nuff said really
Strange as it may seem, by the Raw as I understand it, it would work... Sadly.
On another note, how would a Improved Critical work with rays?
Improved Critical (Rays)? That's the way I see it.
No. You never use the attack action with a ray; the attack roll is part of casting the spell (or otherwise activating the ability).
Touch spell after holding the charge, yes. Also produce flame ranged attacks. But not disintegrate, sorry. :)
Xum: it's Improved Critical (ranged touch), I believe.
Concur... Makes sense.
|
In my head, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike both require full-attack actions, and sacrifice the iterative attacks to add the bonus damage to a single attack. That would preclude spell attacks, since none of them can be used as part of a full-attack / iterative attack situation (barring the Warrior of White Flame PrC, anyway), not even those that get multiple rays, like scorching ray. Possible exceptions even under this interpretation of Vital Strike would be chill touch or one of the other touch attack spells, like inflict moderate wounds.
Of course, in the text in my book, nothing of the sort is said, and I could theoretically Vital Strike with each of my iterative attacks in a full-attack action. Funky. Eye-opening, even.
Under the much-more-powerful-than-I-thought rules, if you have to make an attack roll, it's an attack, as I understand it, so a scorching ray should be quite suitable for Vital Strike use.
The mention of produce flame, upthread, makes me want to introduce a special training or item of some sort that allowed a spellcaster to surge the effects of a spell that normally lasts an extended period of time and allows multiple low-damage attacks (chill touch, melf's minute meteor, produce flame, call lightning, etc.) to be expended all at once as a larger single attack.
You can't make a Scorching Ray attack with the "Attack Action", so no Vital Strike.
When is the Errata on this (and everything else) scheduled to come out?
Even a ball-park figure would be nice.
Would be good to stop that gleam in the sorcerous necromancers eye ever since he got vampiric touch as I know his planning a massive whiney assault when he gets to +6 BAB .. joy !!
Err... actually, vampiric touch with Vital Strike is 100% kosher. You have to cast it one round (or quicken it), then spend a subsequent standard action on The Attack Action, Activating Vital Strike (trademark, patent pending).
In other words, you can get resource efficiency at the expense of action efficiency. It's actually one of the most "balanced" trade-offs the system has to offer.
Not to dash people's hopes, but I was just mentioning the Standard Acton Casting =/= Vital Strike in addition to James' comment. The Feat is being re-worded, but from James and Jason's comments, only 'weapon damage' will be multiplied. Flame Blade is a unique spell in that it counts as a weapon. Most don't.
Creative Director
|
When is the Errata on this (and everything else) scheduled to come out?
Even a ball-park figure would be nice.
We'll generally be issuing errata whenever we send the book out for a new printing. We've already had one out to coincide with the 2nd printing, and a 3rd one will probably be happening pretty soon (within 3 months, I would guess).
As for a FAQ, that's more hazy. Jason'd be the one to write and organize the FAQ, and he's currently hard at work on the Advanced Player's Guide new base classes and will be for a bit longer. I'd like to get the FAQ up by February, though. Not sure if that's at all possible.
|
Creative Director
|
Vital Strike probably DOES need to be reworded. But yeah... it's not supposed to work with spells. Just weapons. And spells that are functionaly weapons, which are pretty rare. Flame blade counts, since it says it's "wielded as a scimitar," but something like vampiric strike does not count.
In my head, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike both require full-attack actions
I see them as the move-and-strike alternative to full attacks.
|
Creative Director
|
The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.
But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.
It 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.
|
Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)
It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.
These are pretty obviously meant for fighters right? 3 Feats is 15% of total feats taken in the fighter class progression to level 20, taken for an increase of 4 times base dice at its highest iteration? And you can add critical threat stuff to it if you crit?
That seems like a lot to me...for a fighter who is still moving. I am not trying to be snarky or anything at all but am I one of the only people that thinks that seems sort of fair?
I turned them into bonus feats for everyone who has the necessary BAB. I also changed it that whenever you can make only one attack with a weapon against one target, you get to use it.
Move and attack, spring attack, wingover - the works.
I turned them into bonus feats for everyone who has the necessary BAB. I also changed it that whenever you can make only one attack with a weapon against one target, you get to use it.
Move and attack, spring attack, wingover - the works.
Too powerfull, it steal the Fighters Thunder. If anyone can do it, they get nothing new, the way it is is fine by me, maybe one less feat in the chain. But that's pretty much it.
Too powerfull, it steal the Fighters Thunder. If anyone can do it, they get nothing new, the way it is is fine by me, maybe one less feat in the chain. But that's pretty much it.I turned them into bonus feats for everyone who has the necessary BAB. I also changed it that whenever you can make only one attack with a weapon against one target, you get to use it.
Move and attack, spring attack, wingover - the works.
I don't consider them fighter feats. I consider them warrior feats. Fighters aren't the only ones who want to stay mobile. In fact, rogues and rangers fit the profile better.
Fighters have weapon training and feats that only they can use, some of which are quite nice. And they still get tons of feats.
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.
I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)
It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.
When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.
When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.
I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)
It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.
There are so many yummy ones out there.
|
Creative Director
|
There are so many yummy ones out there.When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.
I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)
It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.
A good reason for a fighter to spend one of his feats to take Leadership and get another fighter as a cohort, I guess.
A good reason for a fighter to spend one of his feats to take Leadership and get another fighter as a cohort, I guess.There are so many yummy ones out there.When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.
I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)
It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.
When I use a cohort as a weapon, can I use his feats when I make attacks?
I did idly stat up a 13th-level fighter the other day (just a small study to see what he'd be capable of - my Dervish Dance paladin/duelist has been accused of being too powerful, and by extension the paladin and his new smite evil, so I wanted to show them what kinds of hurt a straight fighter could give to people with every single attack.
I found that trying to juggle getting all the weapon enhancer feats (Weapon Focus and follow-ups) some critical feats and the Disruptive and Dazzling Display chains is quite the challenge.
Even a fighter has to make choices, he can't have everything.
He can have a nice init, several strong attacks (with both attack and damage being close to the Dervish's gala performance, and that all the time) ouchy crit rider effects, ways to build up killer combos or work well together with others (dazzling display) and make spellcasters really hate them (Step Up, Disruptive, Spellbreaker).
The spellcaster who lets that one catch him with his pants down is a dead spellcaster.
Yes, it is not a fighter only feat and yes most classes can benefit for it. But when u give it to everyone the fighter looses the fact that he gets TONS of feats and could buy it easier than most and get it sooner.
Besides, if u give it to anyone it looses its charm, and ur players better be ready for the Gargantuan monster moving more then anyone in the room or flying and simply ginving ONE devastating attack that makes no sense at all.
|
Creative Director
|
A good reason for a fighter to spend one of his feats to take Leadership and get another fighter as a cohort, I guess.There are so many yummy ones out there.When you're getting 1 feat per level (like fighters do), spending 3 feats is not as huge an investment by 16th level as one might think.Yeah, and then you expect them to spend 3 feats to get this modest benefit.
I just don't see the value equalling the cost. 3 feats is a HUGE investment to get an extra 6d6 damage only on standard actions (and then only assuming a greatsword)
It's just one feat that scales with BAB in my campaign.
When I use a cohort as a weapon, can I use his feats when I make attacks?
If your GM lets you get away with that, you should DEFINATELY hire a size Tiny creature to ride around on your head (a familiar works great) and then use all the mounted combat feats to your advantage.
You Sir, are a genius!
I just thought of a great Ettin with dual monkey navigators encounter...
DEFINATELY
This makes baby Pun-Pun cry. :(
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move.
To move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?
As for a FAQ ... Jason'd be the one to write and organize the FAQ, and he's currently hard at work
I'd volunteer to write/organize one (for free) if given the answers to pointed questions. I'm sure many others would.
We'll generally be issuing errata whenever we send the book out for a new printing. We've already had one out to coincide with the 2nd printing, and a 3rd one will probably be happening pretty soon (within 3 months, I would guess).
As for a FAQ, that's more hazy. Jason'd be the one to write and organize the FAQ, and he's currently hard at work on the Advanced Player's Guide new base classes and will be for a bit longer. I'd like to get the FAQ up by February, though. Not sure if that's at all possible.
Thanks for the answer, though it wasn't exactly the one I was hoping for.
I can see how it makes sense to release Errata at the same time you're releasing a new print edition (or at least when you hand it off to the printers), but in this case, the FAQ schedule doesn't sound like it will be any earlier than the Errata/new print run which hopefully will clarify the confusing wording and out-and-out errors itself. I guess all I can say is good luck and you can probably count on a repeat customer for the "Pathfinder, 3rd Print Run, Fully Edited version". :-)
|
Creative Director
|
Thanks for the answer, though it wasn't exactly the one I was hoping for.
I can see how it makes sense to release Errata at the same time you're releasing a new print edition (or at least when you hand it off to the printers), but in this case, the FAQ schedule doesn't sound like it will be any earlier than the Errata/new print run which hopefully will clarify the confusing wording and out-and-out errors itself. I guess all I can say is good luck and you can probably count on a repeat customer for the "Pathfinder, 3rd Print Run, Fully Edited version". :-)
Errata is important to us... but not as important as getting our other books back on schedule and, hopefully, STICKING to the schedule. It's bad enough when folks who expect things to come out monthly end up having their "monthly" subscriptions bunching up with only a couple of weeks apart, or going for a month or even two with nothing... but at our end it REALLY wreaks havoc on our print schedules, cash flow, payment cycles, work flow, and various other parts of the job.
We'll get the errata and FAQ up as soon as we can, but there are much more critical problems still in the process of being solved still, in other words.
We'll get the errata and FAQ up as soon as we can, but there are much more critical problems still in the process of being solved still, in other words.
Sure thing.
And I know there's ALOT of Erratas that AREN'T necessarily such "burning issues" as Vital Strike/Spring Attack (say, incomplete Avalanche rules), but finalizing all those changes to roll into one big Errata in sync with the 3rd print run probably makes the most sense for many reasons....One thought: if an official FAQ doesn't look likely before the next Errata, it would be very useful if one of your interns could collate all the "official" rules answers you and Jason have posted on the boards into one "sticky" post. I personally wasn't able to find Jason's post re: VS + Cleave because it didn't show up in the Search system (and I already knew exactly what I was looking for). This ideally could be linked directly from the PRPG product page, as well as at the top of the "Rules Questions" section.
The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.
But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.
It 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.
So you can't use it with a bow?
Thanx for the answer on vital strike and spring attack :-)| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So you can't use it with a bow?
Thanx for the answer on vital strike and spring attack :-)
I see nothing which procludes the use of a bow, and I actually think it's important that ranged attacks are included. If you assume walls or trees instead of a flat plain, a bow-user will frequently suffer the same "need to move, can't full attack" issue as a melee combatant.
While it's not quite official, I have to say that I agree with the Spring Attack synergy as well. That's a pretty hefty feat investment, no reason to nerf. :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
To move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?I'd certainly let my players do that in games I run.
So I take it that the official (FAQ) answer is it works together? This has been asked a ton of times and many answers have been given peripheral to this question, but this is the first answer specific to this direct question.
I'm taking your response as "officially yes they work together", please let me know if that isn't your intent.
I think he meant in his games he allows it. He has said a few times Jason is the last word on what does and does not work, so he may not see it the same way
@ porpentine
Well I was talking about Patfinder, not 3.5
RAW spring attack is not an attack action nor standard action or standrad attack action, so RAW in Pathfinder SA + Vital is OK.
As James Risner put it: "Attack Action" is a Standard Action and not "any action that provides an attack."
Talking 3.5 only confuse stuff since Pathfinder have changed some rules/feats. Cleave for one.
Edit: I think SA and Shot on the Run feat probably works the same way. They are probably both a full-round action.
Move with a standard attack/attack action in the middle of a move.
Here is a quote from James, link
To move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?I'd certainly let my players do that in games I run.
Ignore my last post it was meant for another thread.