I am building a lvl 17 NPC fighter with GVS and Deadly Stroke. Currently, she does 8d4 damage with a falchion using greater vital strike. Does that stack with deadly stroke?
Also, how do criticals work with this combo?
Finally, she is using a +3 unholy falchion. Does the +3 get doubled from critical and deadly stroke? What about the unholy?
Whew, I didn't know fighters would be so math intensive!
the way I understand it Vital Strike (or improved or greater vital strike) can not be combined with Deadly Stroke... Vital strike et al require you to use an attack action, while deadly stroke requires you to use a standard action to activate it that allows you to make an attack.
as for how critical hits work with the combo, the unholy damage is never doubled for a critical hit, nor would it be multiplied by the vital strike (and although the rules are more ambiguous about it I am also positive that it is not meant to be doubled by the deadly stroke either).
since they don't work together this is how I see a critical hit playing out for your character, one example using greater vital strike, and the other using deadly stroke...
Greater vital Strike critical (against an non evil opponent) with a +3 unholy falchion damage would be 10d4 +(2 x str bonus) + 15 (enhancement bonus*) + 2d6 unholy
Deadly Stroke critical (against an non evil opponent) with a +3 unholy falchion damage would be 6d4 +(3 x str bonus) + 9 (enhancement bonus) + 2d6 unholy + 2 points of constitution bleed.
*It could be argued that the vital strike doesn't multiply the enhancement bonus, but I would consider the enhancement bonus as part of the 'normal weapon damage'
the way I understand it Vital Strike (or improved or greater vital strike) can not be combined with Deadly Stroke... Vital strike et al require you to use an attack action, while deadly stroke requires you to use a standard action to activate it that allows you to make an attack.
as for how critical hits work with the combo, the unholy damage is never doubled for a critical hit, nor would it be multiplied by the vital strike (and although the rules are more ambiguous about it I am also positive that it is not meant to be doubled by the deadly stroke either).
since they don't work together this is how I see a critical hit playing out for your character, one example using greater vital strike, and the other using deadly stroke...
Greater vital Strike critical (against an non evil opponent) with a +3 unholy falchion damage would be 10d4 +(2 x str bonus) + 15 (enhancement bonus*) + 2d6 unholy
Deadly Stroke critical (against an non evil opponent) with a +3 unholy falchion damage would be 6d4 +(3 x str bonus) + 9 (enhancement bonus) + 2d6 unholy + 2 points of constitution bleed.
*It could be argued that the vital strike doesn't multiply the enhancement bonus, but I would consider the enhancement bonus as part of the 'normal weapon damage'
I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this, so let me give you some more details:
She has 32 strength and has weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, power attack, and weapon training +4 with the falchion.
What would her damage be using a non-crit vital strike?
What would her damage be using a crit vital strike?
Non-crit deadly stroke?
Crit deadly stroke?
Sorry, but I am terrible at crunching numbers.
the way I understand it Vital Strike (or improved or greater vital strike) can not be combined with Deadly Stroke... Vital strike et al require you to use an attack action, while deadly stroke requires you to use a standard action to activate it that allows you to make an attack.
as for how critical hits work with the combo, the unholy damage is never doubled for a critical hit, nor would it be multiplied by the vital strike (and although the rules are more ambiguous about it I am also positive that it is not meant to be doubled by the deadly stroke either).
since they don't work together this is how I see a critical hit playing out for your character, one example using greater vital strike, and the other using deadly stroke...
Greater vital Strike critical (against an non evil opponent) with a +3 unholy falchion damage would be 10d4 +(2 x str bonus) + 15 (enhancement bonus*) + 2d6 unholy
Deadly Stroke critical (against an non evil opponent) with a +3 unholy falchion damage would be 6d4 +(3 x str bonus) + 9 (enhancement bonus) + 2d6 unholy + 2 points of constitution bleed.
*It could be argued that the vital strike doesn't multiply the enhancement bonus, but I would consider the enhancement bonus as part of the 'normal weapon damage'
I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this, so let me give you some more details:
She has 32 strength and has weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, power attack, and weapon training +4 with the falchion.
What would her damage be using a non-crit vital strike?
What would her damage be using a crit vital strike?
Non-crit deadly stroke?
Crit deadly stroke?Sorry, but I am terrible at crunching numbers.
To answer my own question:
crit vital strike, power attack = 10d4+79 plus 2d6 unholy
crit deadly stroke, power attack = 6d4+105 plus 2d6 unholy plus 2 con bleed
non-crit vital strike, power attack = 8d4+44 plus 2d6 unholy
non-crit deadly stroke, power attack = 4d4+70 plus 2d6 unholy plus 2 con bleed
Do these look right? And if they cannot be used at the same time, which do you recommend I drop?
the non-critical deadly stroke should only do 1 con bleed, but other then that your numbers look about right (with out going through all the math in exacting detail on my part).
As for which one to drop, if you are going to drop one... that depends...
vital strike can be used any time you can take an attack action, where as deadly stroke can only be used if your foe is stunned or flat-footed, so on the first round of combat if you act fast enough, and when an opponent is stunned, which happens in high level play, but how frequently it happens can depend on a lot of variables, including the spell selection of spell casters, and the fortitude save bonuses of your foes (assuming you have the stunning critical feat as well). basically vital strike will see more use if you take it, but the con bleed caused by deadly stroke can be a very nice thing, and should not be under estimated.
If the NPC is a fighter (and thus has the feats to spare) I would probably keep both even though they don;t work together in the same round... use Deadly Stroke in those situations where it is usable, and vital strike otherwise. (although if you have the stunning critical feat and want to use it to set up deadly stroke, you will want to take a full attack on rounds when you can, unless the opponents AC is so high that you feel you will have trouble hitting it with your second and third attacks, as that will give you four chances to get a critical hit, forcing fort saves vs stunning to potentially set up a deadly stroke).
ie. if you have the feats to spare I would keep both, unless there is another feat that you really, really want for the NPC.
I don't think you get to multiply weapon enhancement damage with Vital Strike.
1) The feat says multiply the /dice/ quite clearly
2) It also says you shouldn't multiply weapon abilities (which seems like it would include enhancement)
3) It's quite good enough without stacking such a large amount of extra free damage.
that is why I said it was debatable above.... however... here is how I would respond to your three arguments, were I an ardent supporter of the issue (though in reality I could care less one way or another at this point).
1) It could be argued that an enhancement bonus actually modifies the range of the weapons damage (eg a long sword does 1-8 points of damage, while a +3 long sword does 4-11 points of damage) it would be just like empowering the magic missile spell, when you do so each missile does (1d4+1)*1.5 damage, rather then (1d4*1.5)+1, because each missile has a damage range of 2-5
2) The example of a weapon ability given in the feat (flaming) leads me to believe that they were referring to weapon special abilities, which explicitly do not refer to the weapons enhancement bonus.
3)This argument has no actual merit as far as a rule discussion, it is a plea to an emotion, and fails to address the issues of what is actually written, while this argument may well be "true" in a subjective sense, it is not valid from a logical point of view.