|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've gone through a few of the vital strike threads here to see the verdicts, and it's overwhelming on the side of not being able to do much with it.
However, I have a question for those at Paizo: Vital Strike (greater vital strike to be exact) is mentioned in Treeraiser's stat block (from the Inner Sea World Guide) and it's mentioned in his tactics that he charges with it. Is this a misprint, or an oversight, or what? Sorry if my post seems rude or snappy, just curious.
James posted a while ago that it works anytime you take a single attack. Being it a charge, spring attack or plain vanilla standard action attack. No, I don't have the link to it.
James posted a while ago that it works anytime you take a single attack. Being it a charge, spring attack or plain vanilla standard action attack. No, I don't have the link to it.
i think he said in -his- games he allows it, which goes back to the this is definitely a hotly contested, house rule probably necessary issue.
|
|
so it being in an npc's stat block as his tactics isn't a "rules change" or anything? I just want to make sure officially before I bring it up to any gm's I'm in a game with.
Personally I'll allow it with things like charging and spring attack (since it'd be fairly feat intensive to do spring attack with it)
|
so it being in an npc's stat block as his tactics isn't a "rules change" or anything? I just want to make sure officially before I bring it up to any gm's I'm in a game with.
I can't answer anything officially, obviously. But I think I can provide some insight.
Jason is the lead designer for the Pathfinder RPG (the core game), so he comes up with the rules and how many of them interact. He has consistently stated that Vital Strike (being a attack action) doesn't work with anything else that requires a standard action, full-round action, etc.
James is the creative director for the Pathfinder setting, so he is the force behind the fluffy/creative/world bits. James has stated on several occasions that he allows Vital Strike to be used with charges, spring attacks, and so forth in his game. Treeraiser is an adversary that James came up with years ago for his home game, so it's no surprise that Treeraiser shows up in the Campaign Setting using a tactic James likes from his home game.
The fact that Treeraiser's statblock says he Vital Strikes on a charge is nothing more than an example of James' preference that the setting-specific use of Vital Strike bends the PFRPG general rule just a tad.
-Skeld
*dives in*
The problem (to me anyway) with allowing Vital Strike to function off either Spring Attack or Charge both which use the phrasing "a single melee attack" is that those are not the only instances that use such a phrasing.
Whirlwind Attack also uses the "a single melee attack" phrasing, would you allow whirlwind attack to combine with vital strike? An Attack of Opportunity is also a single melee attack, would VS combine with that?
Without further clarification there's no consensus on what combines or doesn't combine and what reasoning to use to argue for it.
I don't have a problem with combining VS and Spring Attack, but combining with charge could get very interesting with Lances, Spirited Charge, etc.
For now, I'll just stick to the doesn't combine with anything approach.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need to rewrite the darned thing (this is a clear example of a case in which the "flavor text" is superior to the "benefit text").
....Something like:
<italicized text is Paizo-retained-verbatim>
Benefit: If your first attack during your turn is successful, you may 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.
If you choose to perform a Vital Strike, you forfeit any potential additional attacks or granted attacks of opportunity until the end of your turn. For example, you may not Cleave, even if otherwise able to.
If the intent of the developers was to make the feat even more restrictive (i.e., you can't move more than 5', and are clearly sacrificing a known-to-be-eligible full-attack sequence), then it can be similarly easily worded to specify exactly what is meant.
The nebulous "When you use the attack action..." just makes everyone's heads explode.
you know even the whirlwind attack vital strike use doesn't seem that bad considering all the preq for whirlwind attack and then another feat for vital up to 3 id be pretty ok with that a a dm for 8 bloody feats you can pull off a portion of the damage of a fireball if the enemies are tight packed around you
you know even the whirlwind attack vital strike use doesn't seem that bad considering all the preq for whirlwind attack and then another feat for vital up to 3 id be pretty ok with that a a dm for 8 bloody feats you can pull off a portion of the damage of a fireball if the enemies are tight packed around you
+1
This is a fine notion. Let me introduce you to my Enlarged fighter who was wielding a Large Greatsword before he got the spell. (That's 4d6 for the weapon damage dice...)
I admit, 16d6 is not wildly outlandish damage to be dealing to enemies at 16th level (assuming the use of Greater Vital Strike). 16d6 plus all the flat damage bonuses that get stacked onto melee attacks from high Strength, Power Attack, increases to both of these from wielding the weapon in two hands, etc? Well, now, there we are getting into some outlandish territory there. Admittedly it's a stretch, and even most 16th level fighters won't be dishing out this much damage. <shrug>
right thats with ideal circumstances and actually the best thing i see about that is the extended reach from being enlarged then you would be practically scary... whenever the dm uses large numbers of mobs on a 1 on 1 basis you loss alot of umph or even on a 6 on 4 basis or some such or when combat is spread. (bridge battle as well) but the fighter used roughly half his feats to get the combination at 16th level.
frankly i don't do alot of large number on my party in the first place and usually the fighter with cleave can kill large number mobs no problem anyways. think about what the fighter sacrificed to get there he took dodge mobility spring attack vital strike 3 times and whirlwind ofcourse and had to put points into intel up to 13 if i remmeber correctly.
the terminology "attack action" is indeed nebulous. it could be interpreted (as I think the writers intended) to imply when a character takes a single standard attack. this would indeed be a benefit to fighters and other characters who deal smaller amounts of damage and may have a hard time either hitting an opponent or bypassing it's DR.
however, due to the lack of specificity this can also be iterpreted as applying to any attack, such as the free attacks included in the casting of any spell which requires an attack roll, such as touch spells and ray spells.
needless to say, this is far more overpowered, since a 12th level spellcaster who could previously only do 12d6 a round with a ray spell is still casting that spell as a standard action and now dealing 2x that damage. more if he is a devine spellcaster or multiclass character who could eventually meet the +11 BAB prerequisite for Imp VS.
as a crafter of house rules since DND 2.0, I will actually allow this interpretation, but warn my players against it's use as it is fair play for me to use it against them as well. unfortunately this does put martial characters at a disadvantage unless they have VERY good AC.
you know even the whirlwind attack vital strike use doesn't seem that bad considering all the preq for whirlwind attack and then another feat for vital up to 3 id be pretty ok with that a a dm for 8 bloody feats you can pull off a portion of the damage of a fireball if the enemies are tight packed around you+1
This is a fine notion. Let me introduce you to my Enlarged fighter who was wielding a Large Greatsword before he got the spell. (That's 4d6 for the weapon damage dice...)
I admit, 16d6 is not wildly outlandish damage to be dealing to enemies at 16th level (assuming the use of Greater Vital Strike). 16d6 plus all the flat damage bonuses that get stacked onto melee attacks from high Strength, Power Attack, increases to both of these from wielding the weapon in two hands, etc? Well, now, there we are getting into some outlandish territory there. Admittedly it's a stretch, and even most 16th level fighters won't be dishing out this much damage. <shrug>
However you have to realize that the flat damage bonuses are the same VS or no VS so while the potential goes up it only loses 12 on the low end for hot having VS so its only a bit better on the low end than not having it (though i will admit by the average end its getting much better when you look at 36 more damage over the 12)
Just to throw my experince in on the combo had a fighter wanna do the VS charge thing when PF first came out didnt see anything against it we let her. A year later in our next game we see the FAQ and tell our new fighter no he can't comparing the two all that seemed to happen was the fighters charges were less efficent didn't see much change in tactics so we house ruled that yes you can do so since it wasn't that big of a deal in comparison to other classes at the same level. Just our opinion of course.