Say I have Vital Strike (normal, improved or greater doesn't make difference for the question) and Cleave (again, greater or not doesn't matter).
I have two or more creatures in my reach, and I choose to strike with Vital Strike one of them. I hit, so I'm allowed to attack one more creature thanks to Cleave. Now, since the first attack was a Vital Strike, may I apply that feat again in the Cleave-given attacks, or will they all be normal ones?
I can imagine the answer, but maybe someone can bring up some evidence to make it totally clear.
|
Say I have Vital Strike (normal, improved or greater doesn't make difference for the question) and Cleave (again, greater or not doesn't matter).
I have two or more creatures in my reach, and I choose to strike with Vital Strike one of them. I hit, so I'm allowed to attack one more creature thanks to Cleave. Now, since the first attack was a Vital Strike, may I apply that feat again in the Cleave-given attacks, or will they all be normal ones?I can imagine the answer, but maybe someone can bring up some evidence to make it totally clear.
Cleave is a Standard action. It does not activate automatically as it did in 3.5. You cannot use it with Vital Strike.
From what I can tell you're allowed to use Vital Strike as the 2nd hit, but not the first.
Here's my reasoning: You attack (choosing Cleave as your attack type), and hit. It gives you one attack action, which you use to Vital Strike.
The only thing that would change this is if you interpreted it as you don't get to substitute an attack modifying feat to the 2nd feat (It doesn't explicitly say so in the feat text, but it could say so elsewhere in the book). At that point you can't add it to it.
Either way you can't use it on both attacks for sure.
Cleave is a Standard action. It does not activate automatically as it did in 3.5. You cannot use it with Vital Strike.
Right, thanks.
From what I can tell you're allowed to use Vital Strike as the 2nd hit, but not the first.
...
How did you come to that conclusion?
How did you come to that conclusion?From what I can tell you're allowed to use Vital Strike as the 2nd hit, but not the first.
...
You responded while I was editing my post to make more sense. Look above for my thought process.
From what I can tell you're allowed to use Vital Strike as the 2nd hit, but not the first.
Here's my reasoning: You attack (choosing Cleave as your attack type), and hit. It gives you one attack action, which you use to Vital Strike.
The only thing that would change this is if you interpreted it as you don't get to substitute an attack modifying feat to the 2nd feat (It doesn't explicitly say so in the feat text, but it could say so elsewhere in the book). At that point you can't add it to it.
Either way you can't use it on both attacks for sure.
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.
Cleave will give you an additional attack, not an additional attack action.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Cleave will give you an additional attack, not an additional attack action.
+1
You can't Vital Strike with Cleave, Charge, Attack of Opportunity, and many more.
The status of Vital Strike on Spring Attack has went from "officially no" to "unofficially yes and we may errata it to yes." So while it appears Spring Attack my be changed to say "an attack action" to allow Vital Strike (or maybe they will just change VS?)
You can't Vital Strike with Cleave, Charge, Attack of Opportunity, and many more.
The status of Vital Strike on Spring Attack has went from "officially no" to "unofficially yes and we may errata it to yes." So while it appears Spring Attack my be changed to say "an attack action" to allow Vital Strike (or maybe they will just change VS?)
But for now it is an "official no".
Cleave will give you an additional attack, not an additional attack action.+1
You can't Vital Strike with Cleave, Charge, Attack of Opportunity, and many more.
The status of Vital Strike on Spring Attack has went from "officially no" to "unofficially yes and we may errata it to yes." So while it appears Spring Attack my be changed to say "an attack action" to allow Vital Strike (or maybe they will just change VS?)
Spring Attack must be corrected anyway as there is no action asociated now, and if you didn't know anything about previous versions you could think that the whole Move+Attack is an standard action.
So now they can say it is Move Action plus (Standard) Attack Action, opening it to the use of VS; or a full-round action, as is Shot on the Run. If they say it is M+A, I think they should change SotR also so both feats share the same mechanic.
The status of Vital Strike on Spring Attack has went from "officially no" to "unofficially yes and we may errata it to yes." So while it appears Spring Attack my be changed to say "an attack action" to allow Vital Strike (or maybe they will just change VS?)
Can you let me know where that got said? I read every post Jason Bulmahn and James Jacobs make every day and I never saw anything about spring attack either way.
So a link to where it got said would be really great.
Thanks
When it comes to vital strike and spring attack it seems pretty clear to me.
Spring attack allow to take a melee attack. Melee attack is an standard action called attack(Melee). Vital strike can be applied to any attack action which there are 3 attack(Melee), Attack(ranged), and Attack(unarmed). So since you get to make an Attack(Melee) with spring attack then vital strike can be applied to it. Seems pretty clear to me. What with official/unofficial stuff. Don't you just use it as written?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Can you let me know where that got said?
I don't have a link, but it was in a SA+Spring thread about 2 or 3 weeks ago where JJ came along to say that it appeared they were going to allow it, but as it stands now the text doesn't allow you to VS on a Spring Attack and they were going to errata something to make it so you could combine them.
So it is sort of a paraphrase of "no you can't combine by RAW now but they should work so they will" thing.
Don't you just use it as written?
It doesn't look like anybody who "just use(s) it as written" according to a common-sense interpretation is using it as INTENDED. But you have to basically be stalker of JJ and JB's posts on the topic (not all of which show up in Paizo Search) to have discovered the VERY particular terminology and nuances which are behind the intent. Spring Attack simply doesn't have a defined Action Type AT ALL: (Standard) Attack Actions, "special" Standard Action Attacks (Cleave, etc), the component Iterative Attacks of a Full Attack Action, Attacks of Opportunities, and even hypothetical Swift Action attacks ALL qualify as "attacks" (or "melee attacks"). If you ASSUME Spring Atttack uses the same Action Type as 3.5 it WOULD work with VS, but PRPG currently doesn't say at all (which impacts total Action Economy, not just Vital Strike). ...Slightly bizarre thing to overlook, given PRPG made these specific Action Type distinctions so much more important than 3.5. But it sounds like Errata will be coming out sooner rather than later (after some more APG Class Previews are released).
When it comes to vital strike and spring attack it seems pretty clear to me.
Spring attack allow to take a melee attack. Melee attack is an standard action called attack(Melee). Vital strike can be applied to any attack action which there are 3 attack(Melee), Attack(ranged), and Attack(unarmed). So since you get to make an Attack(Melee) with spring attack then vital strike can be applied to it. Seems pretty clear to me. What with official/unofficial stuff. Don't you just use it as written?
A melee attack is not a standard action called attack. The attack action allows you to make one attack (melee or ranged); the full-attack action allows you to make several attacks; cleave is an standard action that allows you to make one attack, and possibly another one; ...and spring attack is an unkonwn action that allows you to make one attack and a move... or maybe its not an action but two actions that can be combined.
So for now, spring attack does not allow an attack action but a single melee attack. VS can be combined with an attack action; but it can't be used with any kind of attack.
The most similar maneuver, for me, is Shot on the Run, which is a full-round action that allows a ranged attack. This clearly makes it impossible to use the attack action (standard), and thus the VS feat does not apply. I am taking this approach for Spring attack, as I think both feats should share the same mechanic.
When it comes to vital strike and spring attack it seems pretty clear to me.
Spring attack allow to take a melee attack. Melee attack is an standard action called attack(Melee). Vital strike can be applied to any attack action which there are 3 attack(Melee), Attack(ranged), and Attack(unarmed). So since you get to make an Attack(Melee) with spring attack then vital strike can be applied to it. Seems pretty clear to me. What with official/unofficial stuff. Don't you just use it as written?
A melee attack is not a standard action called attack. The attack action allows you to make one attack (melee or ranged); the full-attack action allows you to make several attacks; cleave is an standard action that allows you to make one attack, and possibly another one; ...and spring attack is an unkonwn action that allows you to make one attack and a move... or maybe its not an action but two actions that can be combined.
So for now, spring attack does not allow an attack action but a single melee attack. VS can be combined with an attack action; but it can't be used with any kind of attack.
The most similar maneuver, for me, is Shot on the Run, which is a full-round action that allows a ranged attack. This clearly makes it impossible to use the attack action (standard), and thus the VS feat does not apply. I am taking this approach for Spring attack, as I think both feats should share the same mechanic.
Check it out in the PRD. It's right there under Standard actions> Attack > Melee attacks. So all melee attacks are standard actions. Under standard Action it defines attack as standard action. Attack defines 4 attacks which are Melee attacks, Unarmed Attacks, Ranged Attacks, and Natural Attacks. So Melee attack is an attack action and all attack actions are standard actions. Further down they defines exceptions like multiple attacks and reference full round actions.
When it comes to vital strike it applies to attack action which are defined at follows:
ATTACK: Making an attack is a standard action.
Spring attack allows you to take Melee attack which is defined under attack as follows:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike an opponent within 5 feet....
This is a sub group of the Attack action. So with spring attack you make a melee attack which as defined is an attack action and therefore Vital strike can be applied.
Spring attack with vital strike to me is quite clear. spring attack with Cleave on the other hand isn't because what is Cleave. We know it's standard action. But is that an attack action. You are attacking but is Cleave it's own action allowing for it to stand alone like Charge or is it just an added sub group to the types of attack you can make with standard action using the Attack action. It's not clear but I'd take it as similar to charge and you can't use Vital strike with it but it's no where near black and white like spring attack is.
As for Shot on the Run you are right. It's full round action and not an Attack Action as defined so Vital Strike would not apply.
Now because both are similar I can see you logic in thinking they should be the same. Maybe the was intention or maybe not based on what I've read about the yes it's allow no it's not yes it probably is sort ruling by Paizo staff. I'll go with how the book states it is and leave it at that till an errata comes out though.