Now, I have been playing a Summoner who rides his Eidolon into battle, using a lance, and I have naturally picked up the Mounted Combat Tree. The question is, could I use ride by attack to vital strike a foe I am fighting, using Spirited Charge?
I know Vital Strike is a Standard Action, and normally you wouldn't be able to use it with a charge. But would Ride-by-Attack let you get around it?
You cannot combine vital strike with a charge, sorry. Ride-by-Attack is still a full attack action.
Hrm...I wonder what other feats I would want as a mounted rider then...Skill Focus: Ride is always good...but what else...
That said, Vital Strike is still a very useful feat to have for those occasions when you have only a standard action to attack with.
You cannot combine vital strike with a charge, sorry. Ride-by-Attack is still a full attack action.
It's a good thing he is not charging. His mount is.
When the mount charges IT spends a full round action, can move up to double its speed and make an attack at the end of its movement. It gains a +2 to hit and -2 AC due to the charge.
The rider, who hasn't spent any actions yet, may spend a standard action to attack at the end of the mount's charge as per normal. Since he got dragged along for the ride, he too gains a +2 to hit and a -2 to AC due to the mount's charge.
Since the rider is not charging, and is using an attack action, he absolutely can use Vital Strike in the given scenario.
Under normal circumstances (where the lancer himself would be charging) you are absolutely correct, since charging is a full round action, not an attack action.
It's not like it is a broken combo or anything. It almost puts the mounted lancer on par with the archer...almost.
You cannot combine vital strike with a charge, sorry. Ride-by-Attack is still a full attack action.It's a good thing he is not charging. His mount is.
When the mount charges IT spends a full round action, can move up to double its speed and make an attack at the end of its movement. It gains a +2 to hit and -2 AC due to the charge.
The rider, who hasn't spent any actions yet, may spend a standard action to attack at the end of the mount's charge as per normal. Since he got dragged along for the ride, he too gains a +2 to hit and a -2 to AC due to the mount's charge.
Since the rider is not charging, and is using an attack action, he absolutely can use Vital Strike in the given scenario.
Under normal circumstances (where the lancer himself would be charging) you are absolutely correct, since charging is a full round action, not an attack action.
It's not like it is a broken combo or anything. It almost puts the mounted lancer on par with the archer...almost.
Very true - horse and rider and separate entities. I too would like to see Vital Strike work on a charge. It works on Spring Attack so heck, why not charge?
Ah, that's right. It could work then...
I read on one forum that officially Vital strike did work with spring attack. Can we get one last clarification on this?
|
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/officalAnswers&page=4#178
like that?
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.
For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
so officially spring attack and Vital strike dont work together, but its not "the most borke thing evar" to let them work.
as for charging, as long as the extra damage isn't getting multiplied(since its above and beyond a weapons normal damage) its not the most broken tactic either. But RAW doesn't let it work
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/officalAnswers&page=4#178
like that?
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.
For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
so officially spring attack and Vital strike dont work together, but its not "the most borke thing evar" to let them work.
as for charging, as long as the extra damage isn't getting multiplied(since its above and beyond a weapons normal damage) its not the most broken tactic either. But RAW doesn't let it work
Actually, just below that quote he corrects himself:
#1: You win the internet for today!
#2:Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a microexaminaiton of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool.
Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW!
Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all. :-)
Emphasis mine. You only quoted half his post, where he was correcting himself.
stuff
Ride-By Attack:
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a foe, and then continue moving.When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again.
Spirited Charge:
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
My bold.
It's preatty obvious the rider and the mount is a team, both charge. I'm not sure that I like it however.
stuffRide-By Attack:
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a foe, and then continue moving.When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again.
Spirited Charge:
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.My bold.
It's preatty obvious the rider and the mount is a team, both charge. I'm not sure that I like it however.
I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to refute it. I'm surprised you didn't pop in much sooner.
You make a good argument too as it gives us insight to the designer's intent. However, whereas I quoted the charge rules and the mounted combat rules, you are pulling from a feat. That's like trying to disprove my definition with text from a thesaurus when my definition came from the dictionary. My source is a bit more credible.
Currently I believe that, RAW, you can use Vital Strike on a charge. However, as you've shown, that does not appear to have been the designer's intent.
Take it as you will. We all play our own games our way anyways.
Take it as you will. We all play our own games our way anyways.
Don't we all :-)
I was just trying to help.Vital Strike on a charge is a no. That's been made clear by both Jason and James (and by the rules).
Mounted combat + Spirited Charge + Vital Strike is also a no. At least if we are to believe Jason who is the King of the rules.
See link
Anyway, " We all play our own games our way anyways"
Take it as you will. We all play our own games our way anyways.
Don't we all :-)
I was just trying to help.
Vital Strike on a charge is a no. That's been made clear by both Jason and James (and by the rules).Mounted combat + Spirited Charge + Vital Strike is also a no. At least if we are to believe Jason who is the King of the rules.
See link
Anyway, " We all play our own games our way anyways"
Thanks for the link, but as far as I can tell, Jason only clarified the issue for non-mounted charges.
Mounted vital strike charges are still ambiguous.
It does reward mounted characters, who invest time, money, feats and RP on there mounts as well as cleverness to get them working into a dungeon-crawl (At least, all the games I play go into at least one) and allows someone to keep up with the damage of the Archer or, the Wizard should he/she be playing a blaster.
It does reward mounted characters, who invest time, money, feats and RP on there mounts as well as cleverness to get them working into a dungeon-crawl (At least, all the games I play go into at least one) and allows someone to keep up with the damage of the Archer or, the Wizard should he/she be playing a blaster.
Keep up with the damage of a wizard? Really? How are you really going to compare with 20d6 once a round (average of 70 before a save, spell resistance or energy resistance)?
It does reward mounted characters, who invest time, money, feats and RP on there mounts as well as cleverness to get them working into a dungeon-crawl (At least, all the games I play go into at least one) and allows someone to keep up with the damage of the Archer or, the Wizard should he/she be playing a blaster.Keep up with the damage of a wizard? Really? How are you really going to compare with 20d6 once a round (average of 70 before a save, spell resistance or energy resistance)?
I dunno how well a lancer will stack up to that, but a high level archer will reliably average ~200 per round--far, far more than than that high level wizard. The archer could most likely keep it up longer than the wizard could too.
I dunno how well a lancer will stack up to that, but a high level archer will reliably average ~200 per round--far, far more than than that high level wizard. The archer could most likely keep it up longer than the wizard could too.It does reward mounted characters, who invest time, money, feats and RP on there mounts as well as cleverness to get them working into a dungeon-crawl (At least, all the games I play go into at least one) and allows someone to keep up with the damage of the Archer or, the Wizard should he/she be playing a blaster.Keep up with the damage of a wizard? Really? How are you really going to compare with 20d6 once a round (average of 70 before a save, spell resistance or energy resistance)?
I forgot my sarcasm tag again didn't I? ;D
Thanks for the link, but as far as I can tell, Jason only clarified the issue for non-mounted charges.
Sure, Ignore the contex. I guess the name of that thread isn't important.
Play as you wish. I don't care.
Thanks for the link, but as far as I can tell, Jason only clarified the issue for non-mounted charges.Sure, Ignore the contex. I guess the name of that thread isn't important.
Play as you wish. I don't care.
I wasn't ignoring the context, just not paying attention. I simply missed the title.
OK :)