Whenever I see a Fighter build, Cleave / Great Cleave are listed as "must haves" and Vital Strike is sometimes also considered vital :)
However, as normal combat goes, I almost never have the chance to use either!
First Round is usually charge - so no Cleave and no Vital Strike.
Rounds after that are usually full attack actions which does more damage than Vital Strike (unless against very very high AC monsters that should be very rare) considering the fact that it is almost always better to kill one opponent instead of hurting two. If the opponent flees from me he usually is faster, so move + Vital Strike are not going to cut it, another charge must do.
The only situation in which both are good (and then only one or the other) is when I face many weak opponents that I can onehit with Cleave or onehit with Vital Strike - and in this case I would usually step aside to let the Wizard shine for once.
Grapple is in the same boat as Cleave and Vital Strike but it seems much stronger if you can pull it off and as such is much more useful to spend a Feat (Improved Grapple) for.
But Cleave and Vital Strike seem newbie traps - only really good if you violate some rules (Cleave+iterative attacks, charge+Vital Strike).
So what am I missing here?
|
Whenever I see a Fighter build, Cleave / Great Cleave are listed as "must haves" and Vital Strike is sometimes also considered vital :)
However, as normal combat goes, I almost never have the chance to use either!
First Round is usually charge - so no Cleave and no Vital Strike.
Rounds after that are usually full attack actions which does more damage than Vital Strike (unless against very very high AC monsters that should be very rare) considering the fact that it is almost always better to kill one opponent instead of hurting two. If the opponent flees from me he usually is faster, so move + Vital Strike are not going to cut it, another charge must do.
The only situation in which both are good (and then only one or the other) is when I face many weak opponents that I can onehit with Cleave or onehit with Vital Strike - and in this case I would usually step aside to let the Wizard shine for once.
Grapple is in the same boat as Cleave and Vital Strike but it seems much stronger if you can pull it off and as such is much more useful to spend a Feat (Improved Grapple) for.
But Cleave and Vital Strike seem newbie traps - only really good if you violate some rules (Cleave+iterative attacks, charge+Vital Strike).
So what am I missing here?
Nope. I have two players that I constantly need to remind about not using Vital Strike/Cleave/Charge in the same round. For some reason they just can't wrap their heads around the rule. Heck, one of the players has a BAB of +11 and STILL uses Vital strike. I don't get it, but hey...
Vital Strike is useful up until your BAB reaches +11 or higher, since its just like hitting twice in one round anyway. After +11, it's usefulness is gone. Cleave is only useful in getting to Greater Cleave, and then only useful against lower AC opponents en mass. At high levels, you rarely face an opponent that you'll hit with that 3rd/4th attack anyway.
Well both feats offer tactical options to the fighter, so its a matter of what tactics the fighter is looking to employ that determines their value.
Cleave works best at lower levels where it can offer two attacks (assuming the first one hits) at the fighters highest BAB verses only a single attack or two attacks, one being at -5. If the fighter is hasted then cleave will almost universally be a poorer choice, unless the fighter wishes to take a move action as well (which might be a necessary thing to do even if he has no plans of moving from that spot).
At higher levels where the fighter has more attacks in a round, cleave becomes less useful although great cleave can be very useful, especially when combined with reach (either large+ size, reach weapon, or lunge). I've seen a fighter pull off about 10 hits in one round with great cleave and lunge, doing far more total hitpoint damage then he possibly could if he had simply done a regular full attack.
Great cleave is situational, but very potent when the situation presents itself.
Vital strike works best with large weapons that have a higher base damage (greatsword, earthbreaker, etc.). Its gives the possibility of doing extra damage when a full attack is impossible, or when a single attack is all that can be done. Its also useful for doing extra damage vs damage reduction and for ranged attacks. (I think it also works with a sunder attack, but I'm not positive. It can be useful there for doing additional damage over an objects hardness.)
For instance, a fighter with the staggered condition can still make use of cleave/great cleave or vital strike. Or if said fighter needs to take a move action, whether to move away after the attack, or to close in without being able to charge, or to use the move action for another purpose (retrieving an item for instance).
All in all, it simply depends on the kinds of tactics the fighter will be seeking to use. If the feats match up with his tactics they will be very useful. If not, then take better feats that work with your concept.
To MicMan: do you use opponents that have trip, bullrush, knockback and so forth? How about highly mobile foes that make use of their terrain? Vital and Cleave exist
for that very reason. If all your NPC's do is stand there, then yes full attack is the way to go.
It isn't common to do this, but if you look at your players sheets to see what abilities they have you can create scenarios around their abilities. That way the players can have more options during play, and then create scenarios they are not at all prepared for, just to keep them on their toes.
To MicMan: do you use opponents that have trip, bullrush, knockback and so forth? How about highly mobile foes that make use of their terrain?...
I am a player in this campaign, however, when mentioning highly mobile foes, how does Vital Strike/Cleave come into it? These foes will almost always have a higher movement than I do which means if they take a 2 ft step and a move action, I must use charge to follow them.
Now if I am playing opportunistic, I could go and simply move up to the nearest target and hope its only a move action away and then use Vital Strike.
Still seems a waste of a feat, at least early on.
For Cleave I see that this is a good 2nd/3rd level feat which drops at 6th unless replaced by Great Cleave if the GM is known to bring on the horde fairly often.
Umm, maybe a case of 4e-itis here but I thought I could substitute a move action for a standard action and take a 5 foot step as my first move action and then a normal move as my second?
|
Umm, maybe a case of 4e-itis here but I thought I could substitute a move action for a standard action and take a 5 foot step as my first move action and then a normal move as my second?
Yep, that's 4e-itis. you can only take a 5' step when you do not move. You can swap your standard as a move, but you just can't move with it in the same round as taking a 5' step.
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
But going back to the original question, Vital Strike (and all of its bigger and badder forms) does work with Spring Attack, which makes it nice for the those mobile Fighters.
Whenever I see a Fighter build, Cleave / Great Cleave are listed as "must haves" and Vital Strike is sometimes also considered vital :)
However, as normal combat goes, I almost never have the chance to use either!
First Round is usually charge - so no Cleave and no Vital Strike.
Well, if you had Cleave, presumably you'd use that on your first round isntead (if possible). The possibility of cleaving and hitting two enemies is better than a +2 to attacks, isn't it? Of course that only applies if your opponent is within a single move of you.
Cleave and Vital Strike are great for mobility. The Trap I find is full Attack. Now I'm coming from GM point of view here so I have a foe attacking my players and I full Attack that's a dead foe. Moving with Vitals and Cleave keeps them alive much longer and makes for more interesting combat that makes use of terrain.
As for Vital Strike can only use with an attack action. Listed under Attack Actions is Multiple Attack so if you full Attack you can still use Vital Strike. The feat limits it's use to one attack at only you highest BAB attack. So you vital on the first and normal on the rest. So Vital strike is good in both situations.
Here's how I read the rules
Attack Actions
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attack
Unarmed Attack
Ranged Attack
Natural Attack
Multiple Attack A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack. This is the exception to the rule that attack actions are standard actions
Vital Strike
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).
So look like it works for Full Attack to me as the feat references what do when you get additional attacks and Multiple Attack is listed as an attack action. That's how we play it and it works good for those stand and full attack types.
In regards to the bold print. You can only make one attack. It's not a melée version of manyshot and yes, this very question has been answered by Paizo staff themselves.
No worries though, that one has always been considered ill worded.
Back to MicMan: are you saying you can charge all the time? I guess I never really thought about how so few gaming groups use terrain peices. God my group is spoiled.
In my group, dead things (NPCs or PCs) turn into difficult terrain (I guess it's technically a house rule). Over the course of the battle difficult terrain piles up. Plus, since you can't charge through an ally's square, can't turn during a charge, and must charge the closest available square...charges are blocked about 1/2 the time.
???? So half the time, when you can't charge or get a full attack, you not Vital striking? It's one thing if you can't take the feat because your build is tight, but to poo poo a feat that gives you free damage (yes yes, situationally) and well, what are trying to say? Should the feat be powered up? I would agree with that statement. In practice it only gets used because the ranger in the group couldn't get a full attack. Kinda like the boobie prize for coming in last.
|
|
As a DM, if I am playing a smart monster encounter, there is no way the other side is getting a full attack on them unless they incapacitate them or stun them in some way (well barring having fire shield cast on them anyway). And they are not stupid enough to stand out in the open where they can be easily charged either. This means for at least one round, more if doable, the melees are going to have to move and attack. How can vital strike and cleave not be see as useful when movement is required?
Personally, unless we are talking about really dumb brutes, the DM is doing his players a dis-service to have monsters rush up to them and trade full attacks. Why would you play into your opponents strength?
First Round is usually charge - so no Cleave and no Vital Strike.
Rounds after that are usually full attack actions which does more damage than Vital Strike (unless against very very high AC monsters that should be very rare) considering the fact that it is almost always better to kill one opponent instead of hurting two. If the opponent flees from me he usually is faster, so move + Vital Strike are not going to cut it, another charge must do.
The only situation in which both are good (and then only one or the other) is when I face many weak opponents that I can onehit with Cleave or onehit with Vital Strike - and in this case I would usually step aside to let the Wizard shine for once.
Grapple is in the same boat as Cleave and Vital Strike but it seems much stronger if you can pull it off and as such is much more useful to spend a Feat (Improved Grapple) for.
But Cleave and Vital Strike seem newbie traps - only really good if you violate some rules (Cleave+iterative attacks, charge+Vital Strike).
So what am I missing here?
Quite a bit. First off, if you have these two feats and you are within one single move of the enemy, don't charge. If two are stood close together, move and Cleave them both. If not, move and Vital Strike the nearest/biggest/weakest whatever your priority is.
Second, Cleave is worth using any time you are near two foes below 6th level, and above it Great Cleave is useful any time you are near as many foes as you could full attack against (it works out slightly better, as you don't get your attack reduced with each attack). Both are also useful any time your enemies are distributed widely enough that you have to move to engage them.
The latter is also when Vital Strike gets useful. Any time you have to move or otherwise take a standard action to engage the enemy, there shall Vital Strike be useful. It doesn't matter that it doesnt do as much damage as a full attack if you cannot full attack. It's better than a standard action attack, and that's what counts.
First thanks for all the answers.
The common consensus here seems to be that Cleave or Vital Strike offer more versatility in the cases that a Fighter can not Full Attack.
It also has been said that many GMs see Full Attacks rather as an exception than the norm, thus making the aforementioned versatility more important.
However I still say that if versatility is wanted, a Fighter would be better off in the way of archery.
Weapon Spec Bow, PB-Attack and Rapid Shot for me blast Vital Strike or Cleave/Lunge out of the water. If a GM goes to the extreme making full attacks only happen once in a blue moon, I'd say that only archer Fighters are viable - dealing massive damage without sacrificing that much in terms of close combat potential.
However I still say that if versatility is wanted, a Fighter would be better off in the way of archery.
Weapon Spec Bow, PB-Attack and Rapid Shot for me blast Vital Strike or Cleave/Lunge out of the water. If a GM goes to the extreme making full attacks only happen once in a blue moon, I'd say that only archer Fighters are viable - dealing massive damage without sacrificing that much in terms of close combat potential.
Note that archery and Vital Strike are not mutually exclusive; you can still do a Vital Strike with a bow (on the occasions when you have to move, or on the surprise round when you only have a standard action, say).
For Vital Strike in particular, it isn't outstandingly useful (in my opinion), but in the situations where it is useful, it's esentially a "free" damage bonus.
|
|
Well, archers have their own issues sometimes too. There is a bow-spec'ed archer in my game and he and the wizard are always the first targets of enemy archers and spellcasters. Plus, a DR/10 or so tends to really reduce the effectiveness of an archer, compared to a power attacking 2 handed melee'er. Bad weather, low visibility, fog clouds or cramped quarters, like inside a dungeon reduce the overall effectiveness of archers, while having very little impact on a melee class. You definitely want a mix of both types. I think that every melee class should be versatile enough to go either way, but thats just me. Really depends on the style of your DMs campaign. If you are in a primarily outdoor setting, archery would certainly be highlighted, as would mounted combat focus.
First thanks for all the answers.
The common consensus here seems to be that Cleave or Vital Strike offer more versatility in the cases that a Fighter can not Full Attack.
It also has been said that many GMs see Full Attacks rather as an exception than the norm, thus making the aforementioned versatility more important.
However I still say that if versatility is wanted, a Fighter would be better off in the way of archery.
Weapon Spec Bow, PB-Attack and Rapid Shot for me blast Vital Strike or Cleave/Lunge out of the water. If a GM goes to the extreme making full attacks only happen once in a blue moon, I'd say that only archer Fighters are viable - dealing massive damage without sacrificing that much in terms of close combat potential.
Missile options are also good, but bear in mind that in any melee situation, unless you are going to stand around and wait for the enemy to come to you, then there has to be a 'closing' round of moving close to the enemy, and that is when Cleave or Vital Strike can make a difference.
Also, don't forget Deadly Aim when assessing missile options!
In regards to the bold print. You can only make one attack. It's not a melée version of manyshot and yes, this very question has been answered by Paizo staff themselves.Any chance you could link to the answer? Not doubting you, just want to read it.
No.
I'm responding via iPhone and cannot produce links. If I think of it when I get home I'll try, but if you can't wait then just read Manyshot and the Vital Stike. It'll all become clear after that.
I think neither of the feats are traps by default- but rather they *can* be depending on the kind of DM you have/are.
If the DM is continually foiling your attempt to get a full attack the vital strike is awesome. If the DM rarely or never bothers to block your full attack then VS seems somewhat useless.
If your DM never has adjacent opponents then cleave isn't as useful as it is when the DM has the little gobbies all lined up in a row.
The feats themselves are sound- but you need to know your DM's style before you select them.
-S
|
|
I think neither of the feats are traps by default- but rather they *can* be depending on the kind of DM you have/are.
If the DM is continually foiling your attempt to get a full attack the vital strike is awesome. If the DM rarely or never bothers to block your full attack then VS seems somewhat useless.
If your DM never has adjacent opponents then cleave isn't as useful as it is when the DM has the little gobbies all lined up in a row.
The feats themselves are sound- but you need to know your DM's style before you select them.
+1
|
|
In regards to the bold print. You can only make one attack. It's not a melée version of manyshot and yes, this very question has been answered by Paizo staff themselves.Any chance you could link to the answer? Not doubting you, just want to read it.No.
I'm responding via iPhone and cannot produce links. If I think of it when I get home I'll try, but if you can't wait then just read Manyshot and the Vital Stike. It'll all become clear after that.
Vital Strike is useful up until your BAB reaches +11 or higher, since its just like hitting twice in one round anyway. After +11, it's usefulness is gone. Cleave is only useful in getting to Greater Cleave, and then only useful against lower AC opponents en mass. At high levels, you rarely face an opponent that you'll hit with that 3rd/4th attack anyway.
... T_T I miss the old cleave.
... T_T I miss the old cleave.
I don't - once you got above 3rd level you rarely found anything you could one-shot anyway, so Cleave and great Cleave became useless. With the new Cleave/Great Cleave it doesn't matter if you one-shot them or not.
... T_T I miss the old cleave.I don't - once you got above 3rd level you rarely found anything you could one-shot anyway, so Cleave and great Cleave became useless. With the new Cleave/Great Cleave it doesn't matter if you one-shot them or not.
I said I missed the old cleave, which was always useful, as if you dropped a target you got a free hit on one right next to you. Great Cleave on the other hand could have used some work.
I said I missed the old cleave, which was always useful, as if you dropped a target you got a free hit on one right next to you. Great Cleave on the other hand could have used some work.... T_T I miss the old cleave.I don't - once you got above 3rd level you rarely found anything you could one-shot anyway, so Cleave and great Cleave became useless. With the new Cleave/Great Cleave it doesn't matter if you one-shot them or not.
Oh, I see your point - you would get that extra attack now and then. I still prefer the new version, it can help make combat much more mobile.
Vital Strike is useful up until your BAB reaches +11 or higher, since its just like hitting twice in one round anyway.I'm sorry I thought that Vital Strike only doubled the base weapon damage, did I misread it?
-James
he's talking about the next feat in the Vital Strike tree.
Oh, I see your point - you would get that extra attack now and then. I still prefer the new version, it can help make combat much more mobile.I said I missed the old cleave, which was always useful, as if you dropped a target you got a free hit on one right next to you. Great Cleave on the other hand could have used some work.... T_T I miss the old cleave.I don't - once you got above 3rd level you rarely found anything you could one-shot anyway, so Cleave and great Cleave became useless. With the new Cleave/Great Cleave it doesn't matter if you one-shot them or not.
Taking down a flank and then cleave into the other flanker just seems more mobile to me. You otherwise have to have them standing right next to each other, with flanking being a common tactic, makes the new cleave less useful with most situations.
P.S. Add in the -2 to ac and the fact that it isn't automatic any more making staking with other effects almost impossible, and well it is sub-par by far IMHO.
he's talking about the next feat in the Vital Strike tree.Which feat is that?
All the vital strike feats I see simply increase the base weapon damage and doesn't modify power attack, strength, magic or the like.
It's a nice boost if you are large using a great sword (like +10/feat) but seems like at best a gravy feat tree for situations that you would rather avoid (single attacks).
-James
Improved Vital Strike?
Actually, the way I look at it Vital Strike and the tree are all useful, because there are always situations in which a full-attack isn't possible. Even if you are using a rapier, each feat is worth +1d6 damage, and that's worth a feat IMHO. Now if you get a chance to sneak attack with it ...
Contributor
|
I can! Here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/chargingWithAVitalStrike&page=1#22In regards to the bold print. You can only make one attack. It's not a melée version of manyshot and yes, this very question has been answered by Paizo staff themselves.Any chance you could link to the answer? Not doubting you, just want to read it.No.
I'm responding via iPhone and cannot produce links. If I think of it when I get home I'll try, but if you can't wait then just read Manyshot and the Vital Stike. It'll all become clear after that.
Thanks!
Now if you get a chance to sneak attack with it ...Then the extra d6 is worth less than if you didn't. Weapon focus would be better to make sure your sneak attack hits.
Depending on the target's AC, can be true, and it makes your damage more consistent. But actually the extra d6 is often better (surprised me): If you need to roll better than 18-#SA (# of Sneak attack dice), then weapon focus is superior.
9th level Rogue (when you can first take VS with a regular feat), 1d6 rapier, +3-4 for magic/str, +5d6 sneak attack = 24-25 damage. A +1 to hit adds a bit about 1.2 points of damage to average damage for the attack overall. An additional 3.5 damage adds 3.5 times chance of hitting. So if chance of hitting is greater than 1.2/3.5 (34%, 13 or better on d20), vital strike increases damage more on average.