im confused by all the confusion....
the description says:
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
"When you use the attack action"
doesnt say full round, doesnt say all your attacks.....when you use the action called ATTACK under the list of types of ACTIONS. seems crystal clear.
"Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice"
doesnt say add enchant bonus, doesnt say add strength bonus... in fact doesnt even say BASe weapon damage. it DOES say "weapon's damage dice"; and THEN goes on to instruct further ..."add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses."...again...crystal clear.
and knowing there would be questions about crits they included:
"These extra weapon damage dice(using this term instead of base damage AGAIN) are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."
sssooo.. no talk of spells. or addingit to annything other than the one and only attack made with a weapon as part of a standard action.
I can see the power attack damage adding in AFTER the vital strike extra weapon die(ce) for damage is rolled, or it working with any other feat that moidifies a single standard action, used for a single attack, but not requiring a standard action of its own (no spring attack or charge as they state full round)
{
angryscrub
jreyst wrote:
...snip...
Q: How does Vital Strike effect weapon-like spells (ie Chill Touch, Inflict Light Wounds)?
A: (James Jacobs 11/5/09) 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.[Source]
A: (James Jacobs 11/6/09) Vital Strike 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.
...snip...
"heh. that's funny. he's basically saying that as worded it does give extra damage to spells but they're gonna errata it. i do wonder how that happened, because the wording almost looks like they went out of their way to let it apply to spells." }
See.....postings like this make me think this isnt a confusion issue, its a literacy issue. the "snipped" sections obviously stated the feat does NOT, nor was it ever intended to, add to spell damage. I cant fathom how the poster above takes away some hinted at secret meaning when James Jacobs outright says no to the feat affecting spell damage...UNLESS IT WORKS LIKE A WEAPON (that seems to imply acid arrow and similar spells, NOT touch based attacks that deliver spell damage)
im very confused by the confusion. I dont see it as a wording issue, but a literacy issue and/or min/max attempt issue.
