My level 7 fighter in Pathfinder currently has a full attack bonus of +12/+7 when I power attack. If I were to take Vital Strike as my 7th level feat what would my attack action look like? The wording on the feat seems ambiguous and leads me to believe it would either be +12/+12(2x weapon damage)/+7 or simply +12 with double weapon damage.
from the pathfinder SRD:
Vital Strike (Combat)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more
damage than normal.Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: 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).
The first option seems rather overpowered and the 2nd seems rather lackluster at this level (although it seems the more likely option based on other feats similar to this one), but I see potential for it at higher levels when your 3rd/4th attack are rarely able to hit.
All vital strike does is double the BASE weapon damage whenever you make a single standard action attack in a round.
So if you were wielding a greatsword, you could attack as a full round action to get +12/+7 (2d6+mod), or you could use vital strike make a single attack at +12 (4d6+mod) as a standard action. The feat (and those that follow it) are especially good for those times you can't just sit there and swing over and over again.
Note that the bonus base weapon damage does not multiply in crits (so on a crit, your greatsword would deal 6d6+double mod worth of damage with vital strike). Your magical enhancement bonuses, strength bonuses, power attack bonuses, etc. do NOT get doubled along with the base damage when using vital strike (though they do multiply in crits as normal). Only the base weapon damage (in this case, the greatsword's 2d6) gets doubled.
Improved Vital Strike triples the base damage when used. Greater Vital Strike quadruples it. So a raging 17th-level barbarian with 30 Strength who crits with his greataxe while using greater power attack and vital strike would deal 6d12+60 damage to the poor sap he just struck.
Vital Strike does not give you another attack, and can only be used as part of a standard attack.
All it does is give you an additonal dice of damage of whatever weapon your attack is.
Vital strike with a glaive = 2d10 +Str and a half
Vital strike with unarmed = 2d3 +Str
etc.
You can improve it further with Improved Vital and Greater Vital strike, however.
Getting hit with a Greataxe using Greater Vital Strike for 4d12 damage is going to sting.
EDIT: Ahh beat me to it, Ravingdork. :)
Thanks for the quick reply, your explanation is what I thought it meant. The only reason I wasn't sure is because other feats, like Scorpion Style or Deadly Stroke, all specify to make a single attack as a standard action.
Please know that I edited my post above for additional clarity (the way I phrased it initially, it might have led you to incorrectly believe that static damage bonuses do not multiply on crits).
Vital Strike's language is unnecessarily complex in my opinion. It should simply have been worded "This attack does additional dice of damage equal to the base damage of the weapon. This damage is not multiplied on a crit."
Vital Strike's language is unnecessarily complex in my opinion. It should simply have been worded "This attack does additional dice of damage equal to the base damage of the weapon. This damage is not multiplied on a crit."
I'm sure then people would have disputed what was meant by "base damage" and called it broken due to the fact that it apparently applies to every attack.
Vital Strike's language is unnecessarily complex in my opinion.
Agreed, though my personal peeve is the use of "attack action" rather than "standard action". There are so many single-attack actions that might plausibly be combined with Vital Strike: Spring Attack, Deadly Stroke, and charges, to name a few. The way it's left open is liable to cause a lot of arguements at the table.
Still, I'm grateful for Vital Strike. Many's the time, I begged for a feat like this while wailling on a resistant foe or chasing down a clever thief in 3.5!
Vital Strike's language is unnecessarily complex in my opinion.Agreed, though my personal peeve is the use of "attack action" rather than "standard action". There are so many single-attack actions that might plausibly be combined with Vital Strike: Spring Attack, Deadly Stroke, and charges, to name a few. The way it's left open is liable to cause a lot of arguements at the table.
Still, I'm grateful for Vital Strike. Many's the time, I begged for a feat like this while wailling on a resistant foe or chasing down a clever thief in 3.5!
My issue with attack action is attack action is not clearly defined. You have Attack under the Standard actions and it defines a lot of stuff including multiple attacks but is that the definition of an attack action. Or is an attack action just as the dictionary definition states.
So is it the dictionary definition as follows:
Attack: an offensive against an enemy
Action: something done
So you can vital strike when ever something is done that is an offense against an enemy. The problem I see with this is a spell is an offense against an enemy so you could vital strike a spells. That seems insane.
Or is it this list under Attack list in the book:
Melee Attacks
Unarmed Attacks
Ranged Attacks
Natural Attacks
Multiple Attacks
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee:
Fighting Defensively
Critical Hits
So if you use this you can only vital strike on the actions listed above. Which also includes multiple attacks so you could on you highest BAB attack use vital strike then get you remaining attacks as normal. You could vital strike while fighting defensively. I'm not sure why critical hits are in this list though but I think this makes more sense than the dictionary definition when it comes to Vital Strike.
When you take a standard action to make a single melee attack with a weapon, natural weapon, or unarmed strike, that attack does additional damage.
(Vital Strike doesn't just work on melee attacks.)
Vital Strike's ambiguous wording has been giving me trouble too. I'd love to hear an official clarification, but the interpretation I've settled on for now in my games is that the additional damage applies whenever you take only one attack in a single turn.
Vital Strike's ambiguous wording has been giving me trouble too. I'd love to hear an official clarification, but the interpretation I've settled on for now in my games is that the additional damage applies whenever you take only one attack in a single turn.
I agree; that's by far a more reasonable interpretation. Why should folks using Spring Attack or charging be out of luck?
Charging is officially 'no' because a charge is a special type of action.
I THINK Spring Attack or shot on the run is permitted because the feat modifies the 'move' part, not the 'action' part.
Trip and sunder are also "attack actions," and you can use them durring a full attack. Doest this mean you could sunder or trip and use vital strike in the same round with multiple attacks?
Charging is officially 'no' because a charge is a special type of action.
Nevertheless, I think you should be able to Vital Strike while charging (assuming you're not pouncing).
As far as I know Vital Strike can be used with any attack that is also a standard action. In other words...
...Charging: No (It's not a standard action, but an action in its own right.)
...Spring Attack: Yes (It's just like in a normal round where you spend a move action to move and a standard action to attack.)
...Sunder: Maybe (If is is made as a single, standard-action attack.)
...Trip: No (It doesn't deal damage and is therefore moot.)
...Spells: Maybe (Anything with an attack roll and deals damage could work, however, you will have to cast in one round and swing in the next as casting a spell and making an attack as part of the casting is spending your standard action to cast the spell, not make a stndard-action attack.)
I'll be happy to add more to the above list should anyone have a question about other types of attacks/actions.
MiB's Brain: "Right. That's it, I'm outta here!" (slam! step step step....)
Okay I meant my example earlier not as the entirety of the listing, but to be more clear I would change the language like this:
Vital Strike (Combat)
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefit: When you use a standard action to make a single attack your attack deals additional dice of damage equal to the base damage of the weapon used on a successful hit. For example using Vital Strike with a longsword would deal 1d8 additional damage. Like Sneak Attack or Flaming weapon this damage is not multiplied on a critical strike.
I think that's pretty clear. I wish more of the rules language would use specific examples to tell you the truth, it always gets the idea across better.
Actually, rereading the combat section, I think it says that Sunder cannot be used in a full attack, but trip can. Trip can also be used in an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure if this is the actuall intent, but thats how I read it. I may be taking a too literal interpretation though.
Sunder: "...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack"
Trip: just "...in place of a melee attack."
"Attack action" is defined as a standard action, while the full round version is a "full attack action." The confusing part then is that sunder says "as part of," so its not quite the same as Vital Strike.
I would agree that vital strike can be added to touch spells, but it wouldn't multiply the damage as the spell is not weapon damage. Your weapon in that case is an open hand.
Actually, rereading the combat section, I think it says that Sunder cannot be used in a full attack, but trip can. Trip can also be used in an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure if this is the actuall intent, but thats how I read it. I may be taking a too literal interpretation though.
Sunder: "...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack"
Trip: just "...in place of a melee attack."
"Attack action" is defined as a standard action, while the full round version is a "full attack action." The confusing part then is that sunder says "as part of," so its not quite the same as Vital Strike.
Groan...I wish they would just say that an "attack action" is any action that involves one or more (weapon, unarmed or natural) attacks.
Groan...I wish they would just say that an "attack action" is any action that involves one or more (weapon, unarmed or natural) attacks.Actually, rereading the combat section, I think it says that Sunder cannot be used in a full attack, but trip can. Trip can also be used in an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure if this is the actuall intent, but thats how I read it. I may be taking a too literal interpretation though.
Sunder: "...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack"
Trip: just "...in place of a melee attack."
"Attack action" is defined as a standard action, while the full round version is a "full attack action." The confusing part then is that sunder says "as part of," so its not quite the same as Vital Strike.
Yes, but that would imply that your first attack in a full attack could utalize Vital Strike the way it is currently worded
Yes, but that would imply that your first attack in a full attack could utalize Vital Strike the way it is currently worded
Not really; it states you make one attack when you use Vital Strike with an attack action. So you could use Vital Strike with a full attack action, I suppose, but you still would only get one attack.
Whatever -- maybe it would need to be clarified, but it already needs to be clarified. :-)
"Attack action" is defined as a standard action, while the full round version is a "full attack action." The confusing part then is that sunder says "as part of," so its not quite the same as Vital Strike.
Where is it defined? I did a search on the PRD and see attack action referenced a lot as see attack action but no actually definition of attack action can be found. The closest I see is under Standard Actions there is the heading Attack which says "Making an attack is a standard action." Then this lists a whole bunch of different attacks underneath it which includes multiple attack. Multiple attack then say you use a full attack action to use it.
Where is it defined? I did a search on the PRD and see attack action referenced a lot as see attack action but no actually definition of attack action can be found. The closest I see is under Standard Actions there is the heading Attack which says "Making an attack is a standard action." Then this lists a whole bunch of different attacks underneath it which includes multiple attack. Multiple attack then say you use a full attack action to use it."Attack action" is defined as a standard action, while the full round version is a "full attack action." The confusing part then is that sunder says "as part of," so its not quite the same as Vital Strike.
It's defined by the game designers here on the boards I believe. Also, if you look it up in the PRD, you can click its link and it will take you to the "attack as a standard action" rules.
Vital Strike's ambiguous wording has been giving me trouble too. I'd love to hear an official clarification, but the interpretation I've settled on for now in my games is that the additional damage applies whenever you take only one attack in a single turn.
Count me in on this. I find it difficult.
i'm not seeing where it says the damage has to be weapon damage. a melee touch attack with chill touch and vital strike should deal 2d6 damage.
And a CL5 shocking grasp should do 10d6? Doubling spell damage with a single feat seems a little much.
And a CL5 shocking grasp should do 10d6? Doubling spell damage with a single feat seems a little much.
i'm not seeing where it says the damage has to be weapon damage. a melee touch attack with chill touch and vital strike should deal 2d6 damage.
Couple of things. A sorcerer would have to be level 12 before having the BAB +6 to take vital strike, 13th to get the requisite feat (forgetting multiclass possibilities for the moment) so that's not too insane really.
Next remember that if you deliver a touch attack as part of casting a spell (such as shocking grasp) the actual touch attack is a free action. Therefore it wouldn't double. You would have to cast the spell, hold the charge, then take an attack (STANDARD) action to delivery it on the next round. At least that would be my interpretation, and that would keep it from being too powerful as well.
Or just invoke vital strike only when you miss on the free attack.
Even with voluntarily waiting to make the touch attack in order to use vital strike, something a miss forces you to do anyway, you're still doubling the power of the spell. There is simply no reason to think vital strike does that.
There is simply no reason to think vital strike does that.
But there IS a reason to think that: The rules seem to indicate as much.
Though I totally agree that it probably wasn't designer intent, nor should it be allowed.
obviously.. you bunch of munchkins.. lol, what would an eldritch knight end up doing with a shocking grasp.. 20D6 ??
what about an empowered vampiric touch :p ?
(36d6 *1.5) = 189 average.. lol awesome count me in.
I posted a thread about the whole combat action ambiguity thing a while back, but it's long buried now.
'Attack Action' is exactly the same as 'Standard Action'. There's no advantage to terming anything an Attack Action, and plenty of disadvantages:
(1) It's plain confusing. Lots of people are going to read Attack Action as attack action, and who can blame them?
(2) It's not one of the six action types, as defined in the Pathfinder book and PSRD combat section. It's no more an action type than the Light A Torch With a Tindertwig action. It would be better usage to use only the 6 basic action types (standard, move, full, swift, immediate, free).
(3) It'd be good to highlight that list, and maybe to refine it. 'Not an action' and 'Nonaction' might have to be a seventh basic type, these days...though I don't much like the catch-all nature of those, or the way they might be one and the same or slightly different - difficult to tell.
Attack Action isn't actually used that much in Pathfinder: they kept it for Sunder (which is thus a standard attack), and they introduced it into Vital Strike...which is unfortunate. It wouldn't be too hard to change those two in future printings/errata.
I think sunder and vital strike are intended like that, it would be nice knowing they can not be combined though ^^
I have to disagree with someone saying Vital Strike doesn't work on a charge but that it works with Spring Attack - cause lets be frank Spring Attack and charge are both pretty clear in their wordings, and here is why:
Vital Strike(Combat):
When you use the attack action ... and so on, and so on.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
Spring Attack: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack
So cause one is feat and another is special combat action one benefits from Vital Strike and another does not ? Where is it written that special attacks as charge and sunder are not viable for Vital Strike?
As you can see, both Spring Attack and Charge specify their attack option and both are same so either both work or neither does
It is a matter of interpretation, I'd not allow it to be used for sunder, possibly just because I dislike sunder as a whole and would not want to empower it any more than it has been, but also I consider it each an attack action / maneuver in it's own right.
Charge and Springattack do not seem to be actual attacks, more like fancy footwork leading up to the attack itself.
Zoddy - you're right, but there's some confusion because in 3.5 Spring Attack was worded like this: 'When using the attack action with a melee weapon...'
So by the Pathfinder book, you're correct; but it'd be interesting to know if the designers changed the spring attack wording specifically to disallow standard attack actions (including Vital Strike)...or if the exclusion is a by-blow.
Edit: a charge has never contained a standard attack. You can work that out from table footnotes somewhere, though I forget how. That also used to rule out standard attacks on Ride By Attack.
Here's what I'd like to know, though, since we're onto it: what kind of action are the attacks made as part of full attacks, and those made as opportunity attacks?
The other thread I started looked at how it might be useful to have all these varied attacks defined in action terms. It would clear quite a few things up, I feel.
Random grumbling...
Once again something that I was hoping would have been made more clear in PF. Ignore me. Put me down as in agreement with porpentine about wishing this wording was clarified. A simple table that says "This means this" and "you can do X,Y,or Z, with the N action" etc. Sigh.
Here's a questions: If everyone seem to agree that Vital Strike can't be used on Full Attack Action then why does this text exist?
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
Why would it say at your highest BAB if it can only be done as standard action? I mean if you have +6/+1, the earliest you can get this feat then as Standard Action you can only use your +6 attack anyways so why bother with the additional wording?
Now if attack action includes the full attack this text suddenly makes sense. It's saying even though you have two attacks you can only use vital strike on one attack at you highest BAB, the +6 attack get the extra damage but the +1 attack doesn't.
Here's a questions: If everyone seem to agree that Vital Strike can't be used on Full Attack Action then why does this text exist?
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
Why would it say at your highest BAB if it can only be done as standard action? I mean if you have +6/+1, the earliest you can get this feat then as Standard Action you can only use your +6 attack anyways so why bother with the additional wording?
Now if attack action includes the full attack this text suddenly makes sense. It's saying even though you have two attacks you can only use vital strike on one attack at you highest BAB, the +6 attack get the extra damage but the +1 attack doesn't.
It's just an additional clarification.
Some people, accustomed to feats and abilities like power attack, might otherwise think it loses accuracy/to hit in return for the extra damage. The highlighted text helps to show that, that is not the case.
Here's a questions: If everyone seem to agree that Vital Strike can't be used on Full Attack Action then why does this text exist?
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
Why would it say at your highest BAB if it can only be done as standard action? I mean if you have +6/+1, the earliest you can get this feat then as Standard Action you can only use your +6 attack anyways so why bother with the additional wording?
Now if attack action includes the full attack this text suddenly makes sense. It's saying even though you have two attacks you can only use vital strike on one attack at you highest BAB, the +6 attack get the extra damage but the +1 attack doesn't.
It's just an additional clarification.
Some people, accustomed to feats and abilities like power attack, might otherwise think it loses accuracy/to hit in return for the extra damage. The highlighted text helps to show that, that is not the case.
I'd say that's stretching. I'm not saying it's wrong but it's not the simplest explanation. I think mine is much more simple and I'd go with the simplest explanation. That's how I ruled with it my game. As well I want vital strike to be useful in both standard and full round attacks in my game so I'm biased. The text supports my view but there is ambiguity which one can argue like your argument so I can not be right in my conclusions nor can I be wrong. The same goes for you as well.
I think a definitive definition of what an "Attack Action" actually is would clear a lot of this up.
I think a definitive definition of what an "Attack Action" actually is would clear a lot of this up.
<snark>
I'm sure that will be in the official FAQ.</snark>
It seems pretty clear to me "the attack action" refers to the standard action attack, there are some tables in the core book pretty clear.
A full attack would be "the full attack action", I think highest base attack bonus is purely there for clarification, a precaution against silly questions if you will.
The feat makes sense and it is a nice one, allowing it with full attack would make the feat too strong, so it makes sense game technically.
The kicker is this part"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. "
Don't get me wrong, its not like i want to push to my point of view whole heartedly, but its special full-round action - in every full round you got move and standard action, this one is special cause it allows you to move double your speed with move action (you can move four times your speed with a full round action when you run, as you know), so after a "running" move action you got standard action for an attack.
This is my thought on mechanic behind charge, but being how many people are saying that you can't use Vital Strike with charge i will go with a flow.
I looked at the tables first after reading Vital Strike and I encountered less confusion.
Specifically, on table 8-2 (p183) there is a master table of "all" actions. The only ones that say only "Attack" are standard actions. Hence "attack action". I think I experienced less confusion on this issue than others because of where I chose to look first.
In future, if people encounter any confusion, I highly recommend using that table and that explanation to clarify matters.
That said, one of my greatest regrets with this book is that the rules, while well conceived IMO, are not clearly and simply explained. This was a weakness of the original 3.5 rules as well. This isn't an indictment of the product as a whole (which I am very happy with), but if there was one major shortcoming it was a failure of information architecture. It should have been a higher priority to structure the rules to be accessible to new players, but I think the focus in publication was on existing players.
Voska - 'Attack Action' is one of the sub-definitions of Standard Action. You'll find it in the relevant table in the combat section. It's inaccurate in that there are three types of Attack Action, but that is what is being referred to.
Why anything is defined by Attack Action is a mystery. I suspect it's a fossil rule, now. There were more uses of the term in 3.5, so we're at least heading in the right defirection.
RAI aside, I totally agree with you that Vital Strike should be somehow usable during a full attack. During the beta it worked that way, I think, and the versatility is nice.
For what it's worth, at the moment I'm about to allow it 'once per round, on an attack,' with the proviso that VS on a full attack costs one iterative attack - ie you can attack twice at +6/+1, or once at +6 for double/triple/quadruple base weapon dice. VS/IVS/GVS all count against the same single use under this houserule.
That's liberal, since it also means you can vital strike on an AoO - but only so long as you haven't hit vitals at some other point, and don't intend to later. There are plenty of other things you can do on an AoO - sneak attack, stunning fist, power attack, trip, disarm - and I'm comfortable with the comparative potential (Vital Strike isn't exactly a fight-ender), but your mileage may vary. I find once per round a pretty clean and simple solution.
I suppose you are right about that focus, it's D&D tradition to have a tome full of spells and rules in small letters to browse over and giggle madly (in private ofcourse)