|
Using Improved Vital Strike(IVS) you can trade in two of your attacks during a full-attack action to get double your base weapon dice added as precision damage. At first this sounds like a good deal, but as it turns out, it's a TRAP!
Ignoring the base feat, Vital Strike(VS), for a minute and considering the typical bonuses and buffs a high level combatant will most likely have, IVS will pull slightly ahead of a standard full-attack in expected damage output only against the highest ACs this level of character is likely to see. Only against outright epic level ACs will this feat increase expected damage as much as an additional +1 to hit would. So, yeah, taking a feat that's about only slightly more effective then Weapon Focus isn't going to help much when it's only useful when fighting something like an Atropol when you're 16th or 17th lvl.
When considering Vital Strike, the case for IVS becomes worse since I really couldn't find any non-contrived character where IVS would actually be an improvement over just VS. Using VS there's a cutoff AC above which your expected damage will be better then with a standard full-attack. Typically this occurs about in the middle of the ACs these kind of characters are likely to see. At no point in this range will IVS give you more expected damage. You usually have to go way up into the epic to see IVS actually improve on VS, and as already said, it's not going to be much help there.
Ok. Why?
First, unless you're using epic Perfect TWF, you're giving up an attack that's only -10 to hit instead of -15 to hit. Against the kind of foes this level is likely to face and given the bonuses and buffs commonly used this attack still has a reasonable chance of contributing.
Second, this attack you're giving up for IVS has already been bolstered by the extra dice from VS.
VS is flat out better then IVS.
As and illustration let's look at an actual character. Turin the Mad's Lenny the Barbarian. You can see a graph of expect damage vs AC for Lenny's various modes of full attack here. This character is pretty much typical of what I've seen with when examining IVS.
My first suggestion for fixing this would be to instead of tripling the damage dice to stick with just doubling them as with VS but to also double your bonus damage on the first attack to hit in that full-attack action. In essence, giving up two chances to hit for almost certain double damage. Now THAT would be something you can call 'improved'.
Sam
I was always of the opinion that IVS is only worthwhile for high level monks that do not hit with their second and third attack anyways and have a high number of primary attacks with Flurry, Ki Pool, possible Medusa's Wrath or even Two-Weapon Fighting. In addition they also derive more of their damage output from their damage dice than other classes, thus IVS is not that ineffective with them.
I never thought that any full base attack class in their right mind would consider taking it.
I was always of the opinion that IVS is only worthwhile for high level monks that do not hit with their second and third attack anyways [..]
It could also be worth it if your fighter has a puny extra attack that he's gladly willing to sacrifice, like a lizardfolk's bite attack.
Improved Vital Strike has a prerequisite of 16 BAB. It is meant ONLY for full BAB classes.
Considering we are burning a high level feat slot here, AND it's part of a chain, why not just tack on added benefit to Vital Strike instead of trying to work this new mechanic.
When did the idea of burning a feat slot not count towards the cost of the benefit of the feat? Especially one that costs other feats to get, and you'll have to be high level to get (so it's worth a level appropriate bonus).
How about making it so you triple weapon damage WITHOUT needing to toss out the extra attack. Or allow all flat damage bonuses to be doubled along with the weapon damage (this could have stacking problems with high Str boosted characters).
If you think about this, Imp Vital Strike has more requirements (a higher attack bonus attack is likely being burned) than Vital Strike (lowest attack bonus attack), but you end up with the same effect.
Unlike the issue with TWF getting lower powered per feat (the attack comes at higher negatives), Vital Strike is taking away attacks. And since an attack can have Enhancement, Strength, Magic Dice damage, Sneak Attack damage, any number of class/feat bonus (Weapon Spec, Favored Enemey), and Crits.... well, TWF is ADDING a whole set of those at the cost of a fixed detriment (Attack bonus). Vital strike is LOSING one of those at the benefit of a fixed bonus (weapon damage).
This is why chaining along Improved Vital Strike is leading to mediocre results.
|
I did quite a bit of playtesting with Vital Strike and discussed my thoughts in this thread. Here's a quick bullet summary.
1) VS's requirements should change from BAB+11 to BAB+6. IVS's requirements should change from BAB+16 to BAB+11. This brings both of these feats in line with the BAB breakpoints for iterative attacks (Fighter gets a second attack, he can immediately take and gain the benefit of VS).
2) A new feat, Greater Vital Strike, should be created that is the 3rd feat in the chain and requires BAB+16. It would allow a character to sacrifice 3 lower attacks to augment the remaining attack with +3 damage dice.
3) If a character with VS feats turns their multiple attacks into a single attack, allow that single attack as a standard action instead of full-round action (if they use VS feats to male multiple attacks in a single round, it's still a full-round action). Currently VS feats still penalize martial-types with the full-round action to access their higher damage potentials. Changing VS feats to allow a single attack as a standard action put the martial economy of actions more on par with casters (for who most spells [their highest damage potentials] are stadard actions).
4) TWF and VS needs to be calrified. I haven't seen any errata, so we made a judgement call on their interaction, We didn't allow sacrificing an off-hand attack to make an on-hand attack (sacrifice an on-hand to get an on-hand, or off-hand to get an off-hand). This made sense because not all TWF'ers carrying the the same weapon type (with the same damage dice and type) in both hands.
Just some thoughts.
-Skeld
|
As written TWF is the way to go on this - it shouldn't need to be house ruled as such. It almost reads like it's meant to used with TWFs (to beat DR???).No, it is even more of a trap with TWF unless your character has at least one Sun Blade, proficiency with a Bastard Sword or a Dwarven Waraxe or access to splat book feats like Oversized TWF.
Also a TWF char can not omit his lowest attacks with each hand. See Jason's posting here
How did that prevent omiting your lowest two exactly?
Actually, IIRC, the purpose of Vital and Improved Vital Strike is to get rid of itinerant attacks, because rolling a bunch of attacks slows down combat.
|
|
Actually, IIRC, the purpose of Vital and Improved Vital Strike is to get rid of itinerant attacks, because rolling a bunch of attacks slows down combat.
Also, to make the lowest BAB attacks meaningful. You potentially get to roll some of the damage from the attack that's most likely to miss to the attack that's most likely to hit. Of course, you miss out on the chance of a critical.
-Skeld
I agree with allowing VS/IVS damage to be applied to Standard Attacks.
Giving melee types a way to scale their Standard Attacks like Casters do with Spells seems definitely called for.
Also, when this was discussed earlier (before Feats/Skills), the non-Crit multiplication of VS damage was brought up.
The sentiment there was that VS bonus damage SHOULD be multiplied on Crits, but I thought of another alternative:
It's STILL not multiplied on Crits, but if you Threaten a Crit & fail to Confirm,
YOU CAN RE-CONFIRM using the "dropped" attack roll(s) (1 or 2 VS/IVS).
(This should only apply on a Full Attack Action, not Vital Strike'd Standard Attacks)
This keeps the Crits from getting super-huge, but doesn't drop your average number of Crits per round like the current VS/IVS do. Crits generally do WAY more damage at levels where you qualify for VS/IVS (counting typical Enchants & Buffs), so the current VS/IVS may not really increase your damage potential at all, counting that factor...
In it's current state, I would say that VS/IVS are more on-par with a house rule for convenience of avoiding tons of attack rolls, than a damage-boosting ability worth spending a Feat for (certain cases, like Monks, it probably works great for). If these changes are adopted, I would also agree that the bonus damage should be normalized in some way (+1d10?) so as not to create massive disparities between different Weapons, like Short Swords/ Great Swords/ Monk Attacks/ Gigantic Monsters with TONS of Attacks...
My rules lawyer player just made a guy with a bastard sword and twf shield attack (to give up) so he can be enlarged and do 4d8 with his weapon.
It seems to be good at "vital strike' it is best to have a big weapon. Not very sensible if you ask me.
If all my cloudgiants werent switching to scythes (for devastating blow of course) they would all be switching to some evil vital striking weapon.
|
|
My first post could have been more clear. My apologies.
In summary, the Vital Strike raises your expected damage against high AC foes while decreasing your expected damage against low AC foes. This cutoff usually occurs in the range of ACs the character is likely to see, so it's potentially a good tactical feat for a dedicated melee combatant.
On the other hand, Improved Vital Strike will only improve your expected damage against foes way beyond the ability of your character to handle. For all lower ACs it will reduce your expected damage below what Vital Strike will give you. It is not 'improved'.
I don't have an agenda here. I'm just pointing out what I've seen.
First, it helps overcome DR, maybe you just need scads of damage. The creatures at high levels can have DR20, immune to crits and immune to elemental damage, so the extra damage can make all the difference. (That's a harsh example, but lich's are an easy example.)
Except for the TWF characters everything I've looked at can blast through even DR20 just on the damage bonuses, so I barely even considered it. That may have been a mistake since the tax from DR increases with every hit. Shifting your damage to fewer attacks may very well increase the net damage you do against foes with DR even though your total damage output is reduced. I'll have to look at that again.
Second, it's there if the AC is high enough to warrant skipping out on the last two attacks (the 5% syndrome). Attack bonus 26, ac 36 for example, why make all the attacks?
Ok, that just never happens. A dedicated front line melee combatant at 16th or 17th level is usually going to have a total to hit bonus in the high thirties to low forties, and that's without munchkining. AC 36 is about right for these levels, but that third attack will still be relevant.
Finally, on a side note - the extra damage is not stated as being precision damage as mentioned. This is an important difference, as precision damage doesn't affect creatures that are immune to crits...
True, but given the description I think it should be precision damage.
Sam
|
|
My rules lawyer player just made a guy with a bastard sword and twf shield attack (to give up) so he can be enlarged and do 4d8 with his weapon.
I'm curious to see if this would actually help. Would you be willing to post his character so I can run the numbers?
It seems to be good at "vital strike' it is best to have a big weapon. Not very sensible if you ask me.
Kind of true. The higher your strength, the less Vital Strike helps you though.
If all my cloudgiants werent switching to scythes (for devastating blow of course) they would all be switching to some evil vital striking weapon.
OK, yeah, the high crit weapons combined with Devastating Blow are a much bigger issue than Vital strike. They'll probably just rewrite that one as a straight damage multiple. I hope.
Sam
If it may help the discussion a little, I have build a worksheet that takes critical factors in to calculate average damage.
For a conservative 16 level fighter build that I used in other simulations:
AC 25 (Armor +8, Dex +1, Defl. +1, Nat. +1, Training +4)
hp 135
Greatsword +25 (4d6+24/x)
OR
Greatsword +30/+25/+20/+15 (2d6+19 (+28 first))
OR (Imp. Vital Strike)
Greatsword +30/+25 (6d6+19 (+28 on first))
BAB +16/+11/+6/+1 ;
Abilities Str 22, Dex 13, Con 14,
Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
SQ Weapon Training +3, Armor Training +4
Feats Weapon Focus, Gr. Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec., Gr. Weapon Spec., Overhand Chop, Backswing, Devastating Blow, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike
Possessions Full Plate Armor +3, Greatsword +3, Ring of Protection +1, Amulet of Natural Armor +1
Now, using my little sheet, I calculated the damage output for different cases. As is now obvious, Devastating Strike will bring the scythe back in fashion.
But more importantly for this thread, it shows how much IVS is reducing average damage output for FA.
Taking the falchion (instead of the Greatsword) against AC 35, average damage output would be:
Backswing: 55 (29+15+8+1)
Vital Strike: 65 (36+19+10)
IVS: 64 (42+22)
So it's true that each attack using IVS will do more damage and thus help with DR.
BUT if you also go the Critical road and take Improved Critical, Critical focus and (why not?) Powerful Critical, things change quite a lot, as average damage input increases significantly for the first attacks (because of confirmation rolls).
Thus, with the same weapon, against the same opponent:
Backswing: 86 (46+25+14+1)
Vital Strike: 96 (52+28+16)
IVS: 75 (49+26)
As you can see, damage output is a lot better, and using IVS is completely counterproductive.
I thus agree with the OP, IVS is a trap. I'm not sure about the solutions presented though.
I will try and find some time to take a look at the TWF to see if it's better for him. I would be surprised, unless for specific weapons and enhancements.
DW
You don't want to use IVS with a Two-Handed Weapon. You want to use IVS if 1) you are a Monk or 2) you have the TWF Feat tree. VS and IVS don't say which attacks from which weapon you have to give up to gain the bonus damage on the rest of your attacks for the round. If you sacrifice your two lowest-striking attacks, then you can front-load the damage on your remaining attacks and do enough damage to get through DR.
|
|
You don't want to use IVS with a Two-Handed Weapon. You want to use IVS if 1) you are a Monk or 2) you have the TWF Feat tree. VS and IVS don't say which attacks from which weapon you have to give up to gain the bonus damage on the rest of your attacks for the round. If you sacrifice your two lowest-striking attacks, then you can front-load the damage on your remaining attacks and do enough damage to get through DR.
I did take another look at the numbers factoring in DR. For the TWF characters I looked at Improved Vital Strike starts to pull ahead of plain Vital Strike at around AC 45 and DR 20. Which AC 45, DR 20 critter is our poor 16th or 17th lvl combatant going to be going up against. Hell with it, Run!
I will say this though. If you take away his magic weapons, reduce his strength and debuff the TWF combatant and put him up against a foe with crit immunity then Improved Vital Strike can be an improvement over Vital Strike as you increase its DR.
Verdict: Within what I've examined Improved Vital Strike isn't as good a feat as Weapon Focus.
As for the monk... I really can't say. I'm horribly biased against that character class. I just can't bring myself to work with it enough to run the numbers. If somebody else has examined it, I'd like to see the results.
Sam
Verdict: Within what I've examined Improved Vital Strike isn't as good a feat as Weapon Focus.
So VS = good, IVS = bad? And why wouldn't IVS be as good as Weapon Focus...?
As for the monk... I really can't say. I'm horribly biased against that character class. I just can't bring myself to work with it enough to run the numbers. If somebody else has examined it, I'd like to see the results.
Given the large amount of damage that they do with their unarmed attacks at higher levels, VS and IVS really lets Monks increase their damage output - especially when they opt to blow a Ki Point to get an extra attack in conjunction with a Flurry of Blows.
Agree with sueko on the monk, for TwF IVS (depending on how the attack is dropped) can be a great thing... for ThF not so much.
|
|
So VS = good, IVS = bad? And why wouldn't IVS be as good as Weapon Focus...?
The figure of merit I'm primarily looking at is expected damage. If one plots the expected damage vs. AC you'll usually see that Vital Strike increased the area under that plot about as much as Weapon Focus, a simple +1 to hit, does. Improved Vital Strike doesn't perform nearly as well, often decreased the area to below what's yielded by a plain full attack. Is IVS bad? I can say it's rarely an improvement over VS. Several people, including you, have pointed out another factor. Increasing expected damage against DR when the damage bonus load on the attack is low. Is VS good? It's about as good as Weapon Focus, so I'll leave the answer to that up to whether one considers WF to be good or not. ;)
Given the large amount of damage that they do with their unarmed attacks at higher levels, VS and IVS really lets Monks increase their damage output - especially when they opt to blow a Ki Point to get an extra attack in conjunction with a Flurry of Blows.
All I'm saying is that if anyone has run the numbers I'd like to see them.
Sam
|
|
Agree with sueko on the monk, for TwF IVS (depending on how the attack is dropped) can be a great thing... for ThF not so much.
Yeah, looks good on paper, but since I've not played the Pathfinder monk I'm not going to agree or disagree unless I see the numbers. No big deal really. Just a little curious but not curious enought to hold my nose and do the work myself. :)
Sam
This may be my personal beef showing, but I dislike any more feats that do nothing but emphasize "bigger=better" in the game mechanics. I'd prefer a game in which a vital strike with a dagger is just as scary as a vital strike with some whatever the current fad in anime weapons is. Maybe Vital Strike, instead of adding double weapon damage dice, adds +4d6 precision-based damage; Improved Vital Strike adds +8d6. Simple, workable, and useful. Considering these feats are gained at 11th and 16th levels, respectively, those don't seem like outrageous damage adds (especially since they don't multiply on crits).
To avoid abuse by lizardfolk and such, I'd specify that you get the bonus damage with whatever weapon you give up the attacks with. This hurts TWF slightly, but they could apply the feat to both weapons, if they had Improved TWF -- and that might get pretty scary.
This may be my personal beef showing, but I dislike any more feats that do nothing but emphasize "bigger=better" in the game mechanics. I'd prefer a game in which a vital strike with a dagger is just as scary as a vital strike with some whatever the current fad in anime weapons is. Maybe Vital Strike, instead of adding double weapon damage dice, adds +4d6 precision-based damage; Improved Vital Strike adds +8d6. Simple, workable, and useful. Considering these feats are gained at 11th and 16th levels, respectively, those don't seem like outrageous damage adds (especially since they don't multiply on crits).
To avoid abuse by lizardfolk and such, I'd specify that you get the bonus damage with whatever weapon you give up the attacks with. This hurts TWF slightly, but they could apply the feat to both weapons, if they had Improved TWF -- and that might get pretty scary.
I second this motion...
'findel
|
|
VS and IVS don't say which attacks from which weapon you have to give up to gain the bonus damage on the rest of your attacks for the round.
Speaking as a DM, I wouldn't allow a TWF to give up attacks with, say, a spiked shield in order to gain longsword damage. My interpretation would be that you can only sacrifice on-hand attacks for on hand damage and off-hand attacks for off-hand damage. This also causes damage type questions to fall off the table (if your TWF'er is using a mace in one hand and a dagger in the other). However, the feat description doesn't really say one way or the other. It probably needs to be cleaned up to be more clear.
BTW Kirth, I'm a big fan of bonus d6 damage over multiple base weapon damage dice. It evens out the playing field a bit.
-Skeld