Pretty basic. Can these be combined? I suppose it also applies to feats like Great Cleave.
Vital strike says when using the attack action, while Great Cleave and Deadly Stroke specify that you use a standard action and such to use them.
So if I use vital strike and deadly stroke on the same 1d8+4 longsword attack, does it deal 4d8+8 damage? Plus 1 Con bleed? Or are they not allowed for combination?
Pretty basic. Can these be combined? I suppose it also applies to feats like Great Cleave.
Vital strike says when using the attack action, while Great Cleave and Deadly Stroke specify that you use a standard action and such to use them.
So if I use vital strike and deadly stroke on the same 1d8+4 longsword attack, does it deal 4d8+8 damage? Plus 1 Con bleed? Or are they not allowed for combination?
Vital Strike uses the attack action, which is a type of standard action, or a part of the full attack action. Great Cleave and Deadly Stroke are other types of standard actions. So no, they couldn't be combined IMO.
the attack action, is a wholly separate action from the full attack action. but otherwise myth or has it right
they are both standard actions.
Thanks, guys. I guess I was tripped up on the difference between "when using a standard action" and "as a standard action"
Pretty basic. Can these be combined?They both, in effect, say "as a standard action" so you can't combine.
Unfortunately, you need to know the meaning of "as an attack action" is the same as "as a standard action"
I did know that, as you might tell from my initial post.
The part that I questioned was that Cleave and Deadly Stroke say "As a standard action" and Vital Strike says "While using the attack [standard] action." Had Vital Strike said "As a standard action, you can make a single attack and deal double base weapon damage", there would have been no question in my mind, just like you can't Deadly Stroke with a Cleave.
it would actualy probly make life easier if the actions were renamed something like 'the assault actiona nd full assault action' so people would stop confusing vital strike with an attack roll.
Although that doesnt sound like it was the problem here.
im also sure someone else could think of a better name than assault action :P
it would actualy probly make life easier if the actions were renamed something like 'the assault actiona nd full assault action' so people would stop confusing vital strike with an attack roll.
Although that doesnt sound like it was the problem here.
im also sure someone else could think of a better name than assault action :P
"special attack" and "full special attack"?
yeah that would probably work, then it would make it alot more clear. i get the impression alot of people dont even know that standard action exists til vital strike is first brought up.
yeah that would probably work, then it would make it alot more clear. i get the impression alot of people dont even know that standard action exists til vital strike is first brought up.
Casting most spells has always been a standard action since 3.0. :D
Meh sorry, poor wording on my part. by 'that standard action' i was refering to the 'attack action' as in That *points a finger accusingly* standard action.
But hence forth i shall proclaim the special attack action! damn if they did this do you know how many Threads would never exist due to the sudden clarity? :P
I could see allowing vital strike to be used with select other single attack [standard] action abilities. The spirit of the feat was to do more damage with a single attack. I would allow my players to combined vital strike with any other ability so long as that ability won't trigger or allow the player to make multiple attacks.
But then I'm a sucker.
Yes, I know what the rules say, but they are really more of a guideline. :)