Focused Shot + Vital Strike = ?

[masda]

Hello Folks,

I was browsing through the feats for possibilitys to improve damage of ranged attacks (especially for the crossbow).
I found "Focused Shot" wich sounds good. But I am not shure if it's able to combine it with Vital Strike. The wording on Vital Strike is vague.

If that is not the case, then Focused Shot wouldn't be so great, right?
I mean, if I had to choose between the two as a crossbowman:

- Focused Shot gives INT to dammage, which would be 3-4 if you are a Fighter that is willing to have good INT for that reason but only works within 30ft.

- Vital Strike adds at least 1 damage die (more if you take the whole chain), that's 5.5-16.5 with a heavy crossbow without a range restriction.

Sure, FS damage is multiplied on a crit. But I think even basic VS is better.
Am I missing something?

[DougErvin]

I am playing a elven bard and I had planned on taking both focused shot and vital strike to increase my damage output. Until you asked the question I never even thought they would not work together. Guess we need to flag this thread for FAQ.

Doug

[Gallard Stormeye]

They are both standard actions. No, they do not stack.

I have no idea how this continues to confuse people.

[Ravingdork]

I don't think they do. Focused Shot is a standard action whereas vital strike is an attack action. You can't combine the two any more than you can combine vital strike with cleave.

[voska66]

Ravingdork wrote:

I don't think they do. Focused Shot is a standard action whereas vital strike is an attack action. You can't combine the two any more than you can combine vital strike with cleave.

+1 to this.

Attack Action are also listed under Standard actions. So Vital Strike only applies to those.

I'd house rule this work though.

[DougErvin]

Solves my choice of my next feat at 7th level focused shot and then deadly aim at 9th. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Focused Shot, Deadly Aim and Arcane Strike should all stack, I belive.

There really is not much value in Vital Strike as you can't combine it with much.

Doug

[Ravingdork]

DougErvin wrote:

Solves my choice of my next feat at 7th level focused shot and then deadly aim at 9th. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Focused Shot, Deadly Aim and Arcane Strike should all stack, I belive.

Yes, those stack.

DougErvin wrote:

There really is not much value in Vital Strike as you can't combine it with much.

Doug

The game designers' incessant neutering of the feat has done nothing for the game except to make yet another trap for newbies. Why couldn't they have just changed the wording so you can use it whenever you make only a single attack in the round (excepting AoOs which won't benefit)? Then mobility builds with Spring Attack could actually suck LESS.

Stupid game designers.

/nerd rage

[Ravingdork]

DougErvin wrote:

Solves my choice of my next feat at 7th level focused shot and then deadly aim at 9th. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Focused Shot, Deadly Aim and Arcane Strike should all stack, I belive.

Yes, those stack.

DougErvin wrote:

There really is not much value in Vital Strike as you can't combine it with much.

Doug

The game designers' incessant neutering of the feat has done nothing for the game except to make yet another trap for newbies. Why couldn't they have just changed the wording so you can use it whenever you make only a single attack in the round (excepting AoOs which won't benefit)? Then mobility builds with Spring Attack could actually suck LESS.

Stupid game designers.

/nerd rage

[masda]

Yeah, I guessed so that they wouldn't stack. I already read here that Vital Strike doesn't work together with anything else :)

So I will take the route of Vital Strike because with the improved versions I can pimp up the damage further as with Focused Shot.

Ravingdork wrote:

The game designers' incessant neutering of the feat has done nothing for the game except to make yet another trap for newbies. Why couldn't they have just changed the wording so you can use it whenever you make only a single attack in the round (excepting AoOs which won't benefit)? Then mobility builds with Spring Attack could actually suck LESS.

Stupid game designers.

/nerd rage

I would love that too. With the current rules, things like Spring Attack or Shot on the Run really suck. You couldn't even use Focused Shot with the latter :(

[James Risner]

Gallard Stormeye wrote:

They are both standard actions. No, they do not stack.

I have no idea how this continues to confuse people.

+1

You need something that says "when you use another standard action you can get this extra" verbiage.

[Huan]

This is a long reply. You have been warned.... In short, i think we might be missing the point that the benefits provided by the feats in question are meant to augment more generic actions, such as attack actions and not create a host of discrete and equal but unmixable standard actions.

Are we tripping over the use of the phrase "standard action" in the Focused Shot feat? While i agree that the "benefit" section of the feat Focused Shot references itself as part of a standard action, i took that to mean that one could only gain the benefit as part of an attack action and not a full attack. It did not occur to me that Focused Shot was being defined as a standard action separate from other attack actions. Aren't most feats designed to add efficacy and flair to otherwise less effective unaugmented actions? The Core Rule Book (pages 182-184) presents attack actions as just that: whenever a player character makes a single attack, contrasted only with full attacks, defined as multiple attacks. The former is the first example detailed of the more general category "standard action"; the latter (Core 187)is the first example detailed of the more general category "full round action."

Put differently, "As a standard action, you may make an attack with a bow or crossbow and add your intelligence modifier on the damage roll. You must be..." (APL 160) describes a benefit that is tacked onto a normally available attack, which we already know is a standard action and more specifically an attack action. Perhaps it was unnecessary to include the introductory phrase "As a standard action,..." because the phrase tells us something that we already ought to know. The point is the benefit, unique to those who have taken the feat: adding you INT modifier to the damage roll.

Similarly, i am not convinced that Vital Strike and Spring Attack cannot be combined. Vital Strike (Core 136) as written has to be part of an attack action. Spring Attack (Core 134) is more tricky because it does not mention "standard action" or "attack action"--instead it mentions an attack taken during a single move. A single move is a move action, so the attack has to be an attack action (and not a full attack). The benefit from the feat is defined by when you get to perform the attack action (in this case during a move). It is still, presumably, an attack action ("Making an attack is an attack action", Core 182). Where does it say that Spring Attack and Vital Strike are discrete standard actions, separate even from more generic attack actions, that cannot be combined?

Having said all this, i wonder if i am missing something. Does any one know of any official clarifications on these feats?

-Huan

-Huan

[ESSEL]

Ravingdork wrote:

Then mobility builds with Spring Attack could actually suck LESS.

I do not understand why they changed Spring Attack (full round action instead of just move before and after your action). This feat was not broken, even in combination with Vital Strike.

[James Risner]

Huan wrote:

Are we tripping over the use of the phrase "standard action" in the Focused Shot feat?

No we are tripping over the use of "attack action" which is only a standard action in the Vital Strike feat.

So to combine VS with FS, then FS would need to say "as part of another standard action attack" or something similar.

[Omega Man]

Personally, I see Vital Strike as a means to help provide some balance between the archer builds & the melee builds. I never really considered it as being a way for the archers to add even more damage to their already high output.

Typical round of combat...

Melee: I move to engage & swing once. One hit from melee weapon of choice.

Archer: I move 5 feet & full attack. 2+ arrows fly downrange

My paladin falls into the 1st category. With the addition of Vital Strike, he now moves to engage & (presuming he hits) does damage as though he hit twice (kinda sorta - minus all the add on damage).

[wraithstrike]

Huan wrote:

This is a long reply. You have been warned.... In short, i think we might be missing the point that the benefits provided by the feats in question are meant to augment more generic actions, such as attack actions and not create a host of discrete and equal but unmixable standard actions.

Are we tripping over the use of the phrase "standard action" in the Focused Shot feat? While i agree that the "benefit" section of the feat Focused Shot references itself as part of a standard action, i took that to mean that one could only gain the benefit as part of an attack action and not a full attack. It did not occur to me that Focused Shot was being defined as a standard action separate from other attack actions. Aren't most feats designed to add efficacy and flair to otherwise less effective unaugmented actions? The Core Rule Book (pages 182-184) presents attack actions as just that: whenever a player character makes a single attack, contrasted only with full attacks, defined as multiple attacks. The former is the first example detailed of the more general category "standard action"; the latter (Core 187)is the first example detailed of the more general category "full round action."

Put differently, "As a standard action, you may make an attack with a bow or crossbow and add your intelligence modifier on the damage roll. You must be..." (APL 160) describes a benefit that is tacked onto a normally available attack, which we already know is a standard action and more specifically an attack action. Perhaps it was unnecessary to include the introductory phrase "As a standard action,..." because the phrase tells us something that we already ought to know. The point is the benefit, unique to those who have taken the feat: adding you INT modifier to the damage roll.

Similarly, i am not convinced that Vital Strike and Spring Attack cannot be combined. Vital Strike (Core 136) as written has to be part of an attack action. Spring Attack (Core 134) is more tricky because it does not mention "standard action" or...

Errata came out that clarified vital strike as a standard action, and sprint attack. The book is just worded badly. The errata documents are in the download section.

[Huan]

Thanks! i clearly need to check the errata. That said, i can't see either combination being broken, given that they limit themselves to a single attack. Maybe my group will house rule this. Maybe not. As yet no one in our group has tried either the focused shot/vital strike combo...or the spring attack/vital strike combo.

-Huan

[Ravingdork]

wraithstrike wrote:

Errata came out that clarified vital strike as a standard action, and sprint attack. The book is just worded badly. The errata documents are in the download section.

They actually changed the phrasing of Vital Strike from "an attack action" to a "standard action?" If so, that fixes the confusing rules verbiage, though it still neuters mobility builds.

EDIT: Nope, I'm not seeing any change in my current errata document. They reworded the vital strike line of feats for sure, but the term "attack action" is still in there. :(

[James Risner]

Ravingdork wrote:

but the term "attack action" is still in there. :(

The root of the problem is that to the developers, that term "attack action" is explicitly "as a standard action". So they fell no need to modify it's wording.

While I agree with their view, I still think changing it to "standard action" would solve headaches for the cost of two letters.

[Ravingdork]

James Risner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

but the term "attack action" is still in there. :(

The root of the problem is that to the developers, that term "attack action" is explicitly "as a standard action". So they fell no need to modify it's wording.

While I agree with their view, I still think changing it to "standard action" would solve headaches for the cost of two letters.

I know, right? The Vital Strike line is a total aberration. Not a single other feat IN THE GAME uses the same terminology, even when they must be used in a similar fashion.

Why oh why, then, do they have to use what is likely the most confusing terminology in the game?

[masda]

Ravingdork wrote:

I know, right? The Vital Strike line is a total aberration. Not a single other feat IN THE GAME uses the same terminology, even when they must be used in a similar fashion.

Why oh why, then, do they have to use what is likely the most confusing terminology in the game?

And because of this different worden everyone seems to think "There has to be a way this works different - it is WORDED different". If they said it was an standard action, fewer people would even try to compine it with other things.

[Ravingdork]

masda wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I know, right? The Vital Strike line is a total aberration. Not a single other feat IN THE GAME uses the same terminology, even when they must be used in a similar fashion.

Why oh why, then, do they have to use what is likely the most confusing terminology in the game?

And because of this different worden everyone seems to think "There has to be a way this works different - it is WORDED different". If they said it was an standard action, fewer people would even try to compine it with other things.

Absolutely right. Lack of consistency in the rules will ALWAYS lead to confusion--something I learned as a gamemaster and designer YEARS ago.

[Ian Eastmond]

It seems that many of the developers can't agree about this either, from the amount of posts stating one combo works and the other doesn't, or one developer stating a combo works and another developer stating that it doesn't.

From the RAW and some developer posts that I agree with, I have had to make the following "house rule" for games that I GM, and happily my interpretation of the RAW is agreed with by other members of my gaming group that GM so we can actually play a fun game:

Until the wording in the Vital Strike feat is changed from attack action to standard action (if it ever is, and as of the latest errata it still states attack action, and I hope it stays that way but with more clarification on what that precisely means), any time you make a single attack during a round you can use the Vital Strike / Improved Vital Strike / Greater Vital Strike feat. This means you can use Vital Strike with a charge or with Spring Attack. This does NOT mean that you can use Vital Strike with Cleave or Great Cleave, not because Cleave is a standard action but because you are making more than one attack in a single round. Also, if you were able to use a full-round action to use the full attack action, you can instead choose to make one attack using Vital Strike.

This makes it viable and fun and good and nice for me and my friends, and anyone can tell me I am having badwrongfun if they want to, but until the wording in the Vital Strike feat doesn't state attack action anymore I'm not changing my mind. This means that, in my games at least, using Focused Shot and Vital Strike together is a completely viable combination. It's a "house rule", but nothing in RAW disputes this "house rule", even with the new errata.

I've read posts by some developers that agree with me, I've read posts by some that disagree with me, I've read posts from the same developer that both agree and disagree with me (if that's not confusing I don't know what is).

This is why forum posts, while helpful with rules interpretation in certain circumstances, cannot be used as RAW, and this is why we need clarification on feat combinations and attack actions in the FAQ and in future Errata.

[Maerimydra]

There's one thing I would like to know :

Can you use Vital Strike as part of a readied action?

It could be a good tactic against those nasty casters.

[Dabbler]

Maerimydra wrote:

There's one thing I would like to know :

Can you use Vital Strike as part of a readied action?

It could be a good tactic against those nasty casters.

It's a standard action, and you can ready a standard action, so yes.

[Belefauntes]

Honestly, I was confused by this, and I've been playing for years. I was interpreting the Vital Strike feats as the ability to increase a single attack per round by double, triple, and quadruple weapon dice, but then continue to attack if it was part of a FULL ATTACK action. It didn't occur to me that the feats were limiting you to a single attack for the round, period.

I had no confusion with Focused Shot (though it did have to be pointed out to me, as I overlooked the "standard action" portion of the feat.) Frankly, while I understand how it could be abused with a bow user (Composite Bow, adding strength AND intelligence), it's completely neutered if you are a crossbow user. There is nothing out there to allow a crossbow user to add a stat bonus to their damage, aside from some obscure enchantment.

Crossbows need a little love.

And there is no good reason, if these two feats can't be used as part of a full attack action, that they shouldn't at least be able to be used in conjunction.

[Kazaan]

I really don't get the confusion over 'Attack Action'. It's the standard action named 'Attack'. It allows you to deliver a single attack; melee (including natural), unarmed, or ranged. There are other abilities such as the monster (Ex) Gaze or the Two-handed Fighter's Overhand Chop that call out the Attack Action.

When Vital Strike says you do this when you use the Attack Action, it means that when you use the standard action, Attack, to make a single attack, you get extra damage dice on your weapon. The melee attack at the end of Charge is not the Attack action, it's a part of the Charge action. Your attack(s) during Cleave are not Attack actions. Your iterative attacks during the Full-Attack action are not Attack actions. It was designed so that when you need to spend a move to get into range (precluding full-attack), you have an option to boost your damage. If they really have changed Vital Strike, then Two-Weapon Fighter's Overhand Chop will also need to be re-worded because it was designed specifically to be used in conjunction with Vital Strike.