Whirlwind attack is a full attack action, vital strike requires a standard action, they cannot be used together. I would not allow a vital strike whirlwind, even against one target.
huh you can use elemental fist and flurry. pretty sure like all the other monk abilities stunning fist etc you van only do it ode a round. the ability isn't itsown action it modifies one.
Actually, if the monk is high levle enough and takes all the relevant feats, can use stunning fist, touch of serenity, perfect strike, punishing kick and elemental fist in the same flurry.
Barring perfect Strike and Touch of serenity, I think you can mixpunishing kick, stun and elemental strike in the same attack (I could be wrong).
Whirlwind attack is a full attack action, vital strike requires a standard action, they cannot be used together. I would not allow a vital strike whirlwind, even against one target.
Vital Strike (Combat)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total
Vital Strike isn't a standard action the way I read it. It seems to me that it comes into play whenever a character attacks, but only on it's first attack as that is it's most precise. The way I play it in my games is the character has time to line up the hit for more damage, and even if he uses whirlwind or cleave, they are not as accurate as the first strike.
Vital strike was.. AHEM.. clarified by the devs to be a special attack action. A special attack action is, in any conceivable way i can imagine, the same as a standard action.
Developer
|
Vital Strike isn't a standard action the way I read it. It seems to me that it comes into play whenever a character attacks, but only on it's first attack as that is it's most precise. The way I play it in my games is the character has time to line up the hit for more damage, and even if he uses whirlwind or cleave, they are not as accurate as the first strike.
Here's the official ruling . Yeah. Standard Action. I originally read it your way, but that's not the official stance.
[RANT]
For the record I hate the official stance. Vital strike, as it stands, cannot be used in a spring attack, a cleave, or a charge. These are situations where it makes sense to me to use it.
I house rule that vital strike doesn't suck by errating it to apply when you make a single attack on your turn. (I would say greater trip AoOs do not apply, as an AoO interupts the turn... basically no vital strike AoO).
When I'm judging PFS I apply the RAW, and the RAW is standard action, making the feat nigh worthless in my opinion.
[/RANT]
|
How does this continue to baffle people?!
Vital Strike = Standard Action
Standard actions can't be combined with any other standard (or greater) actions.
It's designed to mitigate the damage lost when you have to move to get into range/position. It is not designed to be an overall damage buff when you make a single attack.
Spring Attack/Charge/Whirlwind Attack all have their own perks already. Stop trying to cheese Vital Strike.
|
Developer
|
Spring Attack/Charge/Whirlwind Attack all have their own perks already. Stop trying to cheese Vital Strike.
You are absolutely right.
My rant was just on how it went too far to one side when they saw people applying it to every attack (which should have never happened). As it stands, I cannot think of a build where I would take this feat, though. The chain strikes me as utterly worthless, and there are dozens of better "move then x" options. That's my problem with the feat. It should never apply to whirlwind, and not to cleave either. Spring Attack, though. That strikes me as a place it should.
Right now, the only builds using vital strike and not wasting feats are giant single attack GM-controlled monsters, and Sniper Rogues, and the latter go out of vogue as soon as improved invisibility comes around. Also, sniper rogues need those feat slots for other things... I'm taking them off the viable Vital Strike candidate list! See what you made me do by forcing a conversation with myself?
Now I'm ranting again... bah! Must think happy thoughts...
[RANT]
For the record I hate the official stance. Vital strike, as it stands, cannot be used in a spring attack, a cleave, or a charge. These are situations where it makes sense to me to use it.I house rule that vital strike doesn't suck by errating it to apply when you make a single attack on your turn. (I would say greater trip AoOs do not apply, as an AoO interupts the turn... basically no vital strike AoO).
When I'm judging PFS I apply the RAW, and the RAW is standard action, making the feat nigh worthless in my opinion.
[/RANT]
It's a good thing I'm the GM and I can make the rules in this scenario as I totally agree that the official stance seemingly negates the usage of Vital Strike in most cases.
|
|
Vital Strike isn't a standard action the way I read it.
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Vital Strike = Attack Action = Standard Action
Vital Strike uses a Standard Action meaning the creature makes only one attack that round. A creature may not make one Vital Strike and then continue making additional attacks that deal normal damage. That's why it won't work with Flurry, Full Attack, Whirlwind, etc. You're giving up your additonal attacks in exchange for putting all your umph behind one dedicated strike.
Think of VS as a "charged attack" similar to what you might see in a video game. You can tap your attack button quickly, hoping all your attacks connect for big damage or hold the attack button down for a few seconds timing your strike to deliver a single, powerful blow. The time you lose during the round giving up your additional attacks is the power you gain behind your vital strike.
|
While it is true that Vital Strike cannot be combined with Spring Attack/Charge/etc., for some of those instances it is pretty effective. That's why the official stance has said it's a standard action, BUT... the devs themselves have mentioned the "rule of cool" before, and stated that they don't think it'd break the game to allow it. Yeah, officially you can't do it... but a Vital Striking, Spring Attacking dude is sacrificing enough feats, in my opinion, to be able to do just that. Besides, Vital Strike adds what, an extra ~5 damage per hit, depending on the weapon? Even with Improved and Greater Vital, that's not really that much.
The only time it makes a big difference is when PC's start stacking Size Bonuses on top of each other (Lead Blades + Enlarge Person, for example), or they're a Druid. But even then, it's not overpowered or anything.
How does this continue to baffle people?!
Because while it IS a standard action, its not called out as such in the rules
to quote vital strike "When you use the attack action"
|
|
How does this continue to baffle people?!
Because while it IS a standard action, its not called out as such in the rules
to quote vital strike "When you use the attack action"
Who in this thread, since your last post, is still "baffled" by the text? No posts, to my knowledge (5 total, including mine) have stated that it isn't a standard action, which is in agreement with your statement.
Yar.
Who in this thread, since your last post, is still "baffled" by the text? No posts, to my knowledge (5 total, including mine) have stated that it isn't a standard action, which is in agreement with your statement.How does this continue to baffle people?!
Because while it IS a standard action, its not called out as such in the rules
to quote vital strike "When you use the attack action"
It's not about new posts in this thread, but about the fact that every few days or every few weeks, a NEW thread with this exact same question is created.
~P
As one who LOATHES the official ruling, I can honestly say that when I first read "as an attack action" I thought it meant "any action that is also an attack."
That included any single attack that wasn't an AoO (since that's a non-action).
Screw the developer ruling I say! It's nonsensical in far too many ways! It's not like mobility builds were overpowered anyways (they were actually kinda weak). Now with the neutering of vital strike, mobility builds are almost worthless as competitive damage dealers!
And then they tried to bury their own hole with the mobility fighter archetype, which IS broken (comparatively speaking).
Overall, I love Paizo's products, but sometimes their official rulings make me want to bang my head against a wall (or more rarely, there's).
Luckily, I'm not a violent person outside of my own mind.
Who in this thread, since your last post, is still "baffled" by the text? No posts, to my knowledge (5 total, including mine) have stated that it isn't a standard action, which is in agreement with your statement.
It's not about new posts in this thread, but about the fact that every few days or every few weeks, a NEW thread with this exact same question is created.
~P
Sorry if this sounds snarky but not everyone has been playing Pathfinder or even 3.5 since it started. Some people actually start playing and then have questions. Luckily they have people to help answer those questions. If would suck if they only had people saying how "stupid" they were for not already knowing the answer.
Give the FNG's a break and be polite.
Yar!
No worries. I don't have any issue with answering the same questions over and over again, as I do understand that some people are just coming into the Pathfinder RPG, and we will continue to see new converts for a while yet (woo-hoo). Especially on a topic like this. If you search the forums for "Vital Strike", you end up with well over 4000 hits. If you try and narrow it down to "Vital Strike" + "Standard Action" you still end up with over 1000 hits. "Vital Strike" + "Attack Action" and "Vital Strike"+"Cleave" both give over 700, etc.
That's a lot to sift through, and is too much for many people. It's much easier to simply make a new thread. I have no problem with this. What I'm more surprised at is, with how often this question comes up, why it isn't in the official FAQ yet. (well, I know why: Paizo staff is too busy with other priorities. But until then, I'm possitive we will continue to see these threads pup up).
~P
Basically, if you find a way to do something effective outside full-attack, you are likely wrong. Nothing is EVER better than a basic full-attack. Which is sad.
I am allowing vital strike on charge, spring attack, shot on the run, pinpoint targeting, etc, basically everything that restricts you to one attack per round. The fighter13 in my Kingmaker campaign trivially do over 150 damage on a full attack. In no way, shape or form could a vital strike do that.
But even then, that would not work with Cleave, Whirlwind etc, as those are there to give lots of attacks. Whirlwind with lunge might actually be interesting... hmmm.
Yar!
But even then, that would not work with Cleave, Whirlwind etc, as those are there to give lots of attacks. Whirlwind with lunge might actually be interesting... hmmm.
Lung+Whirlwind IS fun, as one of my current characters does just that (and it throws people off sometimes when your character is INTENTIONALLY running into the most unfavorable positions and letting the enemy surround and flank them, so that they can pull off an epic Whirlwind attack. Round 1: Move+Total Defense. Round 2: unleash hell).
For your house rule however, just be sure you are clear that this is in the spirit of a single attack. Because if you carefully read Whirlwind, you will discover that it is also a single attack (with multiple rolls). Thus, feats like Furious Focus works with every roll in a Whirlwind because Whirlwind is one attack (against many) and Furious Focus removes the Power Attack penalties for the first attack. It does not say roll, it just says attack, and because whirlwind is a single attack with multiple rolls, every roll gets the benefit.
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
~P
For your house rule however, just be sure you are clear that this is in the spirit of a single attack. Because if you carefully read Whirlwind, you will discover that it is also a single attack (with multiple rolls). Thus, feats like Furious Focus works with every roll in a Whirlwind because Whirlwind is one attack (against many) and Furious Focus removes the Power Attack penalties for the first attack. It does not say roll, it just says attack, and because whirlwind is a single attack with multiple rolls, every roll gets the benefit.
~PWhen you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
I fixed your bolding. Whirlwind is not a single attack, it's X number of attacks at full BAB, where X is the number of people in reach. Furious Focus would only remove the penalty for the first creature you hit during the whirlwind.
As it stands, I cannot think of a build where I would take this feat, though. The chain strikes me as utterly worthless, and there are dozens of better "move then x" options.
Amen. I've collapsed it down to a single feat that scales with BAB (+2d6 damage at BAB +6, +4d6 at BAB +11, and +6d6 at BAB +16) and works with single attacks, on charge attacks, etc.
The majority stance on these boards seems to be that a few dice of damage is "OMG OVERPOWERED CHEESE!" at the same level that your cleric and wizard friends are summoning angels to do their fighting for them. Needless to say, it's a stance I disagree with, so you're not the only one.
Yar.
WEEE!
*runs away while singing, with fingers in ears*
Lalalalala!
.....
Ok, I concede. I is corrected.
~P
Yar.
WEEE!
*runs away while singing, with fingers in ears*
Lalalalala!
.....
Ok, I concede. I is corrected.
~P
Hmm interesting how that works..**making DM notes**