In vital strike it says you can make one attack at double the damage dice, if you get the Haste spell cast on you can you still only make one attack? or can you make one Vital Strike attack and a normal attack? or can you make two Vital Strikes?
You can only use Vital Strike as a standard action. The haste spell only gives you an extra attack when you attack as a full-round action.
So, they don't work together.
|
In vital strike it says you can make one attack at double the damage dice, if you get the Haste spell cast on you can you still only make one attack? or can you make one Vital Strike attack and a normal attack? or can you make two Vital Strikes?
Haste only gives you an extra attack when you full attack. Vital Strike does not work with full attack. Question resolved.
EDIT: Damnit, Are, will you stop ninjaing me?
Thank you
Vital strike is good anytime you can only get one attack, like at low levels or when you move and attack someone, or maybe in combination with a rogue's surprise sneak attack.
When in doubt, use this simple formula:
Vital Strike, by the RAW, does not apply in any situation which might possibly make it worthwhile to spend a feat on it.
It doesn't work on a charge, or with Cleave, or Spring Attack, or haste, or anything else you can think of, except a standard attack. Even then, it's not worth a feat unless your weapon is already the size of the Death Star.
When in doubt, use this simple formula:
Vital Strike, by the RAW, does not apply in any situation which might possibly make it worthwhile to spend a feat on it.
It doesn't work on a charge, or with Cleave, or Spring Attack, or haste, or anything else you can think of, except a standard attack. Even then, it's not worth a feat unless your weapon is already the size of the Death Star.
the feat description says
"When you use the attack action"I might be reading it wrong but to me that means when attacking either as a standard action or full round. Compare this with the language in Cleave
"as a standard action...." you hit another guy
it seems to me that RAW, if they want it to me a standard action only ability they say so explicitly.
it seems to me that RAW, if they want it to me a standard action only ability they say so explicitly.
The developers have clarified several times on the forums that Vital Strike only works when you attack as a standard action.
What about a druid using a Shillelagh? 6d6 from a great club isn't bad, especially sense two attacks is unlikely.When in doubt, use this simple formula:
Vital Strike, by the RAW, does not apply in any situation which might possibly make it worthwhile to spend a feat on it.
It doesn't work on a charge, or with Cleave, or Spring Attack, or haste, or anything else you can think of, except a standard attack. Even then, it's not worth a feat unless your weapon is already the size of the Death Star.
Assuming you allow greatclubs to work with the spell (it specifies club and quarterstaff, not greatclub), a great club deals 3d8 damage under its effects. (1d10>2d8>3d8) So a vital strike shillelagh would deal 6d8. +1.
Vital strike also is very useful in animal forms that only have one natural attack, like a tyrannosaurus.
The spell is very specific. No greatclubs allowed.
Which eliminates just about the only case in which a PC can get any reasonable use out of the Vital Strike feat (it's not listed among the "legal" choices for animal companions, so giving VS to your pet Tyrannosaur is also out; and at 6th level+, if your druid is fighting in animal form instead of controlling the battlefield with spells, he needs all the help he can get. And any feat only of benefit to druids isn't much of a feat -- much less an entire CHAIN of them!)
Oh wow, you're right -- Spring Attack doesn't include an 'Attack Action', it includes a 'single melee attack'.
Oh wow, you're right -- Spring Attack doesn't include an 'Attack Action', it includes a 'single melee attack'.
Yes you are right.
I haven't seen (or thought of) any build that could make good use of the vital strike chain.
When in doubt, use this simple formula:
Vital Strike, by the RAW, does not apply in any situation which might possibly make it worthwhile to spend a feat on it.
It doesn't work on a charge, or with Cleave, or Spring Attack, or haste, or anything else you can think of, except a standard attack. Even then, it's not worth a feat unless your weapon is already the size of the Death Star.
the feat description says
"When you use the attack action"I might be reading it wrong but to me that means when attacking either as a standard action or full round. Compare this with the language in Cleave
"as a standard action...." you hit another guyit seems to me that RAW, if they want it to me a standard action only ability they say so explicitly.
All attack action are standard actions. There are 4 of them listed under Standard actions. They are Melee attack, Ranged attack, Unarmed attack and natural Attack. All 4 are standard actions.
I allow Vital Strike to be used on Full Attack actions a well in my game and used in with Spring Attack. The wording of the feat only allows doubling on the first attack. Odd that they put that part in there when technically you can use it like that.
The spell is very specific. No greatclubs allowed.Which eliminates just about the only case in which a PC can get any reasonable use out of the Vital Strike feat (it's not listed among the "legal" choices for animal companions, so giving VS to your pet Tyrannosaur is also out; and at 6th level+, if your druid is fighting in animal form instead of controlling the battlefield with spells, he needs all the help he can get. And any feat only of benefit to druids isn't much of a feat -- much less an entire CHAIN of them!)
When I said T-Rex, I was referring to using it as a feat for my dinosaurs (or dire crocs/sharks) as DM, not an animal companion. Not that I'd have an issue with a PC doing so.
RAW, the feat only is of use to games that expect a massive amount of tactics preventing the melee characters from ever landing a full attack.
Myself, I allow it to function on any of the standard attack options (spring attack, cleaves, etc), and I still don't have a PC that has taken it.
Kirth and I houseruled it into one feat that adds 2d6 per iterative attack, and I am the only one who has used it, and only then as a DM to have an enemy constantly move and Vital Strike, preventing the PCs from full attacking.
Ha! One PC with Improved Forcing Maneuvers (and who can therefore make damaging Check attacks) would shut that down pretty quickly -- or PCs with the Skirmish feat, or a really fast PC using his half move/full attack...
For those interested in our version of Vital Strike:
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: As a standard action (or as part of a charge or spring attack), you can make a single attack that deals an additional 2d6 damage. This bonus damage increases to +4d6 if your base attack bonus is +11 or better, and to +6d6 if your base attack bonus is +16 or better. This additional damage applies only to your primary attack, not to any attacks of opportunity you might make that round.
Special: When making a single attack as a standard action, you can use Vital Strike in conjunction with any one other strike feat (unless this is specifically prohibited in the feat description), even if you do not have the Striking Mastery feat; this is an exception to the general rule of non-stacking for Strike feats.
Kirth and I houseruled it into one feat that adds 2d6 per iterative attack, and I am the only one who has used it, and only then as a DM to have an enemy constantly move and Vital Strike, preventing the PCs from full attacking.For those interested:
** spoiler omitted **
So, pros over standard is that it deals more damage (unless you are using a greatsword or fullblade) and is not a feat chain.
Cons are that it doesn't work as awesome on T-Rexes and dire sharks.
Side note, would you allow the great club shillelagh?
I do in my games. I was just pointing out that it isn't RAW.
Side note, would you allow the great club shillelagh?
I also allow it in my home game.
Cons are that it doesn't work as awesome on T-Rexes and dire sharks.
Their BABs are high enough for them to take even better feats that activate on a standard attack -- TOZ and I reworked most of Paizo's "critical" feats to work that way.
I myself houseruled it into working anytime you take a single attack on your turn (so doesn't work with AoOs) and as just one feat that scales. I think it feels better that way.
|
When in doubt, use this simple formula:
Vital Strike, by the RAW, does not apply in any situation which might possibly make it worthwhile to spend a feat on it.
It doesn't work on a charge, or with Cleave, or Spring Attack, or haste,
On a plane or on a train,
On a goat or on a boat.If there's one feat Kirth don't like,
It's that goldarned Vital Strike.
I was kind of sad to see that Paizo didn't fix some of the big feat/combat action problems from 3.x (and introduced some more).
Combat Expertise requiring points in the dump-stat Int for the characters most likely to desire the feat.
Spring Attack basically not working with any other combat feats.
Iterative attacks often being of relatively low value.
Feats that are strung out into long chains with high prerequisites for small returns.
Now Vital Strike that similarly doesn't work with any other combat actions.
Couple of tidbits:
Vital Strike can be taken by Animal Companions that raise their INT to 3.
Vital Strike can't be used with Spring Attack, but it can be used with Flyby Attack (though AoO's aren't prevented).
There was also a post a little while ago about the vital strike chain used with a cannon, 24d6 at high lvl if i remember correctly.
To which J. Jacobs quickly replied, in essence, "that's 'unrealistic' and I would never allow it." Vital Strike: any use you can think of quickly gets shut down by errata. Houseruling the feat is the only way to salvage it -- and it's worth doing, because the basic idea is sound. It's just that Paizo is, in my opinion, unreasonably timid about giving anything really good to martial characters.
P.S. I sort of agree with J.J. about the canon, btw; where I differ is about Spring Attack and Cleave and charge attacks and requiring a feat chain and basing the damage on how big your weapon is (the latter as if all fighters REALLY need to be compensating for something).
stegasaurus + strong jaw spell + vital = 16d6 + (1.5 x)STR damage?
not bad
I like Vital Strike. Almost every combat has at least one move+attack during which you can use it. With a Greatsword it allows +2d6 damage on those attacks.
Combats in our game usually average 5-6 rounds, and I can usually use VS twice for an extra 2d6 damage each time.
Seems good to me.
Are you guys saying that this isn't worth the feat?
I just finished up a campaign where the Barbarian had the feat and used it at least once a combat.
Of course, he was also using it when it wasn't allowed by RAW and the DM was just ignoring the extra damage, so I'm not sure how many of his uses were legal ones.
I think there was a clarification by the Devs that Vital Strike does indeed work on charges and Spring Attack. I have always understood the wording "whenever you use the attack action" to mean "whenever you make a single melee/ranged/unarmed attack". Even if this isn't clarified somewhere, I don't see how this would hurt the game, really.
stegasaurus + strong jaw spell + vital = 16d6 + (1.5 x)STR damage?
not bad
I like your thinking. =)
I think there was a clarification by the Devs that Vital Strike does indeed work on charges and Spring Attack. I have always understood the wording "whenever you use the attack action" to mean "whenever you make a single melee/ranged/unarmed attack". Even if this isn't clarified somewhere, I don't see how this would hurt the game, really.
If so, it would be a total 180 from their initial clarification that it doesn't work with anything else. But, yes, I obviously agree that greatly expanding its usefulness would improve the game, not hurt it.
|
|
I like Vital Strike. Almost every combat has at least one move+attack during which you can use it. With a Greatsword it allows +2d6 damage on those attacks.
Combats in our game usually average 5-6 rounds, and I can usually use VS twice for an extra 2d6 damage each time.
Seems good to me.
Are you guys saying that this isn't worth the feat?
If it is a choice between using VS and making a full attack with multiple iteratives, the multiple attacks win.
2d6 averages 7 damage. By 6th level, an attacker who might make use of VS is probably adding at least +13 to their damage BEFORE variables to EACH attack.
Str 18 is +6 to a Greatsword attack
Power Attack is +6 to a Greatsword attack
Enhancement should be at least +1 to the Greatsword attack
This ignores Str higher than 18, either from starting higher, or having a Str boosting item, or spell on the PC.
It ignores Str boost from Enlarge Person or equivalent.
So, 4d6+13 or 2d6+13/2d6+13, which is better? And that is without adding in the effects of Haste or Speed enhancement, giving an extra attck at your best to hit...
If it is a choice between using VS and making a full attack with multiple iteratives, the multiple attacks win.
I don't think anyone is contesting that. The problem is that full attacks aren't always possible. If you're fighting an intelligent and/or mobile foe, they'll be doing their darndest to deny you that full attack. If the best you can do each round is move and then attack, you're better off with Vital Strike than without.
|
|
If it is a choice between using VS and making a full attack with multiple iteratives, the multiple attacks win.
No they don't -- if Power Attack and/or Combat Expertise are in play, or the weapon you're using isn't excessively magical or has a limited rate of utility.
Example: fighter has a magical glaive and a cocked heavy crossbow slung over his back. At BAB 11 he's better off swinging the glaive for three potential hits w/each getting all the every bennies; but if the bad guys are out of range, what's not to love about 3d10 from an Improved Vital Strike crossbow bolt at highest attack bonus?
Any intelligent monster with the relevant abilities in its stat-block isn't going to just stand there toe-to-toe and let you slaughter it with full-attack actions....well, it shouldn't be unless the DM is Scooby-snacking the PCs for some reason.
"I'm tellin' ya, son; I have vivid and painful memories of those flying, spring-attacking demons! They were some tough mothas to bring down!"
|
|
If it is a choice between using VS and making a full attack with multiple iteratives, the multiple attacks win.No they don't -- if Power Attack and/or Combat Expertise are in play, or the weapon you're using isn't excessively magical or has a limited rate of utility.
Example: fighter has a magical glaive and a cocked heavy crossbow slung over his back. At BAB 11 he's better off swinging the glaive for three potential hits w/each getting all the every bennies; but if the bad guys are out of range, what's not to love about 3d10 from an Improved Vital Strike crossbow bolt at highest attack bonus?
Any intelligent monster with the relevant abilities in its stat-block isn't going to just stand there toe-to-toe and let you slaughter it with full-attack actions....well, it shouldn't be unless the DM is Scooby-snacking the PCs for some reason.
"I'm tellin' ya, son; I have vivid and painful memories of those flying, spring-attacking demons! They were some tough mothas to bring down!"
So, you aren't massing around that demon, but ALLOWING it to get off its spring attacks?
Trip is your friend, along with a readied action, in that case. Demon springs in, then falls down. No love for being out of range, then.
Really, the rare occasions when VS is better than other options is going to be a rarity.
ALso note that I was UNDERSTATING the probably damage bonuses for that 6th level character, since I did not include a 20 Str or a stat booster in the numbers crunched, and a plain vanilla +1 weapon.
Add in a few levels, with additional stat boosts, both from level and item, and a more powerful weapon, and that 1.5 points of damage starts to grow larger and larger.
|
|
> > "I'm tellin' ya, son; I have vivid and painful memories of those flying, spring-attacking demons!
> So, you aren't massing around that demon, but ALLOWING it to get off its spring attacks?
White dwarves can't jump.
> Trip is your friend, along with a readied action....
I can't full-attack with a readied-action, which means I might as well apply a Vital Strike to it -- right?
|
|
> > "I'm tellin' ya, son; I have vivid and painful memories of those flying, spring-attacking demons!
> So, you aren't massing around that demon, but ALLOWING it to get off its spring attacks?
White dwarves can't jump.
If they spring attacking, they ain't flying.
Flyby attack, maybe, but then do a readied grapple.
And, of course, the tanglefoot bag, among other things, is your friend.
And, even more of course, where are your spellcasters?
|
|
They're fly-by attacking (whatever). Normal-sized PC grapple a large or huge monster? Yeah, that'll work (it'll save him the trouble, I guess). And the wonderful Tanglefoot bag, always a great option for the DEX:12 spamcan with a two-hander: "You miss the demon; it arcs in a parabola and, uhm, lands over, uhm, there...on the cleric, who's trying to heal the wizard who's flat on his can at -8!"
-- This happened to me once (not the Tanglefoot, but everything else).
And: I've checked the Bestiary -- many of those bad boys have Vital Strike now.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the Monk of the Four Winds alternate class feature from the APG has an ability that allows you to make three standard actions that can be used to make a melee attack action.
Since Vital Strikes RAW use an attack action I'm assuming you could make 3 Vital Stikes.
I'm not sure of the numbers but it seems you could get a good amount of damage from that. Ofcourse thats at the cost of 6 ki points.
Really, the rare occasions when VS is better than other options is going to be a rarity.
Combats rarely begin with you adjacent to a foe so you can get in a full attack. Usually you have to move into position, so you can use vital strike.
In my experience, you can use vital strike at least once per combat, usually twice. That does not seem rare.
Also, I think that vital strike is good for classes other than fighters: a bard might inspire courage as a move action, then get in an attack with vital strike. A rogue might be invisible and get into position for a sneak attack, then get vital strike + sneak attack damage. Why not?
Can vital strike be used with spells that require a melee attack?
They're fly-by attacking (whatever). Normal-sized PC grapple a large or huge monster? Yeah, that'll work (it'll save him the trouble, I guess). And the wonderful Tanglefoot bag, always a great option for the DEX:12 spamcan with a two-hander: "You miss the demon; it arcs in a parabola and, uhm, lands over, uhm, there...on the cleric, who's trying to heal the wizard who's flat on his can at -8!"
What the hell is an 11th level fighter doing missing a ranged touch attack?
Especially if, as in your example, he's capable of making the non-touch AC with his heavy crossbow.
In any case, if he's using a heavy crossbow as his backup ranged at that level, he's in for some disappointment that Vital Strike will not save him from.