I'm not sure who this feat is intended for.
Two weapon and two-handed wielders get the most punch out of it. However a two weapon wielder will will do better with Two-Weapon Rend and a two-handed wepon wielder will do way better with Backswing.
For a sword and shield warrior or archer this feat boosts average damage per round about the same as Weapon Specialization. However, it requires a full round action, and is a combat feat. Cleave/Great Cleave will often be a better choice for the melee guy, and Rapid Shot more useful for the archer.
So, who would gain an advantage taking this feat?
Someone who's really big (and thus has a high weapon base damage)?
Someone who wants to pick up a single feat instead of a feat chain?
It seems pretty harmless to have them in there, at any rate.
People who want the flavor of a rogue without actually dipping rogue levels?
Actually, if you float around these boards like I have this is actually a mechanic that a lot of people have been clamoring for, so the fact that it was included in feat form is pretty cool (another direct example of Jason listening to us). It is supposed to benefit Two-Weapon fighters, but it also benefits normal fighters as well escpecially since power attack isn't a combat manuever so you can combine the two :)
Sorry guys, pls count a little.
Improved Vital Strike. High level feat, high level monsters. Many attacks, high ACs, DR.
A 16th level 2wp fighter with two shortswords gets much better off with two less attacks for extra 2d6 damage, because:
- the last two of his attacks have not much chance to hit anyway if the opponent has high AC
- all his other attacks bite more over DR (with less attacks more gets through)
This is a power feat guys, in the right hands. Do not underestimate pls.
Cheers
hogarth wrote: Someone who's really big (and thus has a high weapon base damage)?
Someone who wants to pick up a single feat instead of a feat chain?
It seems pretty harmless to have them in there, at any rate.
Interesting ideas.
A juvenile red dragon is 16HD and could pick up both feats. He's size large and gets lots of attacks. Being in a situation were a dragon can full attack wouldn't be highly desirable, so he wouldn't want to spend a lot of feats in that direction, but a few, just in case, would be good. Since he's CR 10, the ACs of the adventures he'll be dining on should be roughly between 20 and 35. So here's the average damage per round for the beast:
Regular Full Attack (1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, 1 tail slap)
AC 20 57.54
AC 25 42.026
AC 30 24.833
AC 35 7.639
Improved Vital Strike (as above, except the 2 wing buffets are sacrificed)
AC 20 79.349
AC 25 59.414
AC 30 35.9075
AC 35 12.401
Full Attack with Multiattack
AC 20 65.336
AC 25 49.823
AC 30 32.629
AC 35 15.435
Improved Vital Strike and Multiattack
AC 20 79.349
AC 25 61.548
AC 30 40.666
AC 35 19.785
Well, looks like we have a winner as a dragon feat. So, if your a monster and you've got one or two big natural attacks and a lot of littles ones, this is the feat for you.
As a feat for the feat starved, there are better ways to boost your characters combat ability with a single feat. Weapon Focus, which can be taken as early as first level, has a similar pay out, isn't a combat feat, and works with every attack, though it is limited to one weapon (generally not an issue).
Characters that rely on "extra" damage, such as the rogue, will occasionally be punished for using these feats. Here's the average damage per round for a 15th level rogue with Weapon Finesse and a Dex of 22 and Str of 10 flanking an enemy (sneak attack +5d6), weilding a rapier:
Regular Full Attack [+3 rapier]
AC 25 32.288 [48.701]
AC 30 17.22 [29.97]
AC 35 7.534 [14.985]
Vital Strike [+3 rapier]
AC 25 31.281 [44.136]
AC 30 18.769 [29.899]
AC 35 7.508 [15.661]
Weapon Focus (Rapier) [+3 rapier]
AC 25 35.516 [52.448]
AC 30 19.373 [33.716]
AC 35 8.61 [17.483]
As the feats stand now I think they should allow earlier entry, BAB +6 for Vital Strike, and BAB +11 for Improved Vital Strike. They just don't give a big enough boost to justify their Combat feat status at high levels. Either that, or they should have a standard damage bonus instead of multiplying damage dice (say +2d6 on each attack for VS and +4d6 on each attack for IVS), making them a useful option for high Dex, low Str warriors that aren't rogues, and maybe the occasional sword and board type, who's spend his feats elsewhere (as a paladin might).
Volsung wrote: As a feat for the feat starved, there are better ways to boost your characters combat ability with a single feat. Weapon Focus, which can be taken as early as first level, has a similar pay out, isn't a combat feat, and works with every attack, though it is limited to one weapon (generally not an issue). I was thinking more along the lines of a medium-BAB class (like a cleric, druid, or monk). For those classes, their lowest iterative attack is unlikely to hit CR-appropriate foes but their highest iterative attack(s) might. Weapon Focus wouldn't make much of a difference at that point -- increasing average damage by 5% (the benefit of Weapon Focus) will be less useful than increasing your average damage by (4.5 morningstar damage) * (50% chance of hitting with best attack) = 2.25 unless you're doing 45 damage per round. I could be wrong, though.
I really like this feat for the DMs
Like the above post said with Dragons its great its also great with Giants
Witchelf wrote: Sorry guys, pls count a little.
Improved Vital Strike. High level feat, high level monsters. Many attacks, high ACs, DR.
A 16th level 2wp fighter with two shortswords gets much better off with two less attacks for extra 2d6 damage, because:
- the last two of his attacks have not much chance to hit anyway if the opponent has high AC
- all his other attacks bite more over DR (with less attacks more gets through)
This is a power feat guys, in the right hands. Do not underestimate pls.
Cheers
If the rogue in my example switched out the rapier for a pair of short swords, and picked up TWF and ITWF:
Regular Full Attack
AC 25 48.038
AC 30 24.553
AC 35 9.6075
Vital Strike
AC 25 52.185
AC 30 27.335
AC 35 9.94
The rogue can't get Improved Vital Strike until epic levels if he continues to play a rogue.
Now an 11th level fighter, with a Dex of 20, and a Str of 14 wielding a pair of shortswords (assumed that light blades as first choice for weapon training), Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Double Slice, otherwise same feats as above:
Regular Full Attack [+2 short swords]
AC 20 33.962 [47.438]
AC 25 20.9 [31.625]
AC 30 9.928 [17.078]
Vital Strike [+2 short swords]
AC 20 36.505 [53.295]
AC 25 26.505 [37.145]
AC 30 12.555 [20.995]
Double Slice [+2 short swords]
AC 20 37.098 [49.968]
AC 25 24.035 [35.42]
AC 30 12.018 [19.608]
Two-Weapon Rend [+2 short swords]
AC 20 41.641 [55.741]
AC 25 25.718 [37.786]
AC 30 11.495 [19.848]
Note, an 11th level fighter will generally face opponents with a lower AC range.
*I'm not 100% sure I calculated the chance of a rend occurring correct, though it tracks as expected. If someone more familiar with this type of math check my work I would be grateful. Here's my formula for chance of a successful rend:
a = % chance of an unsuccessful first attack with the primary weapon
b = % chance of an unsuccessful second attack with the primary weapon
c = % chance of an unsuccessful third attack with the primary weapon
d = % chance of an unsuccessful first attack with the secondary weapon
e = % chance of an unsuccessful second attack with the secondary weapon
Rend Chance = (1-abc)*(1-de)
And finally a 16th level fighter, stats as above, except Dex 22 and with Greater Weapon Specialization, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Vital Strike
Improved Vital Strike [+3 short swords]
AC 25 61.238 [94.53]
AC 30 43.125 [83.228]
AC 35 24.15 [61.650]
AC 40 12.075 [35.963]
Two-Wepon Rend [+3 short swords]
AC 25 63.078 [109.922]
AC 30 41.203 [91.922]
AC 35 21.969 [64.365]
AC 40 11.427 [35.623]
In general it appears that Two-Weapon Rend is the better choice.
Perhaps Improved Vital Strike should just be rolled into Vital Strike so that it scales better. For each attack you give up you add 1d6 to the damage of your remaining attacks. And limit the number of attacks that can be given by character level or BAB (though, mechanically, I'm not sure the limit would be necessary as you'd quickly hit a point of diminishing returns).
hogarth wrote: Volsung wrote: As a feat for the feat starved, there are better ways to boost your characters combat ability with a single feat. Weapon Focus, which can be taken as early as first level, has a similar pay out, isn't a combat feat, and works with every attack, though it is limited to one weapon (generally not an issue). I was thinking more along the lines of a medium-BAB class (like a cleric, druid, or monk). For those classes, their lowest iterative attack is unlikely to hit CR-appropriate foes but their highest iterative attack(s) might. Weapon Focus wouldn't make much of a difference at that point -- increasing average damage by 5% (the benefit of Weapon Focus) will be less useful than increasing your average damage by (4.5 morningstar damage) * (50% chance of hitting with best attack) = 2.25 unless you're doing 45 damage per round. I could be wrong, though. Actually the lower the chance of hitting the bigger the boost in average damage a bonus to attack gives you over a bonus to damage.
Vital Strike, because it gives your lowest attack ends up on a bell curve instead of a sliding scale, where it usually peaks against things you can hit about half the time on your first attack but becomes weaker if you go in either direction from there.
Volsung wrote: Actually the lower the chance of hitting the bigger the boost in average damage a bonus to attack gives you over a bonus to damage. Let's say we have a cleric who does 6.5 damage with his morningstar (4.5 base + 2 for Str) with a 55% chance of hitting with attack #1, a 30% chance of hitting with attack #2, and a 5% chance of hitting with attack #3. The average damage is 5.85.
Vital Strike would improve that to 9.35.
Weapon Focus would improve that to 6.825.
Instead, let's suppose that the first attack only hits on a 19 or 20 (10% of the time):
Normal average is .975.
Vital Strike would improve that to 1.65.
Weapon Focus would improve that to 1.625.
So even in an extreme case, Vital Strike is better than Weapon Focus. But if we increase the amount of damage the cleric does per strike significantly, then Weapon Focus starts to look better. That's what I was trying to get at.
Joey Virtue wrote: I really like this feat for the DMs
Like the above post said with Dragons its great its also great with Giants
Actually, giants are much better off with Backswing, since they're weapon users with high Strength scores.
Here's the cloud giant (CR 11) from the SRD with each feat:
Backswing
AC 20 102.95
AC 25 82.53
AC 30 49.193
AC 35 23.52
Vital Strike
AC 20 88.06
AC 25 73.78
AC 30 49.98
AC 35 26.18
Regular Full Attack
AC 20 84
AC 25 65.52
AC 30 40.32
AC 35 20.16
hogarth wrote: Volsung wrote: Actually the lower the chance of hitting the bigger the boost in average damage a bonus to attack gives you over a bonus to damage. Let's say we have a cleric who does 6.5 damage with his morningstar (4.5 base + 2 for Str) with a 55% chance of hitting with attack #1, a 30% chance of hitting with attack #2, and a 5% chance of hitting with attack #3. The average damage is 5.85.
Vital Strike would improve that to 9.35.
Weapon Focus would improve that to 6.825.
Instead, let's suppose that the first attack only hits on a 19 or 20 (10% of the time):
Normal average is .975.
Vital Strike would improve that to 1.65.
Weapon Focus would improve that to 1.625.
So even in an extreme case, Vital Strike is better than Weapon Focus. But if we increase the amount of damage the cleric does per strike significantly, then Weapon Focus starts to look better. That's what I was trying to get at. For completeness I will calculate in critical hit chance, since Vital Strike gets a reduced benefit.
In the first instance average damage would be 6.143 for a full attack with the morningstar. Weapon Focus bumps it up to 7.166. Alternately Vital Strike bring its to 9.626.
In the second the base average is 1.365, Weapon Focus gets 1.706, and Vital Strike comes in at 1.699.
Keep in mind that you specifically picked the "sweet spot" of Vital Strike for your first example. Also, it might be nice for there to be a bigger benefit for a third string melee character, being that this cleric is at least 15th level and doing damage on par with a 1st level fighter with his full attack isn't necessarily helpful. And Weapon Focus will work out better when he brings down the Turning Smite on the Lich/Death Knight/Archfiend while under the influence of righteous might.
Usually, spellcasters who want to enter melee seem to get a bigger bang out of spells and feats tied to single attacks. Though there are a few swift action 1 round buffs that might pair well with Vital Strike. It's definitely something to think about if you're playing a multiclass fighter/spellcaster.
Recent threads in Skills & Feats
|
