I really like the concept of Vital Strike. Move up, thwack it as hard as you can. Cool!
A lot of posts show people are almost disdainful of the Vital Strike chain of feats, but surely there's a way to do it right.
How would one create a character who's very good at Vital Striking (though, not to the exclusion of all else)?
It's just that it's not really worth a feat. It's just an extra die of damage (or two if you're playing greatsword or falchion or something but still). If it let you add SOMETHING else you could make it worthwhile.
But surely hitting a target after a decent move for 4d8+str+pa+whatever has some merit? Granted, it is 3 feats.
It's a multiplier on the number of dice, so it gets better with weapons which let you roll more than one die. There aren't as many medium sized weapons in PF that do that as there were in 3.5. There is also no Monkey Grip (thank goodness) to let you wield a large weapon for those extra dice. While I personally like Vital Strike, for this reason it is best left to large monsters to do their damage on rounds when they can't full attack (see: PC interference).
But surely hitting a target after a decent move for 4d8+str+pa+whatever has some merit? Granted, it is 3 feats.
If it were 1 feat that scaled it would definitely be worth it. But not 3. At level 6, let's say you're using a falchion, you roll an extra 2d4. Honestly not terrible, assuming you can't get a full attack in. Then again I'd rather have an extra +1 hit +2 damage with WF/WSpec. It loses marginal utility the higher level you get because 5 damage is a lower and lower portion of your total expected damage, both with a single attack and full attack.
Just to reiterate, if it were 1 feat that scaled I'd take it every time. As it stands there's just too many other feats that provide combat utility that compete for my slots.
One of my players is playing a sword and board. He has two-weapon fighting and a few other feats. He also has the vital strike chain. He also has the Bashing Finish feat. Combined with keen on his longsword he is able to get a full move, potentially crit (he crits often enough to use this tactic) and then get a bashing finish. So 8d6+22 plus 1d6+24 plus whatever the effect is from the Critical Hit deck (but let's just assume double damage). So he is striking for 11d6+68. That's 107 points of damage. He doesn't care if he's the focus of the next round of attacks. The paladin and inquisitor plan on keeping him alive. The next round he can then take a full attack with a potential 14 attacks (7 regular and if any of them hit then he gets a free shield bash). I have only seen him get 3 crits in one round but it was a nasty round.
He could have made it worse if he went with a higher threat weapon. I also allow keen and improve crit to stack. He did not take advantage of that either. So far, he has been very dangerous in combat.
One of my players is playing a sword and board. He has two-weapon fighting and a few other feats. He also has the vital strike chain. He also has the Bashing Finish feat. Combined with keen on his longsword he is able to get a full move, potentially crit (he crits often enough to use this tactic) and then get a bashing finish. So 8d6+22 plus 1d6+24 plus whatever the effect is from the Critical Hit deck (but let's just assume double damage). So he is striking for 11d6+68. That's 107 points of damage. He doesn't care if he's the focus of the next round of attacks. The paladin and inquisitor plan on keeping him alive. The next round he can then take a full attack with a potential 14 attacks (7 regular and if any of them hit then he gets a free shield bash). I have only seen him get 3 crits in one round but it was a nasty round.
He could have made it worse if he went with a higher threat weapon. I also allow keen and improve crit to stack. He did not take advantage of that either. So far, he has been very dangerous in combat.
Is this all done while enlarged?
For the OP- I would say, take the vital strike chain + power attack, and then use a spell storing greatsword. Also works best when enlarged. Maybe good if you can manage a decent STR on an EK?
Vital strike annoys me.
Before 3e you could do all your attacks after you move. It was 3e that created the "full attack action."
The critical hit chain, iron will and power attack is what a fighter really needs. Everything else is extra or situational.
So if you wield a Greatsword and are the target of Enlarge frequently and your GM is prone to throw either highly mobile or mass minion creatures (eg go down fast but usually not in one hit) at you, then these feats are really worth it.
But if you are sword&board or you want to be a combat maneuver fighter or your GM usually has few very tough opponents and never bothers to move an opponent once you have closed in, then Vital Strike is useless.
Now if you could use Vital Strike with Charge this would be something different altogether - ask your GM, maybe he allows it.
________________________________________________
...Before 3e you could do all your attacks after you move. It was 3e that created the "full attack action."
I like vital strike for monks. While they don't really have the feats to pull it off, it enables them to deal a lot of damage with the great mobility they've got.
Tell an enlarged stegosaurus that the Vital Strike feat chain is useless. =D
Improved Feint+Vital Strike is nice trick against mobile (high dex, dodge) enemies. Making them flat footed just before hitting then hurts a lot. Even better if you are rogue with just weapon so you can sneak attack and get extra dice. it isn't much but it's something.
I changed Vital Strike so that it applies to everything that is one attack against one enemy during your own turn (spells excluded). I also give them to every character as bonus feats as soon as they qualify.
They're a great idea, but the execution is lacking. The extra damage should be part of the system, not something you blow feats on.
|
As others have noted, to get the most out of Vital Strike you need the largest base damage die or dice you can find, which generally means the largest weapons. I like the Greataxe, mostly because of the extra damage on a coup-de-grace... but that's just me... the Greatsword is technically your best choice as far as flat average damage goes: 4d6 averages to 14 points, whereas 2d12 averages to 13 points. As also mentioned by others, get yourself enlarged whenever possible - either a Greataxe or a Greatsword will be pumping out a base 3d6 at large size, so a Vital Strike will be doing a nice base 6d6 (average 21) damage.
Higher damage in one attack (as opposed to higher damage over the course of a round) also helps in situations with DR or Hardness... but unless that DR or Hardness would reduce your normal iterative attacks significantly, then it's still not guaranteed to let you do more damage overall. With DR and Hardness it's all about how high each attack goes over the threshold.
Besides base dice damage and mobility, the third advantage of Vital Strike is accuracy - you're getting one attack at full bonuses, instead of iterative attacks at -5 a time. Generally this is only going to be a worthwhile tradeoff if your looking at problems hitting your target's AC in the first place, but once you start getting into the third and fourth iterative attacks they can often be 'guaranteed misses' if the target's AC is worth a damn at all. If you can be relative sure all your iteratives are going to hit then the fact that they all get to add your bonuses from Strength et al is going to mean they're giving you more damage overall than a single Vital Strike.
The single best candidate for using Vital Strike is the crossbow - since it doesn't get Strength added to its damage, and isn't often used for iterative attacks anyway. The Crossbowman Fighter archetype from the APG (page 104) is the guy to look at here - most of his class features function off 'readied actions' - so he can use Vital Strike with them, but can't use iterative attacks. He's the one character build that absolutely needs the Vital Strike Feat chain to remain in the game.
Sunder-based builds can benefit from Vital Strike due to the Hardness issue noted above, but mostly they benefit if your DM happens to fall into the 'Sunder is a standard action' (as opposed to the 'Sunder is in place of a melee attack') camp... but that's a whole different can 'o' worms... ;)
If you get high enough level, greater grapple + vital strike monk/fighters can be fairly terrifying to single foes
It adds a tactical layer to the game that I find interesting. While I agree that 3e penalized the Fighter too much for it, I think Pathfinder got it right.
What I hate are iterative attacks. This is a boring way of scaling damage and I would like to see it change.
No it didn't. It stripped away the tactical layer of "actually moving in a fight."
All the current system does is force you to play Rock'em Sock'em Robots.
Cirno never gets bored copy-pasting the same thing 50 times over :)
Psh, if it ain't in quotes, it ain't copy-pasted. I re-write all my personal memes :p
I stand true that the "full attack" taking up the entire round is one of 3e's more grievous flaws.
Vital strike works best for PCs in the mid-levels 6-10 or so, I think. At that point, your top attack is the useful one, as you've not yet acquired the ridiculous amount of bonuses that will make all your attacks worthwhile. The chain may not be a great investment, but the first feat's useful. It's great for single attack monsters, such as the Tyrannosaurus. It's great for mobile strikers, such as spring attackers or dragons that fly by attack during their recharge periods.
No, it's not as creative as combat maneuvers, but it does lend itself to making mobility on the battlefield more viable, which is a good thing.
Vital Strike generally makes what you were already going to do better at a pretty minimal opportunity cost.
Vital Strike would have been more popular if it added a flat +2d6 damage, or damage as a function of BAB rather then relying on the weapon damage. As it is, I would take Power Attack and Furious Focus before I took Vital Strike, but I would take it eventually.
I don't see it as a build (Vital strike guy isn't a great idea)
I see it as an option. If you're going to move ANYWAY, why not get some more damage in that round.
It's especially good when you're working around terrain of some kind, or dealing with a creature whose full attack is better than yours.
Vital Strike can also be a pacing mechanic, like fighting defensive. You can use mobility to slow a fight down, which essentially gives a bigger role to your allies. This is a good thing if you are low on healing, or have support that is more effective against the opponent than you are.
Ex) Fighter vs. Troll
Full attack:
two greatsword attacks vs. claw/claw/bite/rend
Vital strike + move
one greatsword attack with bous dice vs. bite + AO
The second strategy will make for a much slower fight. Your allies will get seven actions during the troll fight, and not just three. There are times when that is important.
Anyone who rolls a lot of dice will benefit from Vital strike, including monks and wild-shaped druids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand true that the "full attack" taking up the entire round is one of 3e's more grievous flaws.
Yes. This.
All of these changes together don't even come close to seeming unbalanced in actual play.
I've seen recommendations in this thread for taking Vital Strike for both a stegosaurus and a tyrannosarus. Is this for animal companions? If so, I noticed that it's necessary to take the companion's Int to 3 before this feat can be selected. Oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be any such restrictions on the "monster versions" of these creatures taking Vital Strike with Int 2.
Wild shape works too.
One of my players is playing a sword and board. He has two-weapon fighting and a few other feats. He also has the vital strike chain. He also has the Bashing Finish feat. Combined with keen on his longsword he is able to get a full move, potentially crit (he crits often enough to use this tactic) and then get a bashing finish. So 8d6+22 plus 1d6+24 plus whatever the effect is from the Critical Hit deck (but let's just assume double damage). So he is striking for 11d6+68. That's 107 points of damage. He doesn't care if he's the focus of the next round of attacks. The paladin and inquisitor plan on keeping him alive. The next round he can then take a full attack with a potential 14 attacks (7 regular and if any of them hit then he gets a free shield bash). I have only seen him get 3 crits in one round but it was a nasty round.
He could have made it worse if he went with a higher threat weapon. I also allow keen and improve crit to stack. He did not take advantage of that either. So far, he has been very dangerous in combat.
Is this all done while enlarged?
For the OP- I would say, take the vital strike chain + power attack, and then use a spell storing greatsword. Also works best when enlarged. Maybe good if you can manage a decent STR on an EK?
I forgot to mention that he is permanently enlarged.
My fix:
- make it scale with BAB (so, one feat not THREE DEAR GOD THREE FEATS)
- make it "once per turn" so you can use it in a full attack or in an AOO, charge, but ONCE
- have greatswords and greataxes deal additional damage on VS (sai, maximize dice critical something like that) just to make them suck less.
All together. Done. Now waiting for people screaming "overpowered!"
My fix:
- make it scale with BAB (so, one feat not THREE DEAR GOD THREE FEATS)
- make it "once per turn" so you can use it in a full attack or in an AOO, charge, but ONCE
- have greatswords and greataxes deal additional damage on VS (sai, maximize dice critical something like that) just to make them suck less.
All together. Done. Now waiting for people screaming "overpowered!"
Overpowered!
Just the 'once per turn' part, though. Who wouldn't take the feat if you could use it like that?
Personally, I've contemplated making VS simply a feature of base attack...
My fix:
- make it scale with BAB (so, one feat not THREE DEAR GOD THREE FEATS)
- make it "once per turn" so you can use it in a full attack or in an AOO, charge, but ONCE
- have greatswords and greataxes deal additional damage on VS (sai, maximize dice critical something like that) just to make them suck less.
All together. Done. Now waiting for people screaming "overpowered!"
Overpowered!
Just the 'once per turn' part, though. Who wouldn't take the feat if you could use it like that?
Personally, I've contemplated making VS simply a feature of base attack...
A feat is not a trivial investment. No, for the fighter neither. Just shows some love for high damage dice iconic weapons like longsword or greataxe.
In case, add "once per turn if not performing a full attack".
I agree on the combat option*, I just wonder if helps too much druids.
It's especially good when you're working around terrain of some kind, or dealing with a creature whose full attack is better than yours.
This feat screws you even against creatures with better full attacks than yours. Why? Because you can't combine it with Spring Attack.
You move in and wallop the guy with Vital Stike. Congratulations. You got his attention. Full attack time. *THEN* you are allowed to move away on your turn (which will surely provoke what's more!).
Next round, you get to repeat your fun little exercise in pain.
Vital Strike has been nerfed SO badly that it is ONLY useful when you are forced to move to your target anyways. Even then, there are much better options for a feat slot, such as Weapon Specialization or Power Attack.
Developer
|
You're a druid with Greater Grapple and Vital Strike. You Wildshape into an Allosaurus (size huge, grab on the 2d6 bite). You vital strike bite for 4d6, grab (of course you have powerful shape, so grabbing is much easier), then move action to pin.
Either baddie wastes its turn getting out of your pin, or it's trapped. Free action release pin on your next turn. Vital strike bite... etc.
You're a druid with Greater Grapple and Vital Strike. You Wildshape into an Allosaurus (size huge, grab on the 2d6 bite). You vital strike bite for 4d6, grab (of course you have powerful shape, so grabbing is much easier), then move action to pin.
Either baddie wastes its turn getting out of your pin, or it's trapped. Free action release pin on your next turn. Vital strike bite... etc.
IMHO the powerful part here is not the vital strike.
I allow Vital Strike to be used on your first attack in Full Attack action. When we first started with Core Rule Book we though "Attack Action" was any attack you made including Charge and Cleave. Then we found that was wrong and the feat was changed in wording. Tried as per the rules and found it was kind of waste of feats to take. So I put it back to the way we had it first when we were doing it wrong. Much more useful that way.
I allow Vital Strike to be used on your first attack in Full Attack action. When we first started with Core Rule Book we though "Attack Action" was any attack you made including Charge and Cleave. Then we found that was wrong and the feat was changed in wording. Tried as per the rules and found it was kind of waste of feats to take. So I put it back to the way we had it first when we were doing it wrong. Much more useful that way.
I allow it to be used with Spring Attack, or any other time you would be limited to only a single attack on your turn (including charges).
Vital strike works best for PCs in the mid-levels 6-10 or so, I think. At that point, your top attack is the useful one, as you've not yet acquired the ridiculous amount of bonuses that will make all your attacks worthwhile. The chain may not be a great investment, but the first feat's useful. It's great for single attack monsters, such as the Tyrannosaurus. It's great for mobile strikers, such as spring attackers or dragons that fly by attack during their recharge periods.
I thought there was a Dev post saying Spring Attack + Vital Strike didn't work?
I thought there was a Dev post saying Spring Attack + Vital Strike didn't work?
There was, but in that instance, the developers are just wrong. Unless you can use it with Cleave, Spring Attack, on charges, etc., there just isn't any way to get enough use out of it to justify a feat expenditure. Spending three feats on it borders on the absurd.
And basing the bonus damage on the weapon size is basically saying that only giant monsters are supposed to use this feat, anyway.
Vital Strike was a great idea that fell very, very flat in the execution.
And basing the bonus damage on the weapon size is basically saying that only giant monsters are supposed to use this feat, anyway.
I agree on everything barring this. IMO, the weapon used should matter. Kinda like the "[w]" in fourth edition.
As is the feat sucks, but in an improved version (mine or whatever) I would appreciate that specific weapons are more suitable for specific blows.
Of course this would mean that should be thre more options for move + attack.
I thought there was a Dev post saying Spring Attack + Vital Strike didn't work?There was, but in that instance, the developers are just wrong. Unless you can use it with Cleave, Spring Attack, on charges, etc., there just isn't any way to get enough use out of it to justify a feat expenditure. Spending three feats on it borders on the absurd.
And basing the bonus damage on the weapon size is basically saying that only giant monsters are supposed to use this feat, anyway.
Vital Strike was a great idea that fell very, very flat in the execution.
Actually, it means the developers are still right, but vital strike still sucks except for specialised builds-mainly druids, due to the high base damage of some of their wild shape forms (i mentioned stegosaurus--base attack is 4d6 damage, full feat investment bringing it to 16d6).
Not that it is that related to the OP, but we have house ruled that the first Vital Strike is all you need. (We combined all of them into one feat... and the number of dice you add is based upon how many attacks you get.) It has worked well and some players take it others do not. No one ever took it when it required three feats to get the full tree.
Actually, it means the developers are still right, but vital strike still sucks except for specialised builds-mainly druids, due to the high base damage of some of their wild shape forms (i mentioned stegosaurus--base attack is 4d6 damage, full feat investment bringing it to 16d6).
In you stegosaurus build, don't forget about Strong Jaw, which pushed the GVS damage to 32d6.
The feat(s) is in most circumstances not something you should build a character around. But it can be a nice backup to have in that first round of combat, or when you need to move around in combat. There is a number of feats in the book that I am less likely to see used at the table than vital strike.
If you want a fix for the vital strike feats, I propose something like this:
Vital strike - 2*weapon damage.
Improved vital strike - 3*weapon damage + can be used on a charge.
Greater vital strike - 4*weapon damage + applies to the first attack of the round, even if you make a full attack action.
This way you get some additional progression in the feat tree, but it might become too potent in the end.
And basing the bonus damage on the weapon size is basically saying that only giant monsters are supposed to use this feat, anyway.I agree on everything barring this. IMO, the weapon used should matter.
Big weapons already are disproportionately good. Making them even better is silly, unless the purpose of the game is to compensate through your character for some perceived size deficiency elsewhere.
Really, I can kill a person with a dagger just as easily as I can with a sword. And I can inflict a lot MORE damage with a dagger thrust than I can with a giant sword with a 10-foot-long blade that weighs 200 pounds.
The push in D&D/PF towards "ZOWIE NOW MY SWORD IS 86 FEET LONG AND CAN CHOP THE ENTIRE PLANET IN HALF" is already past the point of being annoying, to me.
Actually, it means the developers are still right, but vital strike still sucks except for specialised builds-mainly druids, due to the high base damage of some of their wild shape forms (i mentioned stegosaurus--base attack is 4d6 damage, full feat investment bringing it to 16d6).In you stegosaurus build, don't forget about Strong Jaw, which pushed the GVS damage to 32d6.
The feat(s) is in most circumstances not something you should build a character around. But it can be a nice backup to have in that first round of combat, or when you need to move around in combat. There is a number of feats in the book that I am less likely to see used at the table than vital strike.
If you want a fix for the vital strike feats, I propose something like this:
Vital strike - 2*weapon damage.
Improved vital strike - 3*weapon damage + can be used on a charge.
Greater vital strike - 4*weapon damage + applies to the first attack of the round, even if you make a full attack action.This way you get some additional progression in the feat tree, but it might become too potent in the end.
Oooo....I like this. Yes, this does seem like a nice trick. I reckon a dip into fighter will ease the feat tax, and maybe a level of sorcerer with spell perfection for true strike. Quickened true strike + smack for 32d6+(2 x Str)+(enhancement) damage...that's one heck of a smack!
Oooo....I like this. Yes, this does seem like a nice trick. I reckon a dip into fighter will ease the feat tax, and maybe a level of sorcerer with spell perfection for true strike. Quickened true strike + smack for 32d6+(2 x Str)+(enhancement) damage...that's one heck of a smack!
Spell perfection is going to require 4 feats total, so it might be a bit too expensive, but I like the idea :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell perfection is going to require 4 feats total, so it might be a bit too expensive, but I like the idea :)
Oooo....I like this. Yes, this does seem like a nice trick. I reckon a dip into fighter will ease the feat tax, and maybe a level of sorcerer with spell perfection for true strike. Quickened true strike + smack for 32d6+(2 x Str)+(enhancement) damage...that's one heck of a smack!
For utmost hilarity, get the party wizard to cast "fly" on you. Flying stego delivering massive smacks with its tail...I'm not sure whether to call the mental image awesome or hilarious...possibly both! XD
Still, a great feat for anything that's Large+ and has a single natural attack :)
I found it useful with giants (sometimes) and older dragons. Still, I think should scale.
And basing the bonus damage on the weapon size is basically saying that only giant monsters are supposed to use this feat, anyway.I agree on everything barring this. IMO, the weapon used should matter.Big weapons already are disproportionately good. Making them even better is silly, unless the purpose of the game is to compensate through your character for some perceived size deficiency elsewhere.
Really, I can kill a person with a dagger just as easily as I can with a sword. And I can inflict a lot MORE damage with a dagger thrust than I can with a giant sword with a 10-foot-long blade that weighs 200 pounds.
The push in D&D/PF towards "ZOWIE NOW MY SWORD IS 86 FEET LONG AND CAN CHOP THE ENTIRE PLANET IN HALF" is already past the point of being annoying, to me.
Kirth, I meant greatsword/greataxe VS falchion/scythe. Take it easy. High Damage dice VS low DD in the same category. Just that.
Kirth, I meant greatsword/greataxe VS falchion/scythe. Take it easy. High Damage dice VS low DD in the same category. Just that.
Guess I'm not following you, then. In theory, a greatsword and a falchion are balanced -- lower crit chance for the former, lower base damage for the latter. If Vital Strike works off the base damage, but doesn't multiply on a crit, then the guy with the falchion won't take it, because he gets screwed. On the flip side, if Vital Strike adds a set damage bonus, then it's equally useful for all weapons. Most particularly, it becomes just as nice for the single longsword guy as it is for the greatsword guy (who is already overshadowing his longsword-armed buddy with things like Power Attack and Furious Focus and Backswing).