Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Fly-by Attack always struck me as the "dragon feat". That standard action will be their breath weapon. And even if it's not, they'll be out of reach when they attack you, so it doesn't matter if they would provoke an AoO.
FBA is better options for offense, less good defense.
It can be a dragon feat, but it can just as easily be a pixie feat or erinyes feat or air elemental feat or efreeti feeti... :)
You wouldn't really want to use it like Spring Attack, unless you knew you beat your target on reach, and that's the point. You *could* use it to fly-Spring Attack, but it wouldn't work as well as Spring Attack because of the AoOs.
That's certainly an accurate RAW description of the differences. But why are they different? They are, fundamentally, the same idea--skirmishing and attacking on the move. Why should Spring Attack be so highly restrictive in the sort of skirmishing it allows, while Flyby Attack is so permissive?No they are not the same fundamentally. One restricts you to melee attacks only, but allows you to do so without getting stabbed in the face.
Fly by Attack allows you to get stabbed in the face, but as a trade allows you to do any standard action.
That's different mechanics. It's not different flavor. It does not explain why the mechanics are different. What has conceptually changed if Spring Attack worked just like Fly-By Attack?
Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?
Really? That's a house rule? Why can't you Vital Strike on a Spring Attack or Charge? I thought that was the whole purpose of the feat chain. Why would anyone take those if you couldn't?
I suppose your going to tell me that it doesn't work with Shot on the Run or Pin-point Targeting as well?
|
Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?Really? That's a house rule? Why can't you Vital Strike on a Spring Attack or Charge? I thought that was the whole purpose of the feat chain. Why would anyone take those if you couldn't?
I suppose your going to tell me that it doesn't work with Shot on the Run or Pin-point Targeting as well?
Nope, then again its not really a bad thing I know I like it when my GM cringes every time my Eidolon says he's gonna Vital strike something..much more than when I say he's gonna Full attack, but then again I made a masher who cares little for DR and would Squish most other Eidolons..and PC's actually, hehe
I prefer to play with Vital Strike applying to Spring Attack (since that only accomplishes a Move + single Attack), but NOT to Charge
(since that is 2x Move + single Attack... and there`s not a shortage of bonus dmg or dmg multipliers for Charge to begin with).
I think the first VS Feat definitely has value, is a great counter to the crit range vs. damage dice dynamic that favors crit from mid-levels onward, and is useful for stuff like big DR/Hardness and for Readied attacks. But it is niche enough that the later Feats don`t see much usage. I can imagine some good usages for them, but those are more niche, and there`s usually other great usages for Feats. It does also work well with other abilities giving DMG boosts to single attacks (even if those aren`t as limited as Vital Strike/Attack action), like 2 Handed Fighter and the Swift Action Rage Power boosting one attack. I believe there`s a new Feat that triggers when you do 50+ dmg, and that works well with VS, especially vs. Crit-Immune targets (most intelligent high-level creatures would want Fortification at high levels, given Crit-triggered Conditions)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't you Vital Strike on a Spring Attack or Charge? I thought that was the whole purpose of the feat chain. Why would anyone take those if you couldn't?
Although it was supposedly written for PCs originally, the mechanics make it drastically ill-suited for them. Now it's a feat for giant monsters with big bite attacks. And apparently that's how Jason Bulmahn wanted it.
If you want PCs to use it, I'd suggest something more like this:
VITAL STRIKE (COMBAT)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: During any round in which you make only a single attack on your turn, that attack deals an additional 2d6 damage. This bonus damage increases to +4d6 if your base attack bonus is +11 or better, and to +6d6 if your base attack bonus is +16 or better. This additional damage applies only to your primary attack, not to any attacks of opportunity you might make that round.
Note the +2d6, instead of +[W], means that a longsword-armed fighter gets the same benefit as a Tyrannosaur.
Why can't you Vital Strike on a Spring Attack or Charge? I thought that was the whole purpose of the feat chain. Why would anyone take those if you couldn't?Although it was supposedly written for PCs originally, the mechanics make it drastically ill-suited for them. Now it's a feat for giant monsters with big bite attacks. And apparently that's how Jason Bulmahn wanted it.
If you want PCs to use it, I'd suggest something more like this:
VITAL STRIKE (COMBAT)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: During any round in which you make only a single attack on your turn, that attack deals an additional 2d6 damage. This bonus damage increases to +4d6 if your base attack bonus is +11 or better, and to +6d6 if your base attack bonus is +16 or better. This additional damage applies only to your primary attack, not to any attacks of opportunity you might make that round.Note the +2d6, instead of +[W], means that a longsword-armed fighter gets the same benefit as a Tyrannosaur.
The flat die increase is a good idea--and it simplifies the feat description because you don't have to worry about qualifying that you exclude doubling enhancement bonuses, etc. I think I'd personally stick to adding only one die per significant BAB increase, but I like the basic concept of it.
Could you please elaborate this?What's not OK is trying to base a character completely on the mechanic.
It's the same principle as the straight fighter focusing on Weapon Finesse -- or the bard melee Weapon Finesse build. It's just not that good because you trade massive offensive capability for mediocre defensive capability. You can do it -- no one will stop you -- but it's pretty far from optimal in terms of offense.
You can build a character designed to use Vital Strike *primarily*. But it's really a character that has no good primary focus. Vital Strike isn't designed to be a primary focus.
And that strikes me as a problem, not a feature. Both feats seem symptomatic of how a mobile, graceful, skirmishing duelist type is not a viable fighter build.