Spring Attack & Vital Strike

[W E Ray]

Okay, there's two Threads that I jumped in recently with my question about a PC with Vital Strike and Spring Attack and I've gotten a couple conflicting responses. (And I ain't a RAW guy so I need help.)

According to RAW,

A PC with Spring Attack and Vital Strike can move a little bit, attack someone (preferably a Republican) and for that attack, use Vital Strike, and run away with the rest of his Move.

Correct?!?!

(And if this is true, a PC with that build plus some extra Movement, though not as much DPR as the "Cookie-Cutter, Cleave-Tree Cliche PC," is still a comparably good fighter-type: not as much DPR but doesn't get attacked as much cuz he's already moved away.)

Yes?

[Maxximilius]

"Spring Attack (8/20/10)

Q: Can you combine the Spring Attack feat with Vital Strike?

A: (Errata 8/20/10) The spring attack feat has been changed in the 8/20/2010 Errata to be a Full-Round action. This prevents one from using Spring Attack and vital strike together. This also includes any of the Standard action feats like Cleave also."

FAQ Pathfinder, D20pfsrd.com.

[Karel Gheysens]

No.

Spring attack is a full round action. Vital strike is a standard action. You can't combine those.

Just like you can't full attack and then do a standard action attack (or heaven forbid, a vital strike).

I think it's a stupid rule. Those mobile fighting style can use a bit of buff though that's how it works.

[leo1925]

If you check the errata you will see that spring attack was clarified as a full round action.
full round action != attack action.
So vital strike doesn't work with spring attack.

[Rory]

Karel Gheysens wrote:

Spring attack is a full round action. Vital strike is a standard action. You can't combine those.

PRD wrote:

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 does not say it is a standard action, but an attack action.

Spring attack allows you to make one melee attack action during the manuever.

The errata might say Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but it's not due to full round not working with standard actions.

By the way the PRD is worded, you could in theory make one attack action (a la Vital Strike), and then decide whether or not to make a full round attack pending outcome of the first attack.

PRD wrote:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rory wrote:

Vital strike does not say it is a standard action, but an attack action.

Incorrect.

Vital strike works "When you use the attack action."

The "attack action" is a specific standard action.

It is not a generic word for any attack; attacks are not actions at all, but are rather the result of other actions and non-actions (e.g., you can make an attack on an AoO, but an AoO is not an action; you can make an attack as part of a charge, which is a full-round action; you can make multiple attacks when you take the Full Attack action).

So, no - they don't work together.

Spring Attack is a full-round action in its own right, and Vital Strike only works when you take a specific standard action.

[Bobson]

Rory wrote:

By the way the PRD is worded, you could in theory make one attack action (a la Vital Strike), and then decide whether or not to make a full round attack pending outcome of the first attack.

PRD wrote:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

In order to do that you have to start out declaring a full attack, which is incompatible with vital strike.

[LordZod]

Could you do this with Blessing of Fervor? It gives you an extra attack at your highest base attack bonus as part of a full attack, essentially as an attack action. Could you declare that extra strike to be a Vital Strike?

[Rory]

PRD wrote:

Spring Attack (Combat)

You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.

I submit to you that an attack action can be a melee attack action or a ranged attack action (or an unarmed attack action).

PRD wrote:

Standard Action

Attack (melee)
Attack (ranged)
Attack (unarmed)

(apologies, but I don't know how to show that table of actions in the combat section)

Vital Strike is an (melee/ranged/unarmed) attack action.

Spring Attack allows one melee attack action.

[Kirth Gersen]

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

[Rory]

Bobson wrote:

In order to do that you have to start out declaring a full attack, which is incompatible with vital strike.

PRD wrote:

Full Attack

...

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.

You do not have to decide to do a full round attack until after the first attack is resolved.

[Maxximilius]

Rory wrote:

Vital Strike is an (melee/ranged/unarmed) attack action.

Spring Attack allows one melee attack action.

Vital Strike is a standard action in itself since it uses the "Attack" type of standard action.

Spring attack is a full-round action.
You can't stack a full-round action AND a standard action by RAW.

VS/SA was officially told as not possible, and this is still available on the FAQ. If you want to allow it, fine for you, it's still a houserule in this case.

Rory wrote:

You do not have to decide to do a full round attack until after the first attack is resolved.

True. But if you made a vital strike, you just used a standard action, and thus you can't continue into a full-round attack.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rory wrote:

Spring Attack allows one melee attack action.

No, it doesn't.

This is the key distinction you are missing.

Spring Attack does not allow an "Attack action."

It allows "an attack." Just like an AoO allows "an attack." Just like Charge allows "an attack." Just like Full Attack allows "one or more attacks."

And, importantly, just like the Attack action allows "an attack."

This is a distinction which has existed since 3.0, which 3.5 and PF inherited.

There are many ways to get attacks. The Attack action is merely one of them.

Maxx is right on with the interaction of Vital Strike and Full Attack.

EDIT:

Rory wrote:

You do not have to decide to do a full round attack until after the first attack is resolved.

Actually, you've got that backwards.

You must first declare a Full Attack (full-round) action. Then, after seeing how your first attack turns out, you may change your mind and give up the remainder of your attacks for a move action.

You may not declare an Attack (standard) action and then, after seeing how that attack turns out, change your mind and give up your move action to gain additional attacks.

This is an important distinction - reviewing the TWF rules will show why.

[Rory]

Spring attack is a full-round action.
You can't stack a full-round action AND a standard action by RAW.

Spring Attack specifically says you can make one melee attack action, which is a standard action per the PRD (I quoted it above).

I'm not sure why they errata'd SA and VS to not work together. Perhaps Vital Strike use to be declared a specific Standard Action, similar to Cleave, etc.? It isn't anymore per the PRD that I can find.

[leo1925]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

That is one of the house rules my group uses for vital strike the other is that it isn't a chain of feats it's only one feat and when your BAB becomes +11 and later +16 the feat is upgraded to improved and later greater vital strike.

Man this feat is so bad that it required two house rules to make it a solid choice.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rory:

Read my posts on why you're reading this wrong.

[Maxximilius]

Rory wrote:

Spring Attack specifically says you can make one melee attack action, which is a standard action per the PRD (I quoted it above).

I'm not sure why they errata'd SA and VS to not work together. Perhaps Vital Strike use to be declared a specific Standard Action, similar to Cleave, etc.? It isn't anymore per the PRD that I can find.

Look at my first answer to the OP. It's the official answer and errata from the Pfsrd FAQ about this feat.

Also, the prd says Spring attacks allow an "attack", not an "attack action", you quoted it yourself. Originally, I think Spring Attack wasn't a full-round action, just something that allowed to do a standard "attack action" during a movement.

[leo1925]

Maxximilius wrote:

Originally, I think Spring Attack wasn't a full-round action, just something that allowed to do a standard "attack action" during a movement.

Not exactly, the previous spirng attack was saying that you can make a single melee attack, it wasn't saying anything about actions, that's why i said that spring attack was clarified in the errata.

[AvalonXQ]

Rory wrote:

Spring Attack specifically says you can make one melee attack action,

No, it doesn't.

It says you can make one melee attack. That is different from an attack action.

An attack action is a standard action in which you are allowed to make a single melee attack.

You need a standard action to take an attack action. Making a melee attack is not the same as taking an attack action. You cannot both take a Spring Attack and also take an attack action in the same round, unless you somehow get an extra standard action in your round. Even then, the attack action will not be part of the Spring Attack, but a separate action.

[Pyrrhic Victory]

What about vital strike and lunge??

[Rory]

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

Rory wrote:

Spring Attack allows one melee attack action.

No, it doesn't.

This is the key distinction you are missing.

Spring Attack does not allow an "Attack action."

It allows "an attack."

Please quote the PRD to define this "attack" (non-action).

Is this what you guys are referring to?

PRD wrote:

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.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

A "Melee Attack" is listed under "Standard Actions" under the topic "Actions in Combat".

A "melee attack" is a "melee attack action" per the PRD.

By what grounds is it not?

Thanks!

[leo1925]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

What about vital strike and lunge??

Yes that works, you know what works better? full attacking and lunge.

[deinol]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

This. I also recommend letting the feat scale automatically. Or even just giving them for free at the appropriate BAB.

[AvalonXQ]

Rory wrote:

A "melee attack" is a "melee attack action" per the PRD.

No, it's not. A melee attack is possible as part of a number of different actions. One of them is the attack action, which is a standard action.

You can also make a melee attack as part of a Spring Attack, as an Attack of Opportunity, as part of a full attack action (which is a full round action), or as part of casting a touch spell (which may also be a standard action).

A melee attack describes a thing you do. It may occur under many different circumstances, including as part of a Spring Attack.

The attack action describes an action you can take as part of your turn. It is a standard action, which tells you how much of your action economy on your turn you use up when you take it. You get a melee attack whenever you take an attack action; it is not true that every melee attack is therefore an attack action. There are a great many other ways to also make a melee attack.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rory wrote:

Please quote the PRD to define this "attack" (non-action).

In the PFSRD, you have the Attack standard action, which comes in various flavors (melee, unarmed, and ranged).

The description of the Attack standard action says "Making an attack is a standard action." Note that this is no different than the language for, say, activating a magic item: "activating a magic item is a standard action."

Or, in other words, "Making an attack is a standard action" applies only to the Attack standard action.

It has to, because you also have thinks like:

Touch Spells: "Most spells require 1 standard action to cast." "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack" (Here, an attack is a free action.)

Charge: "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." (Here, an attack is part of another action, not an action in and of itself.)

Full Attack: "If you get more than one attack per round [...] you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." (Here, multiple attacks are part of another action, not actions in and of themselves.)

Attack of Opportunity: "These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity." (Another not-an-action attack.)

Cleave: "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach ... and can make an additional attack ..." (Here, up-to-two attacks are part of a standard action.)

These are all things which are not the Attack action, but which include attacks.

Ergo, "attack" and "the Attack standard action" are not the same thing.

EDIT:

And to be technically clear: Vital Strike is not a standard action in its own right. Vital Strike is an ability that happens when you take the Attack action, which is a standard action.

Thus, if you had a different ability that said "When you take the attack action, you gain a +3 bonus to attack rolls," both it and Vital Strike would apply at the same time.

[James Risner]

W E Ray wrote:

A PC with Spring Attack and Vital Strike can move a little bit, attack someone (preferably a Republican) and for that attack, use Vital Strike, and run away with the rest of his Move.

Correct?!?!

False

Vital Strike is explicitly a Standard Action.

[Rory]

You made a nice list of uses of the "Attack" ability outside of a Standard Action. But, you did not show that an "Attack standard action" is not also an "attack".

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

Ergo, "attack" and "the Attack standard action" are not the same thing.

Invisibility is broken by: "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature."

Protection From Evil: "The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature"

Sanctuary: "The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act."

All of these spells are foiled if the player "attacks". If "the Attack standard action" was not an "attack", that means that "the Attack standard action" would not foil any of these spells. We all know that "the Attack standard action" does foil all of these spells, ergo "the Attack standard action" is an "attack".

Okay, all that proves is that "Attack standard action" is at least a subset of an "attack" definition.

You listed a LOT of very nice examples of how you can use an "attack" outside a standard action, even tho the PRD says:

"ATTACK
Making an attack is a standard action."

(note, it did not say making an "attack action" is a standard action)

But, you did not list any exclusion of any type of attack that can be used in those examples. Hence, any of those "attacks" (Combat Manuevers, Melee Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, etc.) can be used as part of that attack. Since "Attack standard action" is a subset of "attack", it too therefore should be able to be used anywhere you listed "attack".

I know you disagree, so we'll have to respectfully disagree. Thanks for the discussion!

[Maxximilius]

Rory wrote:

Annoying denial.

FAQ. "No." FAQ. "No." Designer call. Yes.

Also, attack of opportunity is a melee attack.
So, attack of opportunity is probably a standard action.
So, cleaving on attacks of opportunity ! Vital strike !
Whoops, no. RAW unclear. FAQ, like, boheme focking-cristal clear.

See first answer for more details, thanks for using our company. Oxygen masks aren't available for economic causes.

[James Risner]

Rory wrote:

All of these spells are foiled if the player "attacks".

I know you disagree, so we'll have to respectfully disagree. Thanks for the discussion

You put an impressive amount of thought into that, but in the end it doesn't work.

The invisible spell is broken by any attack including ones that have no attack rolls (like blindness.)

Vital Stike uses that attack action. Spring Attack provides a free attack, but not a free attack action. There is a difference between the two.

[Lord Zeb]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

This, a 100x this.

I mean, what was wrong with this?

Q: But in PF#30 Sharx Veskandi (page 42) lists using Vital Strike and Spring Attack as her favorite tactics?

A: (James Jacobs 3/7/10) Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a micro examination of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool. Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW! Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all.
------

spring attack + vital strike is a large feat investment, why not let it pay off? The more I think about it, the more annoyed at the unnecessary errata I become...

[Charlie Bell]

I also houserule that Vital Strike works with Spring Attack, charge, Ride-By Attack, etc.

Interestingly enough, it works with Flyby Attack anyways, since Flyby Attack lets you take an actual standard action during movement, not simply an attack. GM Pro Tip: dragons Flyby Attacking with breath weapons is harsh, but appropriate.

And for all you folks who say Vital Strike sucks, throw Greater Vital Strike and Improved Natural Attack (bite) on a purple worm, for instance. That's 24d8 before adds.

[wraithstrike]

Charlie Bell wrote:

I also houserule that Vital Strike works with Spring Attack, charge, Ride-By Attack, etc.

Interestingly enough, it works with Flyby Attack anyways, since Flyby Attack lets you take an actual standard action during movement, not simply an attack. GM Pro Tip: dragons Flyby Attacking with breath weapons is harsh, but appropriate.

And for all you folks who say Vital Strike sucks, throw Greater Vital Strike and Improved Natural Attack (bite) on a purple worm, for instance. That's 24d8 before adds.

I think when people say it sucks they mean it sucks for players. If the monster is a single attack monster then it is normally not bad.

[Kirth Gersen]

Charlie Bell wrote:

And for all you folks who say Vital Strike sucks, throw Greater Vital Strike and Improved Natural Attack (bite) on a purple worm, for instance. That's 24d8 before adds.

That's a separate issue with Vital Strike -- the fact that, if you're not a giant monster or an anime character, you're really not getting much "oomph" out of it. Personally, I've houseruled it to +2d6/+4d6/+6d6 damage, regardless of weapon size/base damage. (And of course it's one feat that scales with BAB.)

[ShadowcatX]

Some melee attacks are standard actions. Some standard actions are melee attacks. Not all standard actions are melee attacks. Not all melee attacks are standard actions.

If provoking an attack of opportunity allowed for standard actions wizard battles would really be something to see. (And would resemble two control decks in magic the gathering. I respond to your counterspell with counterspell, I mana drain your counterspell, I squash your mana drain.)

[W E Ray]

Thanks for the responses, guys,

But can someone from Paizo -- Bulmahn or Jacobs or someone give an official answer for RAW? In a game that uses RAW, we need help.

EDIT: Ooh, consider it a Society question? What happens when a DM in running an event runs into a Player with a Spring Attack / Vital Strike build?

And the others:
Vital Strike - Lunge,
Vital Strike - Spring Attack - Lunge,
Vital Strike - Attack of Opportunity,
etc.?

[ShadowcatX]

W E Ray wrote:

Thanks for the responses, guys,

But can someone from Paizo -- Bulmahn or Jacobs or someone give an official answer for RAW? In a game that uses RAW, we need help.

Did you read the very first response which copied directly from the FAQ? What part of them writing it in your thread would make it more "RAW" than them writing it into the FAQ?

[Maxximilius]

W E Ray wrote:

Thanks for the responses, guys,

But can someone from Paizo -- Bulmahn or Jacobs or someone give an official answer for RAW? In a game that uses RAW, we need help.

The quoted content from the FAQ forbidding VS + SA IS the official answer from Paizo and it's developers. Previously, it was possible ; but SA is now a full-round action since the last official errata.

If you allow them, fine. But officially it will be a houserule.

Edit :

Quote:

EDIT: Ooh, consider it a Society question? What happens when a DM in running an event runs into a Player with a Spring Attack / Vital Strike build?

And the others:
Vital Strike - Lunge,
Vital Strike - Spring Attack - Lunge,
Vital Strike - Attack of Opportunity,
etc.?

Simple. You want/need to stick strictly to RAW for PFSociety ? Then you ask nicely to your player to find something else.

- Lunge can be used with ANY attack. It's a free action to apply during one round before any attack is made. So, you could even take -2 to CA to Spring Attack the guy, VS him or full-round attack the hell out of him, all the while using Power attack.
- VS + SA = no again.
- VS is only when used with the "Attack" standard action. An attack of opportunity cannot be used with Cleave/VS.

[Grick]

W E Ray wrote:

But can someone from Paizo -- Bulmahn or Jacobs or someone give an official answer for RAW? In a game that uses RAW, we need help.

There won't be another errata until the next version of the book. Since it's been 4 versions, with the same questions about Vital Strike, it's unlikely they'll errata it to specifically say "standard action" instead of "attack action."

The Spring Attack errata is RAW.

The only confusion can be if the "Attack action" required to use Vital Strike is actually an action, or applied to any/every attack you can make. It's not RAW, but James Jacobs has said that the latter is not the case, both in the Spring Attack+VS FAQ posted above, and in the FAQ about Charge+VS.

W E Ray wrote:

EDIT: Ooh, consider it a Society question?

If it's legitimately a PFS question, ask in the PFS forums. But it seems kinda squicky to use PFS as a prod to get answers for clearly non-PFS gaming.

W E Ray wrote:

What happens when a DM in running an event runs into a Player with a Spring Attack / Vital Strike build?

Personally, I would hope they would follow the rules and not let them use them together.

W E Ray wrote:

And the others:
Vital Strike - Lunge,
Vital Strike - Spring Attack - Lunge,
Vital Strike - Attack of Opportunity,
etc.?

Lunge is OK with both of them. AoO is not (for the same reasons as earlier)

Maxximilius wrote:

unge can be used with ANY attack. It's a free action to apply during one round before any attack is made.

I think you probably meant this, but Lunge is for your turn, not one round. You do not get the benefits of Lunge or AoOs, for example. (The penalties last until your next turn begins, the benefits only apply during your turn)

[Maxximilius]

Grick wrote:

Maxximilius wrote:

unge can be used with ANY attack. It's a free action to apply during one round before any attack is made.

I think you probably meant this, but Lunge is for your turn, not one round. You do not get the benefits of Lunge or AoOs, for example. (The penalties last until your next turn begins, the benefits only apply during your turn)

Yeup, +1 to this.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rory wrote:

All of these spells are foiled if the player "attacks". If "the Attack standard action" was not an "attack", that means that "the Attack standard action" would not foil any of these spells.

Sorry, that's wrong.

The Attack standard action includes an attack.

Ergo, taking the Attack standard action breaks those spells.

Ergo, you're still wrong.

[Lou Diamond]

THe Developers need to stop nerfing combat feats that involve movement.

It seems to me that the devs favor casters and only wnat combat types to take 5' step and full attack.

A caster can move and cast 2 spells per round with quicken spell.

While a fighter that wants to use spring attack can only deal normal
attack damage at the cost of three feats as the rules curently stand
even if he has vital strike.

Whats even worse a Magus useing spell combat if I understand spell combat correctly can choose qiicken spell feat move do spell combat with both his qickend spell and his standard action and if he has intensfied spell [1st feat magus should take along with combat casting IMO] deal 1d8+strength +5d6 twice compared to a fighter that wants to spring attack curently being able to spring attack and make one attack for [1d8 [using long sword for examples] +strength + power attack] at the feat tax of 3 feats and not being able to use the vital strike chain of feats if he has them.

Compare the two examples abvoe and tell me that the fighter is not being screwed to the point of not being set on the side lines because the DEVS have become to caster centric in their wirting and interpitations of the rules to nerf noncasters.

Fix errata the spring attack chain to work with the vital strike feat chain by changiing the wording of the vital strike feats to say Vital strike is a speical action that takes place within a full round action
ex you may use the vital strike feat chain with the Spring attack feat chain or any future feat chain that involves movement. This still limits the user to maikng one attack at full BAB and doing rolling two damage dice as per normal vital strike.

I would also like to see a feat like this
Pound Them: Prereq Power attack Vital strike and improved vital strike Bab 6

On a critacl hit all vital strike damage is mutlipied as per normal critical hit caculations.

[Drillboss D]

This is a major bummer. Any light on their rationale for this?

Kills the "Anime Samurai" elf rogue build I'd done a while ago - Power Attack, Furious Focus, Spring Attack, Vital Strike, on a Swashbuckler/Scout with a keen Elven Curve Blade. Didn't outdamage the paladin over the course of a battle, but super mobile, and could do the iconic Anime run-and-cut for high burst damage. As it is, would only lose 1d10 and still do d10+6d6+lots of mods at lvl11, but this seems like an unnecessary nerf.

Hopefully, Ultimate Combat will go a ways to fixing this sort of thing with its "hundreds of new feats." However, Ultimate Combat is also listed as providing new wizard archetypes of all things, so we'll see what it really does for balance.

I think in our group we'll still allow it if such a build comes up again.

-Drillboss

[leo1925]

I don't know why the devs don't want the mobile combat to be any good but my guess is that it's 3.5 fault and i blame the backwards compability.

[Loengrin]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

This... :)

I think that, at a lot of home table, this feat is houseruled to work with SA, Cleave etc... And I think that there's a reason to that... :D

I totally agree agree with Mr James Jacob : law of cool tell me this combo must work ;)

[walter mcwilliams]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

I STRONGLY disgaree with this recommendation. Like most feats that give a bonus, they do so with a penalty to something else. The trade off with vital strike is that if you choose go for the extra damage you do so by sacraficing additional attack/movement options. If you take this away it simply becomes free damge potential with no penalty, greatly unbalancing a feat that IMHO already tilters onto the unbalanced side.

[leo1925]

walter mcwilliams wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

I STRONGLY disgaree with this recommendation. Like most feats that give a bonus, they do so with a penalty to something else. The trade off with vital strike is that if you choose go for the extra damage you do so by sacraficing additional attack/movement options. If you take this away it simply becomes free damge potential with no penalty, greatly unbalancing a feat that IMHO already tilters onto the unbalanced side.

No because right now the vital strike feat chain is a very very bad choice for players unless their weapon is of the size of deathstar, and by using this house rule the feat(s) become less useless (still bad but not as before).

Now if you are talking about monsters with a single BIG attack then yes you might be right.

[Gruuuu]

Vital Strike and Spring Attack 2GTHR 4EVR.

[Grick]

Lou Diamond wrote:

Whats even worse a Magus useing spell combat if I understand spell combat correctly can choose qiicken spell feat move do spell combat with both his qickend spell and his standard action and if he has intensfied spell [1st feat magus should take along with combat casting IMO] deal 1d8+strength +5d6 twice compared to a fighter that wants to spring attack curently being able to spring attack and make one attack for [1d8 [using long sword for examples] +strength + power attack] at the feat tax of 3 feats and not being able to use the vital strike chain of feats if he has them.

The fighter is not being screwed to the point of being set on the side lines. Even if he was, allowing spring attack and vital strike will not fix it.

If you don't want to read the breakdown below (it's boring and inaccurate), the difference between your fighter spring attacking, and your fighter spring attacking with improved vital strike is 2d8. That's less than half of the static bonuses that would apply if he got another attack.

Magus vs Fighter:

In your example the Magus is making a full attack while the fighter only makes one. Bad comparison. So take spell combat out of the picture.

Level 13 Magus (Str 16) is 15' from target, casts intensified shocking grasp, moves into combat, and delivers his spell via Spellstrike. He then casts quickened shocking grasp, and delivers it with Spellstrike.
1d8+3+10d6
1d8+3+5d6

Level 13 Fighter (Str 22) is 15' from target, spring attacks, with power attack, and using both hands on his longsword.
1d8+9+12+2+4+3 (Longsword + 1.5Str + PowerAttack + Weapon Spec + Enhancement + Weapon Training3)

So, lets say the d8's are average of 4, and the d6's are average of 3. Every attack always hits.

Magus 59 damage vs fighter 34 damage. (At the cost of a level 5 spell and a level 2 spell)

If the fighter was able to make use of his improved vital strike feat while spring attacking, he would get 2 more d8's for a whopping 8 more damage.

Does this mean the developers hate melee and 'nerf' them? No, it means spring attacking is a terrible way for a basic fighter to go about combat. The same guys above doing a full attack:
Magus: Spell Combat - intensified shocking grasp, iterative attacks, quickened shocking grasp: 73 damage.
Fighter: Three iterative attacks: 102 damage.

Magus spends another 5th level spell slot, and a 2nd level spell slot, to do 29 less damage.

These are all bad examples since the Magus could use both hands when not using spell combat, could take other feats, could enchant his weapon, the fighter could have all sorts of other things going on. But the end result it still the same.

walter mcwilliams wrote:

I STRONGLY disgaree with this recommendation. (...) If you take this away it simply becomes free damge potential with no penalty, greatly unbalancing a feat that IMHO already tilters onto the unbalanced side.

I'm curious why you think Vital Strike, as written, is nearly unbalanced. I assume you mean unbalanced as in too powerful. I think most of the posters here are of the opinion that Vital Strike is a terrible feat to take unless you're a T-rex or something with a single really massive attack.

Gruuuu wrote:

Vital Strike and Spring Attack 2GTHR 4EVR.

The post you linked to is from March 2010. It was also quoted earlier in the thread. The problem is the official (RAW) errata was published in August 2010 and made Spring Attack a full round action, negating James' post.

[walter mcwilliams]

leo1925 wrote:

walter mcwilliams wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.

I STRONGLY disgaree with this recommendation. Like most feats that give a bonus, they do so with a penalty to something else. The trade off with vital strike is that if you choose go for the extra damage you do so by sacraficing additional attack/movement options. If you take this away it simply becomes free damge potential with no penalty, greatly unbalancing a feat that IMHO already tilters onto the unbalanced side.

No because right now the vital strike feat chain is a very very bad choice for players unless their weapon is of the size of deathstar, and by using this house rule the feat(s) become less useless (still bad but not as before).

Now if you are talking about monsters with a single BIG attack then yes you might be right.

Once again I strongly disagree. It is a choice, perhaps not the most optimized (hate that term), but a choice. A choice that is better than the "norm", so therefore I wouldn't call it a bad choice. RAW is the feat the best choice for every PC concept, maybe not. But, to allow its use willy-nilly would most likely through it into the "it's so good no one can live without it" buket and that would unbalence it IMHO.

[Kirth Gersen]

walter mcwilliams wrote:

Once again I strongly disagree. It is a choice, perhaps not the most optimized (hate that term), but a choice.

So is playing a Commoner -- it is a choice. Maybe not the most optimized choice, but it's better than playing a flumph, so it's obviously not a bad choice. If you think loosening the restrictions on Vital Strike will unbalance the game -- but at the same time don't bat an eye at people playing core rules enchanters -- then all I can say is that we must be playing two totally different games.