1: Vital strike works on an attack action instead of a standard action, although previous FAQs have said you can't combine it with full-round actions like charges or spring attacks .
When you cast a touch attack spell, the standard action is technically casting the spell, and then you are allowed to make a touch attack or unarmed strike as a free action.
So can the two stack?
2: the aquatic bloodline base ability (dehydrating touch) is a spell-like ability, instead of the supernatural ability I always assumed it was. So does that mean it provokes an attack of opportunity and grants a free action touch attack or unarmed strike (as opposed to the touch attack being the standard action) as with other spells?
Long story short, I'm using the Eldritch heritage feats to create an 'Old Man of the Sea' character, and I want to know how I can make dehydrating touch valid for a brawler at high levels. Dehydrating vital strike punch is my hopeful option.
|
1: Vital strike works on an attack action instead of a standard action, although previous FAQs have said you can't combine it with full-round actions like charges or spring attacks .
When you cast a touch attack spell, the standard action is technically casting the spell, and then you are allowed to make a touch attack or unarmed strike as a free action.
So can the two stack?
2: the aquatic bloodline base ability (dehydrating touch) is a spell-like ability, instead of the supernatural ability I always assumed it was. So does that mean it provokes an attack of opportunity and grants a free action touch attack or unarmed strike (as opposed to the touch attack being the standard action) as with other spells?
Long story short, I'm using the Eldritch heritage feats to create an 'Old Man of the Sea' character, and I want to know how I can make dehydrating touch valid for a brawler at high levels. Dehydrating vital strike punch is my hopeful option.
Sadly I don't believe it would because Vital Strike specifies "weapon" and while the caster is considered armed when they are using a touch attack it is not truly a weapon (same reason you cant do AoO's with them). If you were to use the spell through a Magus' Spellstrike ability I believe it would fall under the "other damage bonuses" category and thus not be multiplied either.
I'm talking about using it with an unarmed strike, which is considered a weapon.
|
|
I'm talking about using it with an unarmed strike, which is considered a weapon.
In that case, while you are armed with both an Unarmed Strike and a Dehydrating touch you cannot use both of them with the same attack. Much the same way you can't attack with both daggers with the same attack even if you are armed with two of them. One or the other for each attack.
Edit: Ah wait I'm an idiot. I forgot about that rule, you can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike. However, like my Spellstrike example, the Dehydrating touch would be in the "other bonus damage" category of Vital strike and therefore not be multiplied.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. You can cast the spell and hold the charge, then use your next turn's standard action to deliver it via an unarmed strike via Vital Strike (targeting normal AC, of course). The spell's effects would not be amplified, though, as they are not part of the base damage dice of the weapon (unarmed strike).
What you can't do is cast the spell and Vital Strike using the same standard action. Vital Strike requires you to deliver the blow using the standard action "Attack", not simply any old attack. It pretty much never stacks with other actions for that reason. (There's probably an exception somewhere....)
2. Yes. A spell-like ability works exactly like a spell except for a few specific differences in the Magic section--mainly that there are no components, armor doesn't impart a failure chance, and it cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell. It still provokes, and touch mechanics apply just as if you had cast the spell.
|
|
I just read Dehydrating Touch, I figured it had a duration like Chill touch, it does not. Since it requires a Standard action to use it and Vital Strike also requires a Standard action you wouldn't be able to do this anyway. Now Chill Touch and others with a duration would work but as I mentioned the spell damage would not be multiplied.
Edit: not "duration" but "usable more than once per casting" I mean.
|
|
Typically yeah. and more than likely does not work. Since it' specifies the weapon's damage i.e. the actual weapon.
I was pointing out a weird situation where the spell isn't a rider. Since it uses the weapon's critical stats. Someone could make an argument that they're the same weapon now.
The argument could be made at a home game true. But the OP was looking for RAW, and by RAW the spell is merely a rider much like a flaming weapon property.
The spell is still a rider even when using Spellstrike. Spellstrike has specific exceptions to the usual rules as denoted in the ability text. Those exceptions are exhaustive; there is no cause to infer anything else.
Incidentally, Spellstrike does not cause the spell to use the weapon's critical stats. It merely uses the weapon's stats to determine whether a critical hit occurs. The spell still only has a critical multiplier of x2 whether it was delivered with a sword or a scythe.
Even apart from that, Vital Strike doesn't even double damage from things like Strength bonuses. It certainly would not double the spell's damage.
You can take the attack action with a touch attack spell, on a later turn when you're holding the charge. In that case, the spell itself is the attack being used.
But most people, including me, consider the touch attack spell to not be a weapon, and therefore not valid to use with vital strike.
I'm ambivalent on that part. Touch spells are weapons here and not weapons there. It's very confusing. I do know that if it were possible, it would save a lot of spell economy (but not action economy) and make for some frighteningly strong single hits when a magus gets to Improved Vital Strike levels. I'm slightly inclined against it as a touch shouldn't work better with Vital Strike than a weapon. To me, the touch is the weapon and the spell rides the touch. But then, touch-delivered spells are multiplied on a critical hit while unarmed-strike-delivered spells are not (I think...?), so the model (maybe) falls apart there.
My question was not whether or not Vital Strike would multiply the spell damage.
My question is whether I can use vital strike with the free action unarmed strike granted by touch spells, aka, whether or not the free action unarmed strike granted by a touch spell counts as an 'attack action' for using vital strike.
I'm trying to think of situations where dehydrating touch would be useful at high levels. A Brawler with the full Vital Strike tree at 20th level is doing some 8d10 damage per attack. If that can be coupled with dehydrating touch, that's 8d10 + 1d6+10 nonlethal + sickened for a round. If not, then he'd only be doing 2d10 + 1d6+10 nonlethal + sickened per round; powerful, but I should probably make him a fighter for the Weapon Training instead (only 1d3+5 + 1d6+10 nonlethal + sickened, but it has that extra +5 to hit).
Nope. "Attack action" refers to the specific action delineated in the Combat section. It's the same reason that you can't combine Vital Strike with feats like Spring Attack or Cleave: those feats are their own specific actions that happen to have attacks involved, and Vital Strike only works with the plain old attack action.
At high levels, I wouldn't expect too much out of dehydrating touch. It's a first-level bloodline ability, after all, the rough equivalent of a 1st-level spell.
RAW, though, the free action touch attack is not part of another action; it is an attack action, reduced to a free action as opposed to the 'part of a full-round action' that constitutes the problem with Spring Attack and charging. Or at least that's what I was wondering.
Anyway, the point of the thought experiment was to find a way that the power would be a benefit at high levels as opposed to a feat tax to use the bloodline. So far the only option I can find is to use it in place of Vital Strike for a hand-to-hand Fighter; a way to boost the strength of your attack for those times you've only got a standard action to work with. Not the best option, but it saves you a feat tree.
RAW, though, the free action touch attack is not part of another action; it is an attack action, reduced to a free action as opposed to the 'part of a full-round action' that constitutes the problem with Spring Attack and charging. Or at least that's what I was wondering.
It's an attack, and it's an action, but it's not an attack action. Yes, RAW really is that pedantic.
Just to make sure something is clear. If you cast the spell you get a free touch attack. Not a free unarmed strike. So if I cast inflict wounds, I can touch attack, or hold the charge and punch next round and have it go off.
I just skimmed the thread so please excuse me if it has been brought up.
As I understand it you want to combine a bloodline ability that requires a melee touch attack with an unarmed vital strike. It that is correct you can do that by taking the Sorcerous Strike feat.
The power flowing through your veins also flows through your unarmed strike.
Prerequisite: Sorcerer bloodline class feature, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: When you gain this feat, you choose one bloodline power that you can use to affect a single opponent. If you make a successful unarmed strike against an opponent, in addition to dealing your unarmed strike damage, you can spend a swift action to deliver the effects of the chosen bloodline power to that opponent. Doing so provokes no attacks of opportunity.
Edit: Upon rereading it: I'm not sure if it works with eldritch heritage or if you really need the bloodline, as the feat prerequisites call out sorcerous bloodline class feature.
Technically, no, but a lot of GMs would allow it, I'd wager.
|
|
That would work actually. But as you say given the wording of the prerequisites you'd need to dip sorcerer for the bloodline because eldritch heritage doesn't actually give you the class feature. But other than that, it would work just fine. Though we still have the issue of the spell not multiplying on a vital strike so it's kind of moot.
With a vital strike build I'd look at the new feats grasping strike, faery strike and winter's strike. The last one is save or fatigued and by that might fit the concept.
Unless you can cast ranger or druid spells or SLA you need another feat to qualify. But some races like gnome or skinwalker should qualify through SLA. In those two cases it's speak with animals.
|
My question was not whether or not Vital Strike would multiply the spell damage.
My question is whether I can use vital strike with the free action unarmed strike granted by touch spells, aka, whether or not the free action unarmed strike granted by a touch spell counts as an 'attack action' for using vital strike.
I'm trying to think of situations where dehydrating touch would be useful at high levels. A Brawler with the full Vital Strike tree at 20th level is doing some 8d10 damage per attack. If that can be coupled with dehydrating touch, that's 8d10 + 1d6+10 nonlethal + sickened for a round. If not, then he'd only be doing 2d10 + 1d6+10 nonlethal + sickened per round; powerful, but I should probably make him a fighter for the Weapon Training instead (only 1d3+5 + 1d6+10 nonlethal + sickened, but it has that extra +5 to hit).
The free action to make a touch after casting the spell isn't an unarmed strike, so no, you may not.
If you want to do additional damage by hitting with an unarmed strike, you'll need to hold the charge until your next turn, and attack normally with your unarmed strike (in which case, the vital strike would apply to the unarmed strike damage).
EDIT: apparently my phone didn't load the whole page before I responded. Stupid phone!
Sorcerous Strike is what I was looking for, thanks. RAW it wouldn't work, but that's such a technicality of language that I'd certainly allow it in my games, and I'm confident most GMs would too.
|
Sorcerous Strike is what I was looking for, thanks. RAW it wouldn't work, but that's such a technicality of language that I'd certainly allow it in my games, and I'm confident most GMs would too.
You're confident GMs would allow you to combine Sorcerous Strike and Vital Strike?
Or you're confident that GMs would allow you to combine Sorcerous Strike and your bloodline SLA?