As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two.So how does Vital Strike and the following non-full round attack options interact.
1. Cleave is a standard action and does not guarantee a second attack: Can you apply the Vital Strike (and/or Deadly Strike) benefit to the first strike(and only that one)?
Going by what Jason said means that Vital Strike uses a Standard Action which is the same action as Cleave. As you only have one Standard Action a round you can not apply both feats. Its one or the other.
2. Spring Attack has a rather mushy description, but I am pretty sure you can combine it at least with a Vital Strike. I'd also like to have some clarification if you can also combine it with Cleave and Deadly Strike. (My GMs interpretation is that Spring Attack allows you to take an standard action between your move action as long as said standard action is used as an attack action.)
You can apply Vital Strike (or Cleave but not both) to Spring Attack as worded as Spring Attack does not use any type of special action. It lets you use part of your move-action in between your Standard Action, but does not actually use up any type of action.
3. Deadly Strike is defined as "you deal double the normal damage" with an explicit exception regarding critical hits "The additional damage and bleed is not multiplied on a critical hit.". <munchkin> Does that mean that the additional dice from Vital Strike are also doubled?</munchkin>
Seriously, I don't think it does because of the critical multiplying damage rules, but the explicit exception in the feat itself is a bit irritating.
I think you mean Deadly Stroke(Combat) and if so you can not combine Deadly Stroke and Vital Strike for the same reason as Cleave. They both are standard actions and you only have one standard action a round. So again its one or the other.
|
Going by what Jason said means that Vital Strike uses a Standard Action which is the same action as Cleave. As you only have one Standard Action a round you can not apply both feats. Its one or the other.
....
They both are standard actions and you only have one standard action a round. So again its one or the other.
But why is Vital Strike defined as "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack ..." instead of the usual "As a standard action, you can make a single attack"?
For example: Using Deadly Stroke(Yea, I made a mistake it in my initial post) does not change the fact that you are using your standard action as an attack action, which would satisfy the Vital Strike prerequisites.
Wording is what some posters were concerned about, since some of the feats were pretty obscure already in Beta; I'm a bit disappointed that every one of these tactical combat feats doesn't clearly spell out which action it uses and whether it can be combined with other feats or not.
I hope there will be some sort of official blog entry or thread in which all of these obscure cases are clarified.
In regards to Vital Strike and critical hits, if I read it right and I'm playing a half-orc barbarian with a +1 flaming greataxe and I use Vital Strike and roll and confirm a critical hit I do: 4d12 + Str bonus x3 plus 1d6 fire. Yes...no?
In regards to Vital Strike and critical hits, if I read it right and I'm playing a half-orc barbarian with a +1 flaming greataxe and I use Vital Strike and roll and confirm a critical hit I do: 4d12 + Str bonus x3 plus 1d6 fire. Yes...no?
Yes.
But don't forget to multiply the +1 from the weapon.
|
In regards to Vital Strike and critical hits, if I read it right and I'm playing a half-orc barbarian with a +1 flaming greataxe and I use Vital Strike and roll and confirm a critical hit I do: 4d12 + Str bonus x3 plus 1d6 fire. Yes...no?
Normal attack +1 flaming Great Axe(sample +2 STR bonus) 1d12+1+3+1d6
Critical attack +1 flaming Great Axe(sample +2 STR bonus) 4d12+3+9+1d6Normal attack +1 flaming Great Sword(sample +2 STR bonus) 2d6+1+3+1d6
Critical attack +1 flaming Great Sword(sample +2 STR bonus) 6d6+2+6+1d6
Normal attack +1 flaming Falchion(sample +2 STR bonus) 2d4+1+3+1d6
Critical attack +1 flaming Falchion(sample +2 STR bonus) 6d4+2+6+1d6
|
Well, from what I have read so far of the feats most everything is pretty clear and spelled out. An attack action is a Standard Action. Feats that use the same kind of action are stackable (metamagic feats specifically state they are stackable). They tried doing away with stacking combat feats in the Alpha which was met with overwhelming disapproval.
I see nothing at all in the rules that says that two feats that use the same type of action are not stackable (if this were the case then metamagic feats would not be able to be stacked). If I am missing that please let me know where it is. So, since Vital Strike and Cleave both use the same kind of action they would be stackable.
Essentially the key words to look for are the action types. A standard action and attack action are stackable as an attack action is simply a specific type of standard action.
Likewise full-round actions are stackable with full-attack actions as the full-attack option is a specific type of full-round action.
Anything describing a standard action would not be stackable with a full-round action as they use mutually excluding actions.
|
|
I could be wrong but I do not believe the extra dice from vital strike get doubled by a critical hit, similar to precision damage and damage from weapon special abilities like flaming.
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Based upon the description of Vital Strike, it specifically says the extra damage from Vital Strike is not doubled on a Crit, but any OTHER damage that would be doubled is doubled as normal...
THAT will be a pain in the tookas to figure out! lol Need a chart!
..
I see nothing at all in the rules that says that two feats that use the same type of action are not stackable (if this were the case then metamagic feats would not be able to be stacked). If I am missing that please let me know where it is. So, since Vital Strike and Cleave both use the same kind of action they would be stackable.Essentially the key words to look for are the action types. A standard action and attack action are stackable as an attack action is simply a specific type of standard action.
..
Going to have to go the other way here and ask where it says you can stack multiple actions together of the same type? Your example of using Metamagic feats is not a good one as they don't have any action listed.
Empower Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.
Don't see any action listed, but Cleave and Vital Strike all list an action of Standard Action. So they each uniquely use a standard action. If standard action stacked then I could cast a spell(standard action) and make an attack with a weapon(standard action), but I can't.
As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.
Hope that helps...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If you check this.
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from
movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Yeah it is vague and I wish the feat was worded a bit better.
....
... but Cleave and Vital Strike all list an action of Standard Action. So they each uniquely use a standard action. ...Again, Vital Strike is not defined in the usual "As a standard action," way. It's description is unique and imho not very clear.
One last thing before I step back and wait for an official clarification: Can you apply Vital Strike when sundering?
You are correct that the actual feat says 'attack action' which defined in 3.5 could be used both during a full-round action or a standard action. It is how all the old Special Attacks worked which also allowed them to be used during an AoO.
But lets look at what Jason said:
As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two.
The above highlighted section means it is one of the types of action listed under Standard Actions defined on page182 or Standard Actions List on the PRD. You see that Attack is is one of the types of Standard Actions available others including: Activate Magic Item, Cast a Spell, Total Defense, and Use Special Ability.
So with that all defined and what Jason said it is meant not to stack as its a fix for melee types to do more damage when they move. This is meant to help prevent the huge need of standing in the same square and full-attacking every round.
I could be wrong but I do not believe the extra dice from vital strike get doubled by a critical hit, similar to precision damage and damage from weapon special abilities like flaming.
You are correct. Vital strike damage is not multiplied on critical hits.
However, in the example above, the weapon used, the greataxe has critical multiplier of "x3".So when vital strike is used, on a regular hit, the flaming greataxe does 2d10 + regular modifiers + 1d6 fire.
On a Crit, the flaming greataxe does 4d10 (1 from vital strike, 3 from the weapon critical modifier of x3) as well as x3 of the regular modifiers and 1d6 fire.
How about combining Scorpion Style with Vital Strike? Is it possible? Scorpion style says : "to use this feat, you must make a single unarmed attack as a standard action". Vital strike can be a single unarmed attack as a standard action. So...
Vital Strike is pretty confusing.
I am also wondering if it can be used as an AoO?
Can you use it to damage doors? Can you use power attack to damage doors?
I know it does not say so, but to me it logical that Vital strike should have the same thing like Manyshot, that against DR it is considered like two attacks. DR means 0 with Vital Strike in the game.
Actually with Vital Strike and +x weapons ignoring all kinds of DR, DR has become useless now. Maybe we should just give monsters extra 40-50 hp instead of DR now :D
Vital Strike is pretty confusing.
In fact, Paizo said that in canceling overhand chop, the fighter with a two-handed weapon would make less damage, in fact, Friday night, the fighter of the group made more damage thanks to improve vital strike :
6D6 (improve vital strike) + 2D6 for his weapon + 13. I'm not sure that having a fighter like that make the encounter very interesting.
The key words to look for to find feats that stack are "as a part of" or "when you..", or ones that don't mention an action (like Power Attack and Deadly Aim).
Vital strike, Deadly Stroke, and Cleave are all definitely out for stacking with each other. Spring Attack... I'm not sure. It doesn't use any action language, but says you can make "a single melee attack".
Edit: Vital Strike is actually a stacking feat, but it only stacks with "the attack action", not with standard actions that are attacks. So it's not that Vital strike is exclusive for stacking purposes, just that you have to be stacking it with something that uses the attack action, or adds to one, instead of a special standard action.
Edit, part deux: It's vital to remember the "Most Important Rule" of course - decide what *you* want to use/allow. Just be sure to let your player's know what you're going by.
Vital Strike is pretty confusing.
In fact, Paizo said that in canceling overhand chop, the fighter with a two-handed weapon would make less damage, in fact, Friday night, the fighter of the group made more damage thanks to improve vital strike :
6D6 (improve vital strike) + 2D6 for his weapon + 13. I'm not sure that having a fighter like that make the encounter very interesting.
I do believe that there was a math error made there.
It should have been 6D6 for the weapon damage (this includes the vital strike and the weapon damage) +13.
Vital Strike is pretty confusing.
I am also wondering if it can be used as an AoO?
Can you use it to damage doors? Can you use power attack to damage doors?
I know it does not say so, but to me it logical that Vital strike should have the same thing like Manyshot, that against DR it is considered like two attacks. DR means 0 with Vital Strike in the game.
Actually with Vital Strike and +x weapons ignoring all kinds of DR, DR has become useless now. Maybe we should just give monsters extra 40-50 hp instead of DR now :D
I am sorry to quote myself but none tried to answer my two other questions.
Or said anything about DR thing.
It should have been 6D6 for the weapon damage (this includes the vital strike and the weapon damage) +13.
You're right, it a mistake! since it's 3 times the weapon damage so 6D6! You're right, sorry :-)
I am also wondering if it can be used as an AoO?
As written? Maybe. But Jason clarified that he intended Vital Strike to only work with a standard action attack, so by his interpretation you can't.
Can you use it to damage doors?
I don't think you can combine Vital Strike with a combat maneuver like Sunder using Jason's interpretation.
Can you use power attack to damage doors?
Yes, I think you can combine Power Attack with combat maneuvers.
I am sorry to quote myself but none tried to answer my two other questions.
OK. Attacking doors out of combat is not really a combat maneuver :)
Sunder is not used to attack doors, walls and other such things. Sunder is only for worn and held items.
Now, I am wondering if Jason said anything what kind of bonus damage goes into Vital Strike. The feat is not clear. By my reading everything goes that would go when getting a critical hit against someone except Strength mod. So, Weapon enchantment (+1 to +5), power attack, weapon specialization, different fixed morale and competence bonuses, Smite evil and so on.
Any idea?
OK. Attacking doors out of combat is not really a combat maneuver :)
Sunder is not used to attack doors, walls and other such things. Sunder is only for worn and held items.
Now, I am wondering if Jason said anything what kind of bonus damage goes into Vital Strike. The feat is not clear. By my reading everything goes that would go when getting a critical hit against someone except Strength mod. So, Weapon enchantment (+1 to +5), power attack, weapon specialization, different fixed morale and competence bonuses, Smite evil and so on.
Any idea?
From everything that I have read, it is only the dice from the weapon that are affected.
That is, if you are using a longsword +5, Str of 18, and improved vital strike, your damage would be 3d8 +5+4.
The 3d8 is rolling the weapon dice 3 times.
OK. Attacking doors out of combat is not really a combat maneuver :)
Sunder is not used to attack doors, walls and other such things. Sunder is only for worn and held items.
From http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html:
"Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon."
OK. Attacking doors out of combat is not really a combat maneuver :)
Sunder is not used to attack doors, walls and other such things. Sunder is only for worn and held items.
Now, I am wondering if Jason said anything what kind of bonus damage goes into Vital Strike. The feat is not clear. By my reading everything goes that would go when getting a critical hit against someone except Strength mod. So, Weapon enchantment (+1 to +5), power attack, weapon specialization, different fixed morale and competence bonuses, Smite evil and so on.
Any idea?
From everything that I have read, it is only the dice from the weapon that are affected.
That is, if you are using a longsword +5, Str of 18, and improved vital strike, your damage would be 3d8 +5+4.
The 3d8 is rolling the weapon dice 3 times.
Then why is the text of Vital Strike so needlessly confusing? Why give specific examples or what is not counted that are same as for critical hits in addition to Strength not counting twice. And it says weapon abilities which magical +2 weapon is not its ability, power attack is also not its ability, or the weapon specialization the fighter wielding it. If only the dice of the weapon is rolled the text could have said so without giving us specific things not counted.
They could have easily said: "only add weapon dice to your standard damage damage and nothing else, for example for an attack with a 1d8+x longsword only add +1d8 for a total of 2d8+x". Was is so hard to do it this way?
Then why is the text of Vital Strike so needlessly confusing?
That I can't answer :)
I do know that often people think that they are being crystal clear, as they know the context and background of what they are talking about/expressing.
It is not always the case, as it would seem for Vital Strike.
I have followed most (if not all) of the discussion during the beta and the fighter preview threads, so I do have some of that context and background.
Okay to sum up, clarify, and address unanswered questions:
I believe the reason Vital Strike is worded: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus..." is to make it clear that it can be used as a melee, ranged, or unarmed attack action.
Think about this for a second, it makes sense. Though Cleave states nowhere in the description that the standard action is a melee attack, it's pretty clear from the prerequisites that Cleave can only be used as part of a melee attack (not to mention this is how it was stated in 3.5). But the text of the feat as it stands in Pathfinder says nothing about it being restricted as such, besides the obvious STR prerequisite along with a Power Attack (CLEARLY a melee restricted feat).
In this case Cleave is an example of a feat that can be abused because of it's ambiguity, even though I can't imagine a player who would want to exploit it. This may have been a descriptive error. But, back on topic at hand, Vital Strike was most likely worded the way it is in order to be less ambiguous about what TYPE of attack action can activate it, namely by saying outright that any such attack action does. Put another way, its worded with the intention of avoiding the debacle Cleave is currently in.*
Now, that attack action... As we've already realized through the diligence of other posters, is considered a standard action by Jason himself (something that is clear if you read the combat section).
So if we merely put some Logic 101 to work for us, it becomes clear through the brilliance of hypothetical syllogism--namely that if A=B and B=C, then A=C--Vital Strike is clearly a feat that uses a standard action to activate.
So in the interest of clarity:
(i) Vital Strike cannot be used in conjunction with any other feat that requires a standard action to activate, i.e. Scorpion style, Cleave, Deadly Stroke etc. The weird description was only to clarify that it can be activated by a ranged attack, for instance.
(ii) Vital Strike cannot be used as part of a combat maneuver, i.e. sundering a weapon.
(iii) Vital Strike CAN be used to break down a door, in the same way that I would allow a player to use cleave on three adjacent doors (as ridiculous as that sounds.)
I hope this sheds light on the issue.
*I fully recognize that the restriction of "reach" in Cleave's description may make it less ambiguous. It depends on how well a player can argue that something 100ft away is within reach, as well as their ability to convince you that the feat isn't talking about a size-based melee weapon reach. My friends are very crafty players.
OK. Attacking doors out of combat is not really a combat maneuver :)
Sunder is not used to attack doors, walls and other such things. Sunder is only for worn and held items.
Now, I am wondering if Jason said anything what kind of bonus damage goes into Vital Strike. The feat is not clear. By my reading everything goes that would go when getting a critical hit against someone except Strength mod. So, Weapon enchantment (+1 to +5), power attack, weapon specialization, different fixed morale and competence bonuses, Smite evil and so on.
Any idea?
From everything that I have read, it is only the dice from the weapon that are affected.
That is, if you are using a longsword +5, Str of 18, and improved vital strike, your damage would be 3d8 +5+4.
The 3d8 is rolling the weapon dice 3 times.
Then why is the text of Vital Strike so needlessly confusing? Why give specific examples or what is not counted that are same as for critical hits in addition to Strength not counting twice. And it says weapon abilities which magical +2 weapon is not its ability, power attack is also not its ability, or the weapon specialization the fighter wielding it. If only the dice of the weapon is rolled the text could have said so without giving us specific things not counted.
They could have easily said: "only add weapon dice to your standard damage damage and nothing else, for example for an attack with a 1d8+x longsword only add +1d8 for a total of 2d8+x". Was is so hard to do it this way?
The feat's benefit is worded in this way because the rerolled attack damage includes damage from Power Attack (and similar abilities, if any), and from weapon enhancements, which are different than weapon abilities.
A weapon enhancement is a magical bonus (from +1 to +5) that adds to your attack roll and damage roll. This IS added when you roll your weapon damage again. This is because the description of magic weapons on pg.467 clearly makes a distinction between "enhancement" and "ability;" and the feat description only prevents you from adding weapon "abilities" to the second damage roll.
A weapon ability adds something like "flaming" or "frost" and is NOT added when you roll your attack damage again.
Since Power Attack adds to "all melee damage rolls" at the cost of a penalty to "all melee attack rolls" for a round, it is applied to your damage when you use/activate Vital Strike. Since Vital Strike says you roll your attack damage again, given the various restrictions that follow, nothing is preventing you from adding the damage granted by Power Attack to that "rolled-again" damage.
So, if we have a 6th level fighter, who has the feat Power Attack, Vital strike, a STR of 16, and who also possesses a +3 flaming greatsword (weapon enhancement +2, weapon ability "flaming"), the attack would play out as follows:
Gerard (6th lvl fighter) moves 20ft to attack a Gnoll (seriously, it's always the Gnolls that'll get ya.) He declares that he is applying Power Attack and then uses his attack action (a standard action) to activate Vital Strike (because he REALLY hates Gnolls.) He hits and rolls the following damage:
2D6 +12 (+4STR*, +6PwrAtt, +2Wpn) *Strength Dmg for a two handed weapon
2D6 +8 Vital Strike (As above, minus the STR damage, as the feat states)
1D6 Fire Damage
If Gerard happened to roll a critical he would multiply 2D6+12 by 2 and roll up the rest of the damage.
Let me know if that's helpful or not.
ALSO!
I was wrong about one thing in my above post: Vital Strike CAN be used to sunder a weapon, and for any other combat menuever for that matter, as long as it says that the CM is attempted as part of an attack action.
Gerard (6th lvl fighter) moves 20ft to attack a Gnoll (seriously, it's always the Gnolls that'll get ya.) He declares that he is applying Power Attack and then uses his attack action (a standard action) to activate Vital Strike (because he REALLY hates Gnolls.) He hits and rolls the following damage:
2D6 +12 (+4STR*, +6PwrAtt, +2Wpn) *Strength Dmg for a two handed weapon
2D6 +8 Vital Strike (As above, minus the STR damage, as the feat states)
1D6 Fire Damage
Yea not exactly correct or not how Jason Bulmahn says it works. You simple roll the damage dice twice and everything is as normal rules. So in your example it would be 4d6+12 plus the 1d6 fire.
Here is the question and answer from the Vital Strike FAQ where Jason uses an example pretty similar to what you have, but with a long sword.
Q: So at 6th level and using a longsword +2 and 16 Str and power attacking (-2 to hit, +4 damage) using the Vital Strike feat would it be 2d8, +2 for the sword bonus, +4 for PA, and +3 for Str or 2d8 +4 for the sword bonus, +8 for PA and +3 for Str? And then what would the above damage be if a critical hit was rolled?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) The way to think about it is this.. roll the damage dice only twice. Everything else is as per normal. If you crit, add the crit damage normally and then roll the base dice for the weapon again and add them all together. So, in your example, the character would roll 1d8+5 attacking normally, 1d8+9 if using Power Attack, and 2d8+9 if using Power Attack and Vital Strike. On a critical hit you would roll 3d8+10 if attacking normally, 3d8+18 if using Power Attack.
Before anyone asks no I can not find the exact post Jason did anymore as its fallen out of his 'recent post' section. It was in a GM Gencon thread which I can't find. The best I can find now is someone else also referencing the post HERE.
Gerard (6th lvl fighter) moves 20ft to attack a Gnoll (seriously, it's always the Gnolls that'll get ya.) He declares that he is applying Power Attack and then uses his attack action (a standard action) to activate Vital Strike (because he REALLY hates Gnolls.) He hits and rolls the following damage:
2D6 +12 (+4STR*, +6PwrAtt, +2Wpn) *Strength Dmg for a two handed weapon
2D6 +8 Vital Strike (As above, minus the STR damage, as the feat states)
1D6 Fire DamageYea not exactly correct or not how Jason Bulmahn says it works. You simple roll the damage dice twice and everything is as normal rules. So in your example it would be 4d6+12 plus the 1d6 fire.
Here is the question and answer from the Vital Strike FAQ where Jason uses an example pretty similar to what you have, but with a long sword.
Q: So at 6th level and using a longsword +2 and 16 Str and power attacking (-2 to hit, +4 damage) using the Vital Strike feat would it be 2d8, +2 for the sword bonus, +4 for PA, and +3 for Str or 2d8 +4 for the sword bonus, +8 for PA and +3 for Str? And then what would the above damage be if a critical hit was rolled?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) The way to think about it is this.. roll the damage dice only twice. Everything else is as per normal. If you crit, add the crit damage normally and then roll the base dice for the weapon again and add them all together. So, in your example, the character would roll 1d8+5 attacking normally, 1d8+9 if using Power Attack, and 2d8+9 if using Power Attack and Vital Strike. On a critical hit you would roll 3d8+10 if attacking normally, 3d8+18 if using Power Attack.Before anyone asks no I can not find the exact post Jason did anymore as its fallen out of his 'recent post' section. It was in a GM Gencon thread which I can't find. The best I can find now is someone else also referencing the post...
But then why doesn't the feat SAY that? Clearly there are distinctions made about weapon abilities, with no mention of enhancement, and if it's just the weapon dice, then why not specifically state that. Instead it says "roll the damage dice for the ATTACK twice," if what you say is correct, it should say "roll the damage dice for your WEAPON twice." I could understand if they were trying to be clear about not adding the magic bonuses for your weapon but they clearly go into that right after. I agree that what you say seems balanced, but this is not at all what the feat states.
But then why doesn't the feat SAY...
Grin
Exactly what Archangel was asking.
My current theories is that they either decided to change it but didn't, or that they figured out after the book was sent to the printing that the feat is too powerful and nerfed it.
Archangel,
I'm thinking you're 100% right on that one.
That said, if it were my call I would allow you to use it as part of a sunder attempt, as well as to break down doors. But I really think this is one of the areas where the feat is clear... it's an attack action.
I still believe that the only change that the vital strike feat chain brings is the number of weapon dice rolled.
Currently, that is the way that it is running in my campaign. It has worked well to help overcome DR/10 good.
But then why doesn't the feat SAY that...
Because Jason is a class tinkerer, not a technical writer, and no one else at Paizo had the time or inclination to actually proofread the rules.
Now I just wish that Jason would clarify what differentiates an attack action from a standard action.
Well, I'm not Jason but I might be able to help. An Attack Action is one of the basic actions listed on the Actions in Combat table, under Standard actions, and it allows you to make a single attack, either melee, ranged, or unarmed.
Charge, and feats like cleave, do not say "you may make an attack action" they say "You may make a melee attack." Attack Actions and attacks are not synonymous (despite having a somewhat confusing name.) It might be easiest to think of Attack Action the same way you think of Full Attack, Full Attack is a full round action that allows you to make a series of attacks, in the same way Attack Actions are standard actions that allow you to make a single attack. (And Charge is a full round action that allows you to make a single attack after moving, Cleave is a standard action that allows you to potentially make two attacks, etc.)
This is also why several of the Combat Maneuvers use the wording "You can attempt to X in place of a melee attack" so that it's clear they can be used as part of a full attack action or an attack of opportunity.
Well, I'm not Jason but I might be able to help. An Attack Action is one of the basic actions listed on the Actions in Combat table, under Standard actions, and it allows you to make a single attack, either melee, ranged, or unarmed.
Charge, and feats like cleave, do not say "you may make an attack action" they say "You may make a melee attack." Attack Actions and attacks are not synonymous (despite having a somewhat confusing name.) It might be easiest to think of Attack Action the same way you think of Full Attack, Full Attack is a full round action that allows you to make a series of attacks, in the same way Attack Actions are standard actions that allow you to make a single attack. (And Charge is a full round action that allows you to make a single attack after moving, Cleave is a standard action that allows you to potentially make two attacks, etc.)
This is also why several of the Combat Maneuvers use the wording "You can attempt to X in place of a melee attack" so that it's clear they can be used as part of a full attack action or an attack of opportunity.
Oh, and I didn't mention it before, but it should be noted that this also means Spring Attack, much like Cleave and Charge, cannot be used with Vital Strike.
..
Oh, and I didn't mention it before, but it should be noted that this also means Spring Attack, much like Cleave and Charge, cannot be used with Vital Strike.
I agree with what you said except the quoted part above. Spring Attack lets you move before and after you use a melee attack. The feat itself does not use any type of action like Cleave or Charge does. So you could Spring Attack and Vital Strike or even Spring Attack and Cleave.
I agree with what you said except the quoted part above. Spring Attack lets you move before and after you use a melee attack. The feat itself does not use any type of action like Cleave or Charge does. So you could Spring Attack and Vital Strike or even Spring Attack and Cleave.
Incorrect, if you'll notice the wording on Spring Attack is:
Benefit: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
Not "an Attack action" or "a standard action."
It's possible the intent was to remove this restriction, as the 3.5 version begins with "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, ..." but if that was the intent then the rest of the wording needs errata. Considering the general trend of the other rulings on Vital Strike, I'd say it's very likely that the change in format for Spring attack was not intended to remove the restriction on it's use, but was simply a matter of formatting.
The fact that Cleave and Charge both use an action isn't the only reason you can't use vital strike with them, it's because they both specify "a melee attack" which is not just interchangeable with the Attack action.
...
Incorrect, if you'll notice the wording on Spring Attack is:Benefit: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
Not "an Attack action" or "a standard action."
It's possible the intent was to remove this restriction, as the 3.5 version begins with "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, ..." but if that was the intent then the rest of the wording needs errata. Considering the general trend of the other rulings on Vital Strike, I'd say it's very likely that the change in format for Spring attack was not intended to remove the restriction on it's use, but was simply a matter of formatting.
You defiantly have good points. So going by the next step with this logic does this mean I can't feint a target and next round use Vital Strike against them? The wording of Feint in the combat section reads "If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."
The highlighted section says melee attack so then I couldn't use vital strike as I am already using my standard action for the melee attack?
Melee attack I take to be the generic wording for doing an attack and that is what the wording in Spring Attack has. So just like you could use Vital Strike after you feinted a target you should be able to combine Spring Attack and Vital Strike.
The fact that Cleave and Charge both use an action isn't the only reason you can't use vital strike with them, it's because they both specify "a melee attack" which is not just interchangeable with the Attack action.
Actually Cleave says "As a standard action,..". It doesn't actually say anywhere "a melee attack". Which is why Vital Strike and Cleave can't be combined as they both use a Standard Action. I am not seeing the wording "melee attack" meaning the exact same thing as Standard Action. It appears this is the generic way of saying you can attack someone and its open on how you do that.
I agree with what you said except the quoted part above. Spring Attack lets you move before and after you use a melee attack. The feat itself does not use any type of action like Cleave or Charge does. So you could Spring Attack and Vital Strike or even Spring Attack and Cleave.
Incorrect, if you'll notice the wording on Spring Attack is:
Benefit: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
Not "an Attack action" or "a standard action."
It's possible the intent was to remove this restriction, as the 3.5 version begins with "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, ..." but if that was the intent then the rest of the wording needs errata. Considering the general trend of the other rulings on Vital Strike, I'd say it's very likely that the change in format for Spring attack was not intended to remove the restriction on it's use, but was simply a matter of formatting.
The fact that Cleave and Charge both use an action isn't the only reason you can't use vital strike with them, it's because they both specify "a melee attack" which is not just interchangeable with the Attack action.
I can not dispute your analysis but sincerely hope you are wrong. If vital strike can not be used with spring attack it greatly weakens the value of the feat tree. The vital strike feat tree then becomes useful in the single case of walk up to your move distance and strike. Combining it with spring attack opens up the option of a fencing style of melee which is what I was hoping for.
If vital strike can not be used with spring attack it greatly weakens the value of the feat tree.
...from "stupidly broken" to "reasonably good?"
You defiantly have good points. So going by the next step with this logic does this mean I can't feint a target and next round use Vital Strike against them? The wording of Feint in the combat section reads "If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."
The highlighted section says melee attack so then I couldn't use vital strike as I am already using my standard action for the melee attack?
You could indeed feint, then use vital strike to make the attack the following round (or this round if you have improved feint). Vital Strike may only be used when you use the Attack action, but it does still involve "making a melee attack" so you get the bonus from feint. But since it's an Attack action (which happens to be a standard action, seriously, top the Actions in Combat table in the Combat chapter) you can't just substitute it anywhere a feat or ability says "a melee attack."
Melee attack I take to be the generic wording for doing an attack and that is what the wording in Spring Attack has. So just like you could use Vital Strike after you feinted a target you should be able to combine Spring Attack and Vital Strike.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken, "melee attack" and "attack action" both have specific defined meanings, which can be found in the Combat chapter. An Attack Action can involve a melee attack (or a ranged attack, or an unarmed attack) but a melee attack cannot just be replaced by an Attack Action, otherwise you could replace all the attacks in a full attack with Attack Actions (which would have allowed you to spring attack multiple times in 3.5, and would allow you to vital strike with each attack in Pathfinder, both of which are clearly illegal and have been stated as such). You'll notice the Vital Strike description never has to explicitly state that it takes a standard action, because it's implied by the "When you use the Attack action," part of the first line.
Actually Cleave says "As a standard action,..". It doesn't actually say anywhere "a melee attack". Which is why Vital Strike and Cleave can't be combined as they both use a Standard Action. I am not seeing the wording "melee attack" meaning the exact same thing as Standard Action. It appears this is the generic way of saying you can attack someone and its open on how you do that.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
That's the part I was referring to in Cleave, with the intent of showing why it was similar to the wording in Charge, as seen below.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
There is one way in which Spring Attack and Vital strike could potentially be used together. IF Spring Attack still had the line "When you use the Attack action, ..." at the beginning of the description, then both it, and Vital Strike could apply, as both would have their conditions met if you were using the attack action with a melee weapon, but Spring Attack has had that line removed in Pathfinder.
IF that removal was unintentional, and it's errata'd back in, then yes, both would apply any time you "used the attack action with a melee weapon," Without it though, it's one or the other, as you can't just substitute in an Attack action for any mention of melee attack.