (Add reach, and ouch!)
(Personally, I think Vital Strike should work with Spring Attack too. That'd probably make it worth it to more classes, even if they had to take it 3x.)
My response was based on damage dice, thank you, not flat damage.
Vital Strike adding 2,4, or 6 damage would be what weapon? A PC's itty-bitty weapon? There's no argument that for medium creatures it's probably only the big weapon 3/4BAB people who benefit enough to take it.
(Tumble, smack; smack, tumble)
Can you post a creature that has it in their stat block from the bestiary A) it seems like you are blending critters in your argument and I'd rather look at specifics B)I want to see what cases have you concerned.
I will say however that as so many people on the board feel like this game is "caster edition" which implies even melee monsters are not level appropriate threats perhaps that's what melee monsters need to be challenging (IE a real resource drain on a party).
One: Thank you, Dragonsong, for giving me an excuse to immerse myself in the Bestiaries. Apologies on the tardy response. Life, ya' know.
Two: Re: "caster edition", I think melee characters got the better boosts from the changes in PF. I also think the new concentration rules make it harder on casters in a pressed battle. Whether it's a "caster game" though, don't know. Yes, I hear it a lot (and it 'should be' given the rules as I see them) but in practice it's the fighter-types (and versatile Druids) in my games that usually have the bigger impacts in monster battles.
Three: Here are the damage stats on the monsters in question who would leap in power if Vital Strike were changed.
Iter.=iterative attacks
Name Full Attack Vital Strike Revised Vital Strike
Piscodaemon 36.5 21 28
Elder Ice Elem. 42 (+coldx2) 32 (+cold) 54 (+cold)
Elder Magma El. 37 (+burnx2) 29 (+burn) 50 (+burn)
Taiga Giant 25.5 (x3 iter.)36 46.5
(Note they use inferior weapons. With martial weapons it's worse.)
Leng Spider Lots 31 67
Sard 76 (+elec) 60 (+elec) 102 (+elec)
So, yeah, several of the creatures would be better off not full attacking, just using Vital Strike and keeping mobile (to nail casters). All of those examples have Vital Strike. I'd have more examples, but even more monsters took the full set of three (most giving up Critical Mastery feats to do so.)
Four: Here's a list of monsters that would explode in power if given a revised Vital Strike, and then took it.
Frost Worm (swap Stand Still) 37 (+cold) becomes 103 (+cold)
Barbed Devil 30 (+fear/grabx2) becomes 33 (+fear/grab)
(Also fierce if Fighter 1 added with Improved Natural Attack/Vital Strike, 39 Full Attack becomes 46.5 Vital Strike)
Most any 'big single attack' creature becomes horrendous (or at least a CR higher): Purple Worms, Xorn, Nightshades, Nessian Hell Hounds, T-Rexes, et al.
Plus, creatures with Gargantuan Martial Weapons (Cloud Giants with Martial Prof., Rune Giants with a better sword) can also deal a whopping amount of damage. (+6d6 with Vital Strike. +12-18d6 if revised.)
Standing toe-to-toe with the warriors, it's a bad boost. Couple it with movement toward the arcane casters and it's game-changing.
Okay, you might be saying these are (mostly) high CR monsters.
Then note the DPR per CR increase is 5 maximum from CR 6-15. At 16 it doubles to 10 maximum per CR increase. (Bestiary, p. 295) That's not much, and this feat as written already bumps past that. Revised, it'd be much worse.
Five: Minor point. Equating PA, CE, & Deadly Aim to Vital Strike feels a bit off. CE is a different (defensive) beast. PA & DA both give penalties with each increase in damage, penalties which may create a miss (which matters to 3/4 BAB melee PCs). The feats are dissimilar enough, one could apply the "increase with BAB" logic to having most any combat feat scale with BAB.
Six: So, Vital Strike may need fixing (I'm on the fence on that), but I don't see the BAB progression doing that. Unless perhaps giving up iterative attacks increased Vital Strike damage or only being able to use it with manufactured weapons/unarmed strikes. Maybe then there'd be less potential for abuse by monsters (and their makers.)
And yes, some of those monsters can already be made too powerful with the current feat options. Which is why I really like the Bestiary's Monster Advancement section. Should be required reading for all DMs.
Seven: Perhaps in the next edition Vital Strike will be more of a factor, i.e. Frost Worms take it, but have a smaller (read: normal for their size) base bite damage, to come out within their CR range for damage in the end.
Anyway, thank you for calling me on the issue, Dragonsong. My 100 points damage was a bit overzealous. :)
JMK
Hey, that's a damage bonus, right?
So, it's not multiplied by using vital strike, it just requires vital strike to function.
Mythic vital strike, however, lets you multiply extra damage that is on the list it gives or which is multiplied by a critical hit.
See where I'm going with this?
As someone who'll be playing a paladin who'll go mythic at some point, I'm so glad I fond this feat.