I thought there was a Dev post saying Spring Attack + Vital Strike didn't work?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.
You are both right and wrong. Yes you can't use spring attack + vital strike, but no this isn't due to some post. it's in the errata.
Anyway i personally think that vital strike is only useful for some who has a weapon at the size of the deathstar.
Vital strike + cannon.
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).
Balanced? Do you really consider the increased damage dice on par with the weapons with better critical? Up tu level 3? 5? this can be. After that, bonuses go up (power attack, smite) and critical weapons kick in. a x4 or a 18-20 are just taste, or built (crit spec or TH fighter).
If vital stike becomes something for "heavy" weapon only, the better. I prefer diversity than few optimal options and the rest being trash.
On the same route, I don't like (personal tastes) adding a flat Xd6 because I prefer in the gameworld imagine this or that weapon being better for a specifiv combat technique (which is different from being just sucktastic after 5 levels).
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.
That's not true if your opponent follows you. In that case, you're taking one attack and an AO from them (because they moved to you). In some cases, that's a lot better then a full attack from them.
So is Vital Strike better than not having vital strike? Definitely.
Is Vital Strike better than the other feat you take instead? I have no idea, I would want to know a LOT more about the campaign, the player, and the party.
My default for this question is "Is this feat better than Improved Initiative?"
I prefer diversity than few optimal options and the rest being trash.
On the same route, I don't like (personal tastes) adding a flat Xd6 because I prefer in the gameworld imagine this or that weapon being better for a specific combat technique (which is different from being just sucktastic after 5 levels).
Your suggestions run counter to your desires, then: adding advantages to ultra-heavy two-handed weapons (which are already better than the other choices to begin with: scaling damage with ubiquitous enlarge person, add in Backswing, Furious Focus, 3x dmg from Power Attack, etc.) means that no one with half a brain will ever use anything other than the biggest piece of metal they can get their hands on. And if you allow stuff like the "giant bastard sword" that the iconic barbarian in the core rules uses, or the 3e Monkey Grip feat, you exacerbate the problem tenfold. Even with big bonuses, an enlarged falchion (say 2d6+12/18-20) can't compete with an enlarged giant bastard sword (3d8+12/19-20). Add in your Vital Strike, and it's 2d6+12/18-20 plus 2d6 vs. 3d8+12/19-20 plus 3d8. There's simply no comparison.
The only "specific combat technique" you'll ever see from fighters and barbarians will consist of hewing at foes with a monster sword or axe. (Rogues and paladins will probably still stick with TWF to maximize their sneak attack/smite).
Your suggestions run counter to your desires, then: adding advantages to ultra-heavy two-handed weapons (which are already better than the other choices to begin with: scaling damage with ubiquitous enlarge person, add in Backswing, Furious Focus, 3x dmg from Power Attack, etc.) means that no one with half a brain will ever use anything other than the biggest piece of metal they can get their hands on. And if you allow silly stuff like the "giant bastard sword" that the iconic barbarian uses, or the Monkey Grip feat, you exacerbate the problem tenfold. Even with big bonuses, an enlarged falchion (2d6+10/18-20) can't compete with an enlarged giant bastard sword (3d8+10/19-20). Add in your Vital Strike, and it's 2d6+10/18-20 plus 2d6 vs. 3d8+10/19-20 plus 3d8. There's simply no comparison.
The only "specific combat technique" you'll ever see from fighters and barbarians will consist of hewing at foes with a monster sword or axe. (Rogues and paladins will probably still stick with TWF to maximize their sneak attack/smite).
But granting a flat +d6 bonus, is not going to add diversity. It is going to make every weapon function more like every other.
While it might be stated that two-handed weapons are superior, I don't agree with your assumption that any player will or should base their character choices based on simple number-crunching.Granting the same benefits to different weapons is a boring way to balance them. It is just like fixing crossbows with crossbow mastery: Now we got another weapon that is similar to a bow (and still subpar to a composite longbow).
But granting a flat +d6 bonus, is not going to add diversity. It is going to make every weapon function more like every other.
Exactly -- so some people will pick axes, some swords, some rapiers, etc., according to taste, because bigger won't automatically be better.
Now, if you want different weapons to grant different benefits, but have them reasonably well-balanced so that one option isn't glaringly 10x better than all the others, post away. I eagerly look forward to your solution. Until then, I consider a "boring" solution to be a lot better than no solution at all.
Your suggestions run counter to your desires, then: adding advantages to ultra-heavy two-handed weapons (which are already better than the other choices to begin with: scaling damage with ubiquitous enlarge person, add in Backswing, Furious Focus, 3x dmg from Power Attack, etc.) means that no one with half a brain will ever use anything other than the biggest piece of metal they can get their hands on. And if you allow silly stuff like the "giant bastard sword" that the iconic barbarian uses, or the Monkey Grip feat, you exacerbate the problem tenfold. Even with big bonuses, an enlarged falchion (2d6+10/18-20) can't compete with an enlarged giant bastard sword (3d8+10/19-20). Add in your Vital Strike, and it's 2d6+10/18-20 plus 2d6 vs. 3d8+10/19-20 plus 3d8. There's simply no comparison.
The only "specific combat technique" you'll ever see from fighters and barbarians will consist of hewing at foes with a monster sword or axe. (Rogues and paladins will probably still stick with TWF to maximize their sneak attack/smite).
But granting a flat +d6 bonus, is not going to add diversity. It is going to make every weapon function more like every other.
While it might be stated that two-handed weapons are superior, I don't agree with your assumption that any player will or should base their character choices based on simple number-crunching.Granting the same benefits to different weapons is a boring way to balance them. It is just like fixing crossbows with crossbow mastery: Now we got another weapon that is similar to a bow (and still subpar to a composite longbow).
I think he's getting at the Vital Strike feats should not change the weapon quality but should affect the wielder's ability. A dagger is still a dagger regardless of the feats you choose. Weapon specialization doesn't change this, so why should Vital Strike? Feats should affect the character, not the gear.
Personally, I don't mind the way Vital Strike works. My players love it and for them, it makes the game more fun.
I prefer diversity than few optimal options and the rest being trash.
On the same route, I don't like (personal tastes) adding a flat Xd6 because I prefer in the gameworld imagine this or that weapon being better for a specific combat technique (which is different from being just sucktastic after 5 levels).
Your suggestions run counter to your desires, then: adding advantages to ultra-heavy two-handed weapons (which are already better than the other choices to begin with: scaling damage with ubiquitous enlarge person, add in Backswing, Furious Focus, 3x dmg from Power Attack, etc.) means that no one with half a brain will ever use anything other than the biggest piece of metal they can get their hands on. And if you allow stuff like the "giant bastard sword" that the iconic barbarian in the core rules uses, or the 3e Monkey Grip feat, you exacerbate the problem tenfold. Even with big bonuses, an enlarged falchion (say 2d6+12/18-20) can't compete with an enlarged giant bastard sword (3d8+12/19-20). Add in your Vital Strike, and it's 2d6+12/18-20 plus 2d6 vs. 3d8+12/19-20 plus 3d8. There's simply no comparison.** spoiler omitted **
The only "specific combat technique" you'll ever see from fighters and barbarians will consist of hewing at foes with a monster sword or axe. (Rogues and paladins will probably still stick with TWF to maximize their sneak attack/smite).
Those weapons would be better for THAT. For high critical chance or similar stuff, the falchion would be better. BTW, I would make core your rule about the increased crit save for x3 and x4 weapons for the very same reason.
The biggest problem with Vital Strike is haste.
We've found a pretty solid use for Vital Strike in my Thursday group, albeit using the Psionics rules from Dreamscarred Press.
Half-Giant Psychic Warrior wielding a Large sized great sword, enlarged is now a huge size greatswoard (4d6) vital strikes for 8d6.
The actual in game example is a psychic warrior wielding a swatter, a dark sun weapon that is 2d8/x3, 3d8 when embiggened (a perfectly cromulent word) for 6d8 vital strike. The feat is definitely worth a circumstantial 13-18 damage, just not an extra d6 or d8.
Weapon Specialization: +2 damage.
Vital Strike with Great Sword: +7 damage on average, +2 minimum.
What's not to like? Sure, you get the former on everything and the latter is situational, but still.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike is good for fighters at level 6 because he can take it using a fighter bonus feat. This is important as once Vital Strike sucks (around level 10-12+), he can use the fighter class option to swap it out.
For other classes, it is not nearly as useful as the feat gets weaker and weaker as your character levels. More feats need to scale. Power Attack does. Arcane Strike does.
As for Vital Strike + Spring Attack...
Errata for Spring Attack is "as a full round action", which is why Vital Strike does not work anymore. It USED to work, and James Jacobs says he allows it in his campaign. But according to the errataed RAW, Vital Strike + Spring Attack does not work together.
|
|
We've found a pretty solid use for Vital Strike in my Thursday group, albeit using the Psionics rules from Dreamscarred Press.
Half-Giant Psychic Warrior wielding a Large sized great sword, enlarged is now a huge size greatswoard (4d6) vital strikes for 8d6.
The actual in game example is a psychic warrior wielding a swatter, a dark sun weapon that is 2d8/x3, 3d8 when embiggened (a perfectly cromulent word) for 6d8 vital strike. The feat is definitely worth a circumstantial 13-18 damage, just not an extra d6 or d8.
I think it's been proven more than a few occasions that Vital Strike is really good for LARGE or greater sized creatures. Being bigger than your opponent is a good thing, and Vital Strike adds to that. The feat itself is not so good for most medium sized creatures.
Vital Strike is designed to make lemonade out of lemons for physical classes. The ideal time to use Vital Strike is when situations are not ideal -- when you can't make a full attack action. You generally want to either make a full attack or use a full round's worth of actions (Spring Attack, Shot on the Run, etc). But if you have just a standard action and a single monster, it's better to use Vital Strike than just a regular melee/ranged attack.
How *valuable* is Vital Strike? That's open to interpretation. Sometimes you really get hammered with staggered effects or have a tough time against difficult terrain. If everything is going well and full-attack actions are plentiful, Vital Strike is a bad investment. Read another way, if your GM is evil (and constantly plots ways to stop full attack actions), Vital Strike is a better investment.
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)?
Be Huge size and wield a Mattock of the Titans. With the full Vital Strike chain you'll be doing 16D6 damage and you'll be mobile due to the reach and being able to use your move action.
Best way to do this is with an Eldrich Knight build and Monstrous Physique III. With the +6 Str Power attack as well.
How do you do Vital Strike? In my games, you do it by applying the following houserules:
First, you do what I do for all feats of the X-Improved X-Greater X type: condense them into a single feat which scales with level. If you have Vital Strike, and you meet the prerequisites for Improved Vital Strike, it automatically 'evolves',so to speak.
Secondly, have it work on charges and spring attack.
|
Personally I've seen it work wonders in one particular way...When a Char has Flyby Attack or Multiple Standard Actions (Both on the Monk surprisingly) When you can utilize a standard action on the move its great , doubly so if you can initiate more... for example Ki mystic Quiggong Monk of the four Sacred Mountain Winds can fly up to the opponent, VS for about 18d10 (avg 99 dmg)and lay on 3 different saves while safely getting away ..... Its also good for Eidolons
Personally I've seen it work wonders in one particular way...When a Char has Flyby Attack or Multiple Standard Actions (Both on the Monk surprisingly) When you can utilize a standard action on the move its great , doubly so if you can initiate more... for example Ki mystic Quiggong Monk of the four Sacred Mountain Winds can fly up to the opponent, VS for about 18d10 (avg 99 dmg)and lay on 3 different saves while safely getting away ..... Its also good for Eidolons
Huh, as worded, Flyby Attack actually does allow Vital Strike. Which makes it all the sillier that Spring Attack doesn't.
|
|
Personally I've seen it work wonders in one particular way...When a Char has Flyby Attack or Multiple Standard Actions (Both on the Monk surprisingly) When you can utilize a standard action on the move its great , doubly so if you can initiate more... for example Ki mystic Quiggong Monk of the four Sacred Mountain Winds can fly up to the opponent, VS for about 18d10 (avg 99 dmg)and lay on 3 different saves while safely getting away ..... Its also good for EidolonsHuh, as worded, Flyby Attack actually does allow Vital Strike. Which makes it all the sillier that Spring Attack doesn't.
To be fair FBA doesnt make you immune to AoO while SA does..against that opponent, The Difference here is the application. My Eidolon was built around one powerful attack (I call it SCREW-U-DR)and as such has base Natural attack of 2d8...which at about 8th level could inflate to 4d8 with little effort and as such he flies (With perfect maneuverability)VS for anywhere between 2d8-4d8 extra along with Str 1-1/2 with10-20 ft reach and flies away. He also has Combat reflexes so he can chase someone down to the point they never escape without being walloped.
And even if he did provoke by walking away, He has DR, High AC and if needed Fast Healing
I would "do it" by being a DM and allowing the bonus damage to include Strength, enhancement, and feats (Weapon Spec, et al), but not including extra dice (flaming, sneak attack). And I'd allow it to work with Spring Attack and Charge and such. And after reading this thread, I'd take a long look at making it one feat that scales with BAB, which is something I've thought about, but not done, in 3.5 campaigns with other feat chains (esp. TWF).
Just my 2 coppers.
AJ
|
For a fighter, I really don't think that three feats is that big of a deal. They get a crap load of 'em anyway. If you took the THF fighter variant, I think the VS chain would be worth taking. It's pretty close to getting a full attack on those beginning rounds of combat (or after you've killed something). With other classes that don't get as many feats, I can see why it's not all that useful to take.
Vital strike annoys me.
Before 3e you could do all your attacks after you move. It was 3e that created the "full attack action."
Play 2ed then. The full attack / move & single attack balenced the game out as board/map based combat game. 2ed it did not realy matter cause not realy board/map based game. It was more a minds eye type thing. Also there where no AoO in 2ed
I thought there was a Dev post saying Spring Attack + Vital Strike didn't work?
The developers don't run my game. :) My son's half-orc fighter gets to use Vital Strike when his PC doesn't full attack. Nice and simple, and works great for our game.
You cannot use it in a box
You cannot use it on a fox
You cannot use it here or there
You cannot use it anywhere
You should not use Vital Strike, my friend
Do not use it! That's the end!
--Jason Bulmahn
Q: But what if I'm a cloud giant Advanced to Colossal size and have a mega-Colossal sword the size of the planet and am using leaden blade and enlarge self?
A: Well, OK, maybe then. But no other time.