| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know this has been discussed a million and one times, but I noticed something tonight that prompted me to bring it up for the million and second time.
Vital Strike clearly says "When you use the attack action," rather than "As a standard action" or "As an attack action." Interesting choice of words there.
So, what is an Attack Action? According to the game designers it is a standard action that is used to make an attack. Okay, I don't agree with that, but it does make some sense. For this thread I'm going to assume it is true (since the game designers support it as the game's standard).
Cleave is a special attack that you make as a standard action. Therefore, it is an attack action as per the game designers' own definition.
Because the wording of Vital Strike says "When you use the attack action," as its qualifier, it stands to reason that this can be ANY attack action, rather than an attack action exclusive to Vital Strike.
For example, when Cleave says "As a standard action," it is clear that the standard action is solely for activating Cleave. This kind of wording is not the case with the new errata'd vital strike.
As such, I submit to this fine community, my latest idea: You can, according to RAW, combine Cleave and Vital Strike.
Do you agree or disagree? This thread is meant to discuss the idea and tear apart the wording of these feats and others like them. You know, par for the course and all that.
My search-fu is lacking right now would you link the vital strike errata please so that I can ponder and perhaps present and opinion.
I know this has been discussed a million and one times, but I noticed something tonight that prompted me to bring it up for the million and second time.
Vital Strike clearly says "When you use the attack action," rather than "As a standard action" or "As an attack action." Interesting choice of words there.
So, what is an Attack Action? According to the game designers it is a standard action that is used to make an attack. Okay, I don't agree with that, but it does make some sense. For this thread I'm going to assume it is true (since the game designers support it as the game's standard).
If you look at the table of standard actions you can take in combat, the first thing listed is "attack". The attack action is a type of standard action.
Cleave is a special attack that you make as a standard action. Therefore, it is an attack action as per the game designers' own definition.
I'm afraid not. Cleave is a different standard action. Just because "cleave" and "attack" are both standard actions doesn't make them the same thing.
Using either one means you are not doing the other. Vital strike only works with attack actions so you cannot use it with cleave.
I always assumed vital strike to restrict you to a single attack action in return for higher damage, but the way it is worded in the PRD make me wonder. I do believe that is the INTENT, so I will hold to that, simply because it wouldn't make sense for anyone doing melee combat not to pick it up if you get double damage on your first attack per round.
Both feats require that the player specifically state that he is doing either/or. An attack is a standard action, as is the activation of the cleave feat, which to me sounds like an activated (Ex) ability using a standard action.
Cleave requires you to use a standard action to use an attack. In order to use Vital Strike, you must be making an attack... (Edit: This is where the whole thing breaks down; I think activating cleave is a standard action, which isn't quite the same as making an attack, despite the fact that you get to make an attack.)
RAW says to me that it works, though I don't really like it. It feels unintentional, but perhaps it is. I was unaware until now that cleave wasn't usable during a full-round attack with iterative attacks, so maybe Vital Strike and Cleave are a way of increasing a fighter's DPR...?
I am quite sure there's a reason so many people say that it doesn't work. I wouldn't allow it.
I always assumed vital strike to restrict you to a single attack action in return for higher damage, but the way it is worded in the PRD make me wonder. I do believe that is the INTENT, so I will hold to that, simply because it wouldn't make sense for anyone doing melee combat not to pick it up if you get double damage on your first attack per round.
Both feats require that the player specifically state that he is doing either/or. An attack is a standard action, as is the activation of the cleave feat, which to me sounds like an activated (Ex) ability using a standard action.
Cleave requires you to use a standard action to use an attack. In order to use Vital Strike, you must be making an attack... (Edit: This is where the whole thing breaks down; I think activating cleave is a standard action, which isn't quite the same as making an attack, despite the fact that you get to make an attack.)
RAW says to me that it works, though I don't really like it. It feels unintentional, but perhaps it is. I was unaware until now that cleave wasn't usable during a full-round attack with iterative attacks, so maybe Vital Strike and Cleave are a way of increasing a fighter's DPR...?
I am quite sure there's a reason so many people say that it doesn't work. I wouldn't allow it.
They don't work together according to the new FAQ.
They don't work together according to the new FAQ.
Yeah, I have no idea where that is... The only FAQ I've seen is the Paizo website FAQ. At any rate, I suppose that answers the question. Case closed, eh?
They don't work together according to the new FAQ.Yeah, I have no idea where that is... The only FAQ I've seen is the Paizo website FAQ. At any rate, I suppose that answers the question. Case closed, eh?
That be the one.
I just checked the official FAQ for the core rulebook and I see no mention of either vital strike OR cleave OR attack action. Therefore, whatever "FAQ" you happen to be reading is unofficial and is, at best, little more than an opinion.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Vital-Strike-3-7-10-
Is where I found it seems pretty legit to me, Raving.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Vital-Strike-3-7-10-
Is where I found it seems pretty legit to me, Raving.
So it was once a designer's intent.
Seeing as there has been no official FAQ or errata on the matter, one wonders if it is still James' intent. Even if it is, game designers don't always agree amongst themselves on intent, so as far as I'm concerned...
...unofficial opinion. Nothing more.
So far Foghammer makes the best case against the combo, though I question his view on cleave not being an attack action in its own right.
|
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Vital-Strike-3-7-10-
Is where I found it seems pretty legit to me, Raving.
So it was once a designer's intent.
Seeing as there has been no official FAQ or errata on the matter, one wonders if it is still James' intent. Even if it is, game designers don't always agree amongst themselves on intent, so as far as I'm concerned...
...unofficial opinion. Nothing more.
So you are willing to start whole threads to try to encourage and beguile your way of getting a developer to respond so you can argue how your position is superior by pointing to their advice... but you are unwilling to listen to what they have to say when it conflicts with yours? Something is wrong here...
So you are willing to start whole threads to try to encourage and beguile your way of getting a developer to respond so you can argue how your position is superior by pointing to their advice... but you are unwilling to listen to what they have to say when it conflicts with yours? Something is wrong here...
Let's not resort to attacks on people's character here. This thread is meant to be about civilized debate.
The way i see it is that Cleave is a standard action; Vital Strike is a standard action.
You can't perform two standard actions in one round, therefore this is illegal.
The way i see it is that Cleave is a standard action; Vital Strike is a standard action.
You can't perform two standard actions in one round, therefore this is illegal.
Pretty much this.
|
I do believe that vital strike and cleave were originally supposed to be interpreted as separate kinds of actions, and never the twain shall meet.
But the rules don't really specify that. They say "When you make the attack action" or "when you attack as a standard action". So I think this is a situation where the RAW creates a little fuzzy line or a grey area, and a DM can easily rule either way, yet still justifiably say it is done "as written".
Either they're each separate actions (cannot be combined) or they are ways to modify a standard attack (can be combined). While the rules seem to lean towards the former, I do not believe the latter is really forbidden.
So you are willing to start whole threads to try to encourage and beguile your way of getting a developer to respond so you can argue how your position is superior by pointing to their advice... but you are unwilling to listen to what they have to say when it conflicts with yours? Something is wrong here...Let's not resort to attacks on people's character here. This thread is meant to be about civilized debate.
Civilized or not he has a point.
A lot of the questions in threads you have started, or threads where you are active/have been active in, have all ready been dealt with.A lot of your questions have already been answered. Hell, I should know, I have been active to in some of these threads and I even helped you out sometimes. Even Jason B have answered you in some of these threads. As he did in "Spring attack errata'd to a full round action. Skirmishers everywhere are now screwed!"? Remember?
If you don't like the answer, fine. Admit you have the answer, You don't like the answer and you want the rules to change. Be honest about it.
If you don't like it use house rules, but pretending you don't know or understand the rules just so you can "start whole threads [or flame existing threads] to try to encourage and beguile your way of getting a developer [or other people ] to respond so you" is not cool.
I really don't care I you started a thread or if someone else did. This is a community. We try to help each other here. If someone starts a thread and you know the answer, help him/her with the answer and add a link. Don't flame the thread and pretend you have never seen the answer.
The way I see it is that Cleave is a standard action; ital Strike is a standard action.
You can't perform two standard actions in one round, therefore this is illegal.
+1
Vital strike = attack action
Attack action = standard action
Cleave = standard action
actually Jason has already said that vital strike is a standard action.
As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.Hope that helps...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
source http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/chargingWithAVitalStrike&page=1#22
I do believe that vital strike and cleave were originally supposed to be interpreted as separate kinds of actions, and never the twain shall meet.
But the rules don't really specify that. They say "When you make the attack action" or "when you attack as a standard action". So I think this is a situation where the RAW creates a little fuzzy line or a grey area, and a DM can easily rule either way, yet still justifiably say it is done "as written".
Either they're each separate actions (cannot be combined) or they are ways to modify a standard attack (can be combined). While the rules seem to lean towards the former, I do not believe the latter is really forbidden.
sigh
Hey there everybody,
Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.
Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.
I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
And link to quote.
Nice Zark, but is Jason saying there (perhaps inadvertently) that you can use Vital Strike as an AoO?
Nice Zark, but is Jason saying there (perhaps inadvertently) that you can use Vital Strike as an AoO?
Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action.
so he says its a standard action.
An AoO is spoken of as a free attack (paragraph 1), or a single melee attack (paragraph 8) p180 core book not as an "attack action".
Yep, you're right DS. I thought i remembered AoO's being called attack actions. They're not.
Nice Zark, but is Jason saying there (perhaps inadvertently) that you can use Vital Strike as an AoO?Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action.
so he says its a standard action.
An AoO is spoken of as a free attack (paragraph 1), or a single melee attack (paragraph 8) p180 core book not as an "attack action".
+1
Also, with Combat Reflexes and dex 18 you can take 5 AoO in one round. You can not perform 5 standard actions in one round.
If you don't like the answer, fine. Admit you have the answer, You don't like the answer and you want the rules to change. Be honest about it.
I've never been anything but honest about my disdain for James' horrible, horrible, unofficial ruling. I've also never claimed to not understand the rules when I did.
You can't perform two standard actions in one round, therefore this is illegal.
You and others in this thread who keep saying this seem to be missing the point of my argument in the OP.
Allow me to attempt to clarify: the Vital Strike feat says "When you use an attack action," it means you must use an attack action before you can make use of the feat. It doesn't matter what KIND of attack action, so long as it IS an attack action. Let's assume there was another combat feat which said "You can activate this feat as an attack action to...do something" You could stack both feats, because spending the action to activate the latter ability would allow you to meet the requirements for the former ability. The second feat clearly uses up a standard action whereas the first (vital strike) only needs you to use an attack action first. Do you follow?
By extension, I'm also arguing that, per James' definition, Cleave is an attack action (that is, an attack that is made as a standard action).
I'm not at all arguing designer intent (I disagree with James on this point anyways). I'm arguing the official RAW. If you think I'm just blowing steam by discounting James' unofficial words, than so be it. This debate, as with any debate, is what you make of it.
Then by that reasoning you should be able to 'stack' any attack action by saying that i'm performing an attack action, therefore the pre-req's for VS (or whatever) is fulfilled.
Besides that point, Jason specifically said that you can't use these two feats in conjunction with each other.
It doesn't get clearer than that.
On the matter of personal attacks, i don't care for it. As far as i'm concerned, this is a community, and if someone (doesn't really matter who or for what reason) asks a question, i'm happy to discuss the problem and provide solutions. Anything else, isn't really helpful.
Allow me to attempt to clarify: the Vital Strike feat says "When you use an attack action," it means you must use an attack action before you can make use of the feat. It doesn't matter what KIND of attack action, so long as it IS an attack action. Let's assume there was another combat feat which said "You can activate this feat as an attack action to...do something" You could stack both feats, because spending the action to activate the latter ability would allow you to meet the requirements for the former ability. The second feat clearly uses up a standard action whereas the first (vital strike) only needs you to use an attack action first. Do you follow?
Well the quote linked says that vital strike is used IN PLACE OF the attack action as in you say, "I cleave (attack action), and i want to vital strike (used in place of the attack action cleave) so it supersedes the attack action you declared and you vital strike instead. I suppose for fun you could declare any attack action you wish and as soon as you say I am going to vital strike this attack action you vital strike instead. At least that's how I read it
stuff
Still pretending to be stupid?
You have the answers and you keep on feeding this threads with lies.The rule gods are Jason B. and Sean KR not James.
Read the thread: "Spring attack errata'd to a full round action. Skirmishers everywhere are now screwed!"
Remember this?
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?ATTACK ACTION is an attack (melee or ranged) that is taken on your turn as part of your normal sequence of actions.
ATTACK is any offensive action taken against another using a D20 to adjudicate.
Note that not all ATTACKs are ATTACK ACTIONS.
Attacks of opportunity for instance is an attack (with a roll of a die), but not an ATTACK ACTION as it was not taken during your normal sequence of actions on your turn.
An ATTACK ACTION is a TYPE of STANDARD ACTION. (so is casting a spell a type of STANDARD ACTION).
Note - once again, ATTACK ACTION is a type of STANDARD ACTION, where as an Attack of Opportunity is a type of attack, but not a type of STANDARD ACTION and thus it is not an ATTACK ACTION - because all ATTACK ACTIONS are STANDARD ACTIONS, but not all attacks are ATTACK ACTIONS.
An ATTACK ACTION allows a MOVE ACTION to be done in conjunction with it - just like ALL other STANDARD ACTIONS do.
Again note not ALL types of attacks allow you to have a MOVE ACTION in conjunction with it - an attack of opportunity as mentioned above is NOT an ATTACK ACTION - not a STANDARD ACTION at all - thus it does not allow a MOVE ACTION to accompany it. (which I'm sure you already know).
So now hopefully you see the difference between a specified category: ATTACK ACTION, and the idea of making an attack.
So just because it's an ATTACK and it's an ACTION - doesn't classify it in game terms as an ATTACK ACTION; unless it fits certain criteria.
Robert
and remember this?
Hey there all,
Robert basically has this right here and I will look to clarify up the terminology a bit in the next printing.
I do want to point out one thing here. Messageboard posts are never official, no matter who they come from. The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time. We here at Paizo will give out opinions and you can feel free to use those as you see fit in your game, but beyond that it is left for your GM to decide (as it should be with all such matters).
We are never going to be able to rule on every single issue that comes up. This game is just too complex for that, so this is the only way to keep our sanity intact (and yours).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't know whats unclear or unofficial when JASON BULMAHN states:
my bold.
These are not "James' unofficial words". There are more than one thread where it has officially been establish that cleave + Vital strike = no.
Focusing on "James' unofficial words" does come off as dishonest when you have JASON BULMAHN'S official words and you choose to ignore them.
It doesn't matter what I or anyone else post, you will live in denial.
I won't waste anymore time here.
edit: You may keep on playing ignorant, but you only come off as a jerk or as someone with a problem. Especially when you have been active in other threads where this has already been discussed and answered..officially....or as oficially you will get until JB "will look to clarify up the terminology a bit in the next printing".
Sorry for the misunderstanding Zark. It is clear to me now that we both have different views of what makes something official. For me, a game designer stating his opinion on a public forum is not official. For it to be official it needs to be added to the errata or FAQ.
Then by that reasoning you should be able to 'stack' any attack action by saying that i'm performing an attack action, therefore the pre-req's for VS (or whatever) is fulfilled.
You don't find the RAW wording to be suspicious?
If it was another feat with the same kind of wording, you would see it my way (provided you stick to RAW and discount James' opinion).
For example, if a feat said "When you cast a spell, you can [gain X benefit]." The trigger is casting a spell, ANY spell, with any casting time. All you need to be doing to benefit from the feat is casting a spell. It's like Weapon Focus saying "if you are using your chosen weapon, you gain +1 to attack rolls with it."
Vital Strike has VERY similar wording. "When you use the attack action, you [increase weapon damage]." So long as you are using an attack action, you're good to use the feat (even if your attack action wasn't made specifically to activate vital strike).
I would also like to clarify that I'm arguing for the RAW in a vacuum. I am completely discounting James' words and focusing ONLY on the words in the book, because they are what is official.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Zark. It is clear to me now that we both have different views of what makes something official. For me, a game designer stating his opinion on a public forum is not official. For it to be official it needs to be added to the errata or FAQ.
Sigh
What is unclear with: "I will look to clarify up the terminology a bit in the next printing".He knows he needs to clarify up the terminology and he know folks wants a FAQ answer.
You just verified that Carbon D. Metric is correct.
So you are willing to start whole threads to try to encourage and beguile your way of getting a developer to respond so you can argue how your position is superior by pointing to their advice... but you are unwilling to listen to what they have to say when it conflicts with yours? Something is wrong here...
+2.
No need to linger here. Something is indeed wrong here...
Suspicious? Not really. Ambiguous maybe, until you look at the technical definition of 'attack action' posted above.
What you're suggesting has more in common with casting two spells at the same time, because they're both 'Cast a spell' actions.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Zark. It is clear to me now that we both have different views of what makes something official. For me, a game designer stating his opinion on a public forum is not official. For it to be official it needs to be added to the errata or FAQ.Sigh
What is unclear with: "I will look to clarify up the terminology a bit in the next printing".
He knows he needs to clarify up the terminology and he know folks wants a FAQ answer.
Except that post was written some time ago. Changes have already been made (such as to Spring Attack). I'm guessing he thinks he's done as far as this issue is concerned. If that really is the case, then my point still stands as far as RAW is concerned.
You just verified that Carbon D. Metric is correct.
So you are willing to start whole threads to try to encourage and beguile your way of getting a developer to respond so you can argue how your position is superior by pointing to their advice... but you are unwilling to listen to what they have to say when it conflicts with yours? Something is wrong here...
How is Metric correct in regards to this thread? I am not trying to get a developer to respond here, quite the opposite. And I am willing to listen to what the designers have to say. Just because I don't agree with all of it doesn't mean I didn't listen.
These posts are getting off topic. If you are going to post about the discussion at hand, please do so. If you are going to hint at my supposedly dastardly nature, go elsewhere. Such comments are no longer welcome here.
Suspicious? Not really. Ambiguous maybe, until you look at the technical definition of 'attack action' posted above.
What you're suggesting has more in common with casting two spells at the same time, because they're both 'Cast a spell' actions.
Bad choice of words on my part.
The "technical definition" of attack action doesn't exist within RAW the way James seems to see it. All we have supporting his definition is two words on a table.
If, going by that table, we see that an attack action is a standard action that is used to make an attack, then the use of Cleave qualifies as an attack action. Spring Attack, prior to the errata, also qualified as an attack action. They both met every criteria of the definition (now, only Cleave does).
Really though, I think it is even easier than that. I think the term "attack action" is inclusively self explanatory. An attack action is an action used to attack. AoO's don't qualify, but most other attacks do.
Before all these weird rulings started coming about, I used to argue that the Vital Strike line, being the only game mechanics that even used the term attack action (a term that appears no where else within the rules) were simply written in error--that "attack action" was most likely just a hold over from a previous edition.
EDIT: After doing a search, I now realize the term attack action also appears under the Parry ability under the Duelist prestige class as well as the Automatic Misses and Hits section of the combat chapter. That makes only 3 instances. Still rather slim for a supposedly defined term.
Oh, it's definitely a recent development. But even in Core, the first line of Attack (p.182) says that 'Making an attack is a standard action'. So i suppose that it's an attack 'action'.
meh. My position hasn't really changed.
If what you're proposing is legal, then this kind of crap will happen:
a) Move; and
b) perform a Great Cleave as a standard action; and
c) because they're doing an *action that is an attack* qualify for VS...for every single creature within reach and next to each other.
I'm not convinced that this is balanced or fair - regardless of intent.
If, going by that table, we see that an attack action is a standard action that is used to make an attack, then the use of Cleave qualifies as an attack action. Spring Attack, prior to the errata, also qualified as an attack action. They both met every criteria of the definition (now, only Cleave does).Really though, I think it is even easier than that. I think the term "attack action" is inclusively self explanatory. An attack action is an action used to attack. AoO's don't qualify, but most other attacks do.
This could surely open of for abuse, as many actions include attacks.
Look at spellcasting, many spells are standard action during which you make an attack (melee or ranged touch). Be the same logic, you should be able to use Vital Strike with these.
Yes, I expect, some might comment that the spell damage is not weapon damage, but as far as rays go, they are explicitly considered weapons for weapon focus, and would logically be for Vital Strike as well (since it does not specify any kind of weapon).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
For it to be official it needs to be added to the errata or FAQ.
Vital Strike wording. "When you use the attack action
As to the Errata, you are never going to get what you want for all things, so you have no choice but to give up on that (unless you want to exclude non errata so you can continue to "miss-interpret" a rule as your intent) and just go with most (if not all) unofficial rulings, especially when they explain how the rule works.
As for your second, that line means this:
"When you take a standard actions, specifically the attack action"
For the feat to work as you wish (to combine all "when you take attack actions" into one action) the Vital Strike needs to say:
"When you attack, you may deal more damage blah."