it also multiplies damage bonuses that are not derived from strength, precision damage or weapon abilities.
heres good examples of things that are also multiplied.
power attack, arcane strike, weapon specialization/training, inspire courage.
none of these bonuses come from the 3 above mentioned sources, not strength, not a weapon ability and deifinitely not precision damage, this makes the feat actually more wothwhile.
i know that this is a wierd loophole but it works. most classes independantly don't have access to more than 2 of these sources, not to mention 1 (power attack). so most of the time, it'll just be power attack being multiplied.
|
Here's a questions: ...
The initial release of Vital Strike during the playtest phase was a different version. The original version of Vital Strike was a single attack as a full-round action that allowed a character to trade his lowest iterative attack in exchange from double the damage dice on the resulting attack. Also, the requirement for Vital Strike (at the time) was BAB +11. Improved Vital Strike also existed, but allowed the character to trade their lowest 2 iterative attack for triple damage dice (again as a full-round action) and required BAB +16.
At the time, Jason was trying to address the fact that as a Fighter gained levels and iterative attacks, the foes he fought would get tougher and those low-BAB iterative attacks simply weren't very effective. During playtest, folks raised another issue about the Fighter: that in order use his most basic attack option (iterative attacks), he had to use a full-round action and became a basically stationary combatant. Contrast that with the Wizard (or any spellcaster really) that could use most of their spells as standard actions and still have a move left.
It quickly became pretty clear that if Vital Strike were reduced from a full-round action to a standard action, the Fighter could gain greater economy of action by allowing him a more effective attack-and-move option. Also, it was suggested that Vital Strike requirements be lowered so they jived better with iterative attacks (+6, +11, +16) and two-weapon fighting feats (TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF), which also allowed Greater Vital Strike to get added.
So, in case you weren't around back then, that's kind of a brief (or not so brief) history of Vital Strike. The intent was to give the melee guy a better attack-an-move option while also allowing him to roll up low-BAB, generally less effective, iterative attacks as bonus damage to his primary (aka, most likely to hit) attack.
The use of the term "attack action" seems unfortunate. I really wish it had been "standard action" as it would clear up a number of these questions. If you think of Vital Strike as a standard attack, then it helps to adjudicate some of the cases, such as Charge (it's own full-round action) and Cleave (a standard action in its own right).
Personally, I'll probably houserule Vital Strike to some degree when we get back to Pathfinder in my home game.
-Skeld
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.
My first look at the final version of [Improved] Vital Strike was in the preview blog post that Jason put up, which said Valeros can "charge up and make a single attack with his longsword using both Power Attack and Improved Vital Strike".
Just for antecedent interest, I went and hunted down the 3.5 table footnote that implied that the old Charge didn't contain a standard attack.
It's a footnote to the Miscellaneous Actions table in the 3.5 Combat chapter, and references 3.5 Disarm, Grapple and Trip:
"These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity."
That implies to me that, in 3.5, the attack type made during a Charge allowed these attack-substitutions, but (by implication) not Attack Actions, which are not linked to this footnote, and which are defined differently in their own texts.
(Note that grapple has changed in Pathfinder. In 3.5, it only required "A melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).".)
On to Pathfinder:
The old Miscellaneous table is now incorporated into the larger Actions in Combat table, which is what people are referring to in recent posts. This table also has a footnote, number 6 - for combat maneuevers only - which exactly mimics the one quoted above:
"Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action."
- No help with Vital Strike, of course. But it does again imply that a Charge attack isn't a standard attack, and so can't incorporate anything that requires a standard action, including an Attack Action.
Unclear, or what? Time for a spring clean, maybe? Heh.
|
|
it also multiplies damage bonuses that are not derived from strength, precision damage or weapon abilities.
heres good examples of things that are also multiplied.
power attack, arcane strike, weapon specialization/training, inspire courage.
none of these bonuses come from the 3 above mentioned sources, not strength, not a weapon ability and deifinitely not precision damage, this makes the feat actually more wothwhile.
i know that this is a wierd loophole but it works. most classes independantly don't have access to more than 2 of these sources, not to mention 1 (power attack). so most of the time, it'll just be power attack being multiplied.
I don't think that's correct as the text of the feat says to roll the damage dice twice, but not to multiply bonus damage. Again, not very clear, but going back to the Beta, the intent was only for dice to be rolled twice.
That's just my interpretation though.
-Skeld
|
|
My first look at the final version of [Improved] Vital Strike was in the preview blog post that Jason put up, which said Valeros can "charge up and make a single attack with his longsword using both Power Attack and Improved Vital Strike".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.
Yeah, that's what I thought too, but I remember Jason coming back after the core rulebook was released to make the comment that the blog entry in question was incorrect and (because it was an older preview blog) they decided not to go back and fix it.
The post I refer too is probably buried in one of the other dozen-odd Vital Strike threads. I'm too lazy to look right now.
-Skeld
Yep, Jason corrected himself. I don't have a reference either, but with attack action confusion still abounding, it's easy to see how the mistake could have been made.
I also understand Vital Strike as only multiplying base weapon dice, nothing else. You can read it differently, but that's apparently the intent. That makes it a weak feat line, which is why I think once per round (or some similar expansion) is appropriate, with some limitation on iterative attacks.
On a side note, the encouragement of move-and-attack is solid, I reckon. It makes for a more swashbuckling game if fighters aren't feeling they always have to full attack. But that doesn't mean Vital Strike only has to apply to standard attacks, which are only one of several different attack types.
I think the key to interpreting the confusion it to keep in mind what Vital Strike was meant for when it was designed. The way I see it it was meant as a way for warrior classes to make up some of the loss of damage they lose from having to move and attack, rather than a full attack routine, at levels where they get multiple attacks in a full round.
Other than the change in language for Spring Attack, both that and Charge actions I would say do not benefit from this because they are already gaining some other side benefit from not taking a full attack. +2 on one attack after a double move or the ability to stay out of melee range with Spring Attack.
That's my 2CP anyway.
Yep, Jason corrected himself. I don't have a reference either, but with attack action confusion still abounding, it's easy to see how the mistake could have been made.
I know he corrected himself later, but I liked it better in the preview. Likewise with the preview of Sajan the monk having Greater Disarm.
it also multiplies damage bonuses that are not derived from strength, precision damage or weapon abilities.
heres good examples of things that are also multiplied.
power attack, arcane strike, weapon specialization/training, inspire courage.
none of these bonuses come from the 3 above mentioned sources, not strength, not a weapon ability and deifinitely not precision damage, this makes the feat actually more wothwhile.
i know that this is a wierd loophole but it works. most classes independantly don't have access to more than 2 of these sources, not to mention 1 (power attack). so most of the time, it'll just be power attack being multiplied.
Adding all those bonuses can make it too nasty..
ancient black dragon CR 16
power attack + greater vital strike
attack : +32, +26 with power attack
damage : 2d8 + 16 base
8d8 +16(strength), +72 (power attack +18*4) = 124 + 4d6 acid > 138
that sure does hurt, I tend to think a bit too much.
How is it a weak feat? If you happen to be restricted to 'move and attack,' which comes up reasonably often, that's a +3.5 damage with a greatsword (more if enlarged).
It's situational, sure, but it's a situation that's likely to come up once or twice a combat.
I rather meant it was a bit too strong, it probably makes a full attack obsolete.
it also multiplies damage bonuses that are not derived from strength, precision damage or weapon abilities.
heres good examples of things that are also multiplied.
power attack, arcane strike, weapon specialization/training, inspire courage.
none of these bonuses come from the 3 above mentioned sources, not strength, not a weapon ability and deifinitely not precision damage, this makes the feat actually more wothwhile.
i know that this is a wierd loophole but it works. most classes independantly don't have access to more than 2 of these sources, not to mention 1 (power attack). so most of the time, it'll just be power attack being multiplied.
Adding all those bonuses can make it too nasty..
ancient black dragon CR 16
power attack + greater vital strike
attack : +32, +26 with power attack
damage : 2d8 + 16 base8d8 +16(strength), +72 (power attack +18*4) = 124 + 4d6 acid > 138
that sure does hurt, I tend to think a bit too much.
it actually gives players another reason to fear dragons. aka walking tpk. you caught me. maybe if you use that, adjust the dragon's cr accordingly.
why, it is a basic dragon in the bestiary, I didnt build it.
I havent even began to use it's capabilities, pretty sure I can up that attack to a one hit kill.
I think William might have been replying to me (forgive me if I'm wrong).
Vital Strike is a little weak because:
(1) It requires bab+6. Compared to other bab+6 feats, +3.5 damage isn't strong (granted, there are no other bab+6 feats that have no prerequisites except Lunge, but Fighters are built to accommodate prerequisites). It's at the same level as the Greater maneuever feats, Shatter Defenses, Disruptive (for a Fighter), and so on - all with prereqs, granted, but prereqs a Fighter can generally meet without too much trouble. That's what he's good for.
(2) It requires a surprisingly specific expenditure of the round. You don't get to use it on full attacks, nor do you get to use it on a charge, a spring attack, a ride-by attack, or attacks of opportunity. It not only encourages one type of movement, but rules out others. If you're going to go for the full three-feat investment, it places a pretty heavy onus on pursuing a certain dashing, movement-based style of play. In other words, because it only applies to standard attacks, it's situational.
(3) It also encourages - to the point of situationality (sorry, you know what I mean) two-handed weapon use. Yes, +3.5 damage for one feat is okay. The figures for a dual wielder or a sword-and-boarder are a lot less competitive.
It's okay as a one-feat dip, for a Fighter. Two feats, or three? Not unless you're a greatsword/glaive-wielding Fighter. Which is a shame. It could be worded to be more flexible than that.
|
Vital Strike does not multiply Power Attack damage. Yeah, it's not that clearly worded (actually .. nominee for the Worst Worded Feat award), but that's how I roll. And that's how the author intended, IMHO.
It is essentialy the 2x[W] of 4ed (please don't kill me for the comprasion).
And it is wonky for anybody apart from Spring Attack builds (who are better off taking Bounding Assault from PHB2 anyway).
I suppose. But most of the alternate versions presented are WAY too powerful.
I do think it should work on spring attack, ride-by-attack, and shot-on-the-run, IMO, because those are more about shuffling movement around the action than a particular kind of attack.
Charge strikes me more as a specific thing on its own.
As for 3, the two-handed element is, IMO, fine. TWF already has alot of cool feats and tricks, two-handers could use some breadth.
I agree that a deep feat investment might not be worth it, but I don't know if I think it terribly significant that it requires BAB +6. That's more a matter of timing; the lack of prerequisites, to me, supports a situational but useful ability.
I know in tabletop I've seen at least a handful of rounds a session where one of the melee types is stuck not getting a full attack because he has to maneuver from one enemy to another, the ground doesn't permit a charge, or he can't make a straight-line to the next enemy.
"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 f laming),
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)."
seriously, I can understand if you do not agree with power attack being added, but according to the RAW it does.
(I think power attack should not be allowed to work in any instance where strength doesn't benefit you though)
so what bonuses are actually multiplied ?
Vital Strike is a little weak because:
(1) It requires bab+6. Compared to other bab+6 feats, +3.5 damage isn't strong (granted, there are no other bab+6 feats that have no prerequisites except Lunge, but Fighters are built to accommodate prerequisites). It's at the same level as the Greater maneuever feats, Shatter Defenses, Disruptive (for a Fighter), and so on - all with prereqs, granted, but prereqs a Fighter can generally meet without too much trouble. That's what he's good for.
...
(3) It also encourages - to the point of situationality (sorry, you know what I mean) two-handed weapon use. Yes, +3.5 damage for one feat is okay. The figures for a dual wielder or a sword-and-boarder are a lot less competitive.
Actually, a greatsword gets +7 damage. A longsword gets +4.5.
It's a solid feat - ranger in my game has been using it a lot with a Ranseur (+5 damage, +10 with improved).
Remco: Power attack is included in the text you bolded - that's for critical hits made when you are using Vital Strike.
@ Renco -
Hopefully someone with some clout might chip in, but I think the intent is; none. It's double base weapon dice, nothing more.
(I agree the wording is messy in that regard, regardless of the Attack Action problem).
William: I agree re two-handers and dual-wielders. I quite liked the way two-handers were catered to in the beta, though it was a little much. The balance between those two isn't too bad now, though.
Do you really think Vital Strike once per round is too much? Is that more potent than Power Attack on all attacks (including AoO) in a round, or multiple Stunning Fists (which can be applied to AoO)? I'm interested, since I'm hoping to houserule the thing fairly.
Remco:
Other bonuses are multiplied normally BY A CRITICAL.
In other words, with vital strike, if you get a critical, handle it normally, THEN add the bonus damage due to vital strike.
That's all it means.
LOL *bows head in shame*
I completely misread my own bolded text
though I have to say it does not lend itself to easy reading, right after the line it mentions bonus damage, kinda messy
Porpentine:
Well, I'm nobody official, but I would include it in shot on the run, ride by attack, and spring attack, or any weird stuff that does similar. I would not include it with charge or AoO, because those are special attacks.
Charge already gets a boost of movement and bonus to hit, plus effects that a series of other sources may give, like Shield Slam.
If pressed, I suppose extra damage on a charge wouldn't be bad.
Well in that case the feat is entirely acceptable, I was afraid the bonus damage would add up way too fast.
I think it could mention feats it would specifically work with, but otherwise I'll stick to raw and not use them with the mentioned maneuvers.
charge in particular seems more suitable than spring attack or other attack and move on feats.
Good. That's pretty close to what I'm planning, then. I really don't see it being a big deal, actually.
Anyway - fuzzy wording. Sort it out, lads.
|
I'm in the camp that VS should work with a charge - IF it's allowed w/ Shot On Run, and/or Spring Attack.
I don't think it's any more or less imbalancing with Charge as it would be for those other options.
Charge as it stands already has certain criteria that makes it a not always a good option or an option at all "straight line, no obstacles to navigate, must move at least 10ft, must stop at closest threatening square, suffer a -2 to AC, ect."
The point is - doing VS with a charge, leaving the attacker there with a hampered AC is not ideal when compared to the Spring Attack who moved in, did his damage and safely moved away sans AoO, and with full AC in tact.
Now, if the arguement is that the WORDING (and not the balance fairness of the game) is what's in question with regards to VS and Charging, then that's a different issue - and when interpreting them for house rule interpretation and when (if) it is finally FAQed officially and rewritten more dummy-proof, I feel strongly that Charge should be inclusive as an option w/ VS.
Robert
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here.
Copied and pasted for your convenience:
Vital Strike(11/6/09)
Q: What type of action (standard, full, move, swift, free) does Vital Strike use?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Note: Attack Action means it is one of the types of action listed under Standard Actions defined on page 182 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.
Q: Can you charge and use Vital Strike?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine a charge and vital strike.
Q: How does Vital Strike effect weapon-like spells (ie Chill Touch, Inflict Light Wounds)?
A: (James Jacobs 11/5/09) Vital Strike does not allow you to sneak out extra damage with spells unless that spell works like a weapon. You could vital strike with a Flame Blade. Not with a Scorching Ray.[Source]
A: (James Jacobs 11/6/09) Vital Strike 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.
Q: If I critically hit with a Greataxe(1d12+6) while using Vital Strike what damage do I roll?
A: 4d12+18. Which is (1d12+6)x3 plus 1d12 for vital strike.
Q: Can you use Vital Strike with a bow or thrown weapon?
A: Nothing in the feat suggests you can not so yes you can.
Q: Can you combine Cleave and Vital Strike?
A: Both of these feats now require a standard action to use and as you only get one per round you can not combine the two feats.
Q: 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.
A: 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. This is not 100% clear actually as the wording for Spring Attack has changed in PFRPG and it may not be able to be combined with Vital Strike. Their is also no official word one way or other about this yet.
Q: Deadly Stroke 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.". Does that mean that the additional dice from Vital Strike are also doubled?
A: You can not combine Deadly Stroke and Vital Strike as they both are worded to use a Standard Action. As they both are standard actions and you only have one standard action a round it does not work.
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.
Q: The text of this feat stipulates that the Vital Strike does not multiply Strength damage, weapon ability damage, or precision damage. Are other damage bonuses (those not mentioned, such as those from Weapon Specialization, enhancement bonuses, or the Bard's inspire courage ability) are, in fact, multiplied on a hit? I'm not sure if that's what is intended, though--the wording sounds like it could just be saying, "No damage bonuses, such as X, Y, and Z, are multiplied on a hit."
A: (Jason Bulmahn) The way to think about it is this.. roll the damage dice only twice.
FYI: All of the above info was compiled by and is continually updated by Tim Shadow (ShadowChemosh). Be sure to thank him for his ongoing dedication to this (errr) thankless task!
What makes me nervous about allowing it on a charge is possible synergy power with, say, Leaping Attack and some of the other things out there.
Then again, it'd be nice if minotaur's gore ability was actually worth using.
|
|
I would have preferred it to have worked as adding the weapon damage dice of any attack you do not take to all other attacks you make in that round. And that it counts on all attacks, full or standard.
For example, a character with +16 BAB and using a d8 weapon.
Four attacks at 1d8 per attack.
or
Three attacks at 2d8 per attack.
or
Two attacks at 3d8 per attack.
or
One attack at 4d8.
This would make it a tactical decision on how many attacks to make in a round. Do you go with all four and hope to get your STR bonus x4? Do you drop your last attack to get an extra d8 on the first three? Do you just make one attack because your other three may or may not hit? Much more interesting and easy to understand than the current version. And no question of which attacks it works on.
Enlarged guy with monkeygrip greatsword.
Extra 4d6 with vital strike (or more with later ones).
Granted, a bit of a specialized build, but it's a rather common/obvious and very useful 'specialized build.'
heh. that's funny. he's basically saying that as worded it does give extra damage to spells but they're gonna errata it. i do wonder how that happened, because the wording almost looks like they went out of their way to let it apply to spells....snip...
Q: How does Vital Strike effect weapon-like spells (ie Chill Touch, Inflict Light Wounds)?
A: (James Jacobs 11/5/09) Vital Strike does not allow you to sneak out extra damage with spells unless that spell works like a weapon. You could vital strike with a Flame Blade. Not with a Scorching Ray.[Source]
A: (James Jacobs 11/6/09) Vital Strike 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....snip...
They went out of the way to make it as confusing as possible. Again, it should say "When you make an attack using a standard action deal additional dice of damage equal to the base weapon damage." Clean.
Perfect. I'd use Meatrace's wording.
+1
They went out of the way to make it as confusing as possible. Again, it should say "When you make an attack using a standard action deal additional dice of damage equal to the base weapon damage." Clean.
except meatrace's wording doesn't correspond the intent reflected in jason's comments.
VS doesn't apply to ANY attack resulting from a standard action, it applies to the SPECIFIC standard action that is called an "attack action". Vital Strike, Cleave, Grapple, and many others are meant to be options that aren't compatable with each other, yet usable in the same situations, generally.Since "the style" calls for them not to capitalize "key words" even when that might be clearer, and the term lends itself to a 'natural english' interpretation not suggesting any sort of 'key word' (and not really an important distinction in 3.x), the ability IS set up to be rather confusing. Probably THE LEAST confusing approach would be to NOT use the non-obvious phrase 'attack action', but instead give it a distinctive name that is more obvious when it's being referenced - 'standard attack' would be an obvious starting point. Again, since this distinction wasn't really used in 3.5 AFAIK, changing the name for that specific action wouldn't really have affected 'BW-compatability' much, IMHO.
But i don't expect to see that level of change in the update, because it will be more confusing for those with the old printings, even though it will probably require more words to clarify the meaning than if 'standard attack' was the name of the action instead of 'attack action'. Then again, given most of the 'early adopters' are probably more rules-savvy than most, and assuming the change would be called out in any Errata change-log, it could be a bold step by Paizo in making sure PRPG is THE best version of D&D yet published.
He already has clarified most of the questions (except Spring Attack AFAIK). The answers are reproduced on d20pfsrd.org if you have trouble tracking them down here on the boards. (most answers given on that site have links to the original posts)
|
The way it's left open is liable to cause a lot of arguements at the table.
This very argument ensued at our table last night. The problem is that the wording is out of character when compared to most other instances where a special form of attack specifically limits the number of attacks to only one, in which case it always specifies that it is "a standard action" to use it. Plus, I've seen several calculations of DPR that seem to calculate damage potential as if Vital Strike (and its betters) can be used with one of multiple attacks in a round. The question is, are they using the phrase "attack action" as being distinct and separate from a "full attack?"
im confused by all the confusion....
It's a four year old thread.
yeah that doesnt make it any less confusing why there was confusion over it
I really wish these forums would automatically lock a thread that hasn't been active for a year or more.
except that it is active now!
Wish is a very powerful spell you know!