-Raises hand-
I'm in the sure why not school personally. I ran this way when i got the book the first day i could and its always made sense.
I got rid of the feats altogether and just give each one of them to everybody as soon as they meet the BAB pre-reqs. Makes for slightly more mobile combat.
But I do require a feat to be able to use them with Spring Attack and charges (Mobile Vital Strike)
I like this it does make sense and while i dont give out the feats most teired feats i rule as growing with the player IE. You take vital at BAB 6 gain Improved Vital at 11 and so foth.
I like this it does make sense and while i don't give out the feats most tiered feats i rule as growing with the player IE. You take vital at BAB 6 gain Improved Vital at 11 and so forth.I got rid of the feats altogether and just give each one of them to everybody as soon as they meet the BAB pre-reqs. Makes for slightly more mobile combat.
But I do require a feat to be able to use them with Spring Attack and charges (Mobile Vital Strike)
This I could see.
I not only let it work on Spring Attack/Ride-By Attack/Flyby Attack/charge/etc., I condense it all down into one feat. Take Vital Strike, and then, when your BAB is high enough to qualify you for Improved Vital Strike, it upgrades automatically.
I do that for most feats of the X/Improved X/Greater X type, including TWF and all combat maneuver feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider it so poorly made it's really not worth saving. I just never take it, and I've never seen it taken with anyone I play with.
*grumbles at the nerfed mobility rules*
Despite my loathing of the official stance, our groups generally make a point to avoid house rules wherever possible. As such, no one ever takes the vital strike line. :(
Seeing as I'm the only one in my groups who keeps abreast of "Official Errata," and I conveniently forgot to mention the change to Spring Attack, Vital Strike always has, and always will work with Spring Attack. And most of us don't even call it a "House Rule."
I am trying to cut back on houserules also, as in I hope I dont have to make anymore of them so I have left it alone. I do give it to monsters with one big attack though, but I also get rid of it for many other monsters.
Vital Strike and its buddies or Power Attack, Imp Init, Iron Will and so on. Vital Strike loses almost every time.
Seeing as I'm the only one in my groups who keeps abreast of "Official Errata," and I conveniently forgot to mention the change to Spring Attack, Vital Strike always has, and always will work with Spring Attack. And most of us don't even call it a "House Rule."
LoL. If someone finds out would you feign ignorance?
I use 'em as they are. They probably should be re-written a bit, but then I've statted up big baddies that specifically make extensive use of this in their fighting technique. They sure add up to some heinous one-hit damage rolls on, say, rune giants packing halberds. ^_^
|
I not only let it work on Spring Attack/Ride-By Attack/Flyby Attack/charge/etc., I condense it all down into one feat. Take Vital Strike, and then, when your BAB is high enough to qualify you for Improved Vital Strike, it upgrades automatically.
I do that for most feats of the X/Improved X/Greater X type, including TWF and all combat maneuver feats.
Strongly considering going down this path.
I consider it so poorly made it's really not worth saving.If you're willing to do more calculus than a munchkin exploiting 3.5 Power Attack, you'll find a surprising number of situations in which the Vital Strike chain deals a sizeable fraction (75% or so) of the damage dealt by a full attack, even if your character is a fighter with 30 Strength, Power Attack, a +5 greatsword of speed, weapon training (greatsword), and Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword).
Assuming 20th-level fighter with a greatsword, they would deal approximately 2d6+48 damage while power attacking.
If they are hasted, they can make 5 such attacks for potentially 10d6+240 damage (avg 275).
If they are simply using Greater Vital Strike, they can only hit for 8d6+48 damage (avg 76).
How in the hell is the latter 75% damage of the the former? Even if the former misses half the attacks, you're still only talking approximately 50% rather than 75%.
Seeing as I'm the only one in my groups who keeps abreast of "Official Errata," and I conveniently forgot to mention the change to Spring Attack, Vital Strike always has, and always will work with Spring Attack. And most of us don't even call it a "House Rule."LoL. If someone finds out would you feign ignorance?
Of course! :)
If that were to happen, though, I have a feeling an official house rule would be imminent.
I consider it so poorly made it's really not worth saving.If you're willing to do more calculus than a munchkin exploiting 3.5 Power Attack, you'll find a surprising number of situations in which the Vital Strike chain deals a sizeable fraction (75% or so) of the damage dealt by a full attack, even if your character is a fighter with 30 Strength, Power Attack, a +5 greatsword of speed, weapon training (greatsword), and Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword).Assuming 20th-level fighter with a greatsword, they would deal approximately 2d6+48 damage while power attacking.
If they are hasted, they can make 5 such attacks for potentially 10d6+240 damage (avg 275).
If they are simply using Greater Vital Strike, they can only hit for 8d6+48 damage (avg 76).
How in the hell is the latter 75% damage of the the former? Even if the former misses half the attacks, you're still only talking approximately 50% rather than 75%.
yea, assuming haste or speed will in many cases roughly double the damage output even with all the vital strike feats, without speed or haste it shifts closer to 75%, opponents that are harder to hit make vital strike a little better in comparison.
Furious carnage makes your other attacks more redundant in comparison
so that works to Vital Strike's benefit as well.
Alltogether not that terrible though it is hard to throw DPR numbers at it and saying it is not sub-optimal since a full round attack is always going to deal more damage, investing in sub-par combat conditions might just not be very popular with the optimizer crowd.
Only problem I really have is that the feat chain gives subsequently less bang for it's buck.. a +1 to hit scales with level, it remains a 5% to hit and your attacks deal more damage, while vital strike II and III adds less and less % to damage, allowing VS to grow along would fix it.
I consider it so poorly made it's really not worth saving.If you're willing to do more calculus than a munchkin exploiting 3.5 Power Attack, you'll find a surprising number of situations in which the Vital Strike chain deals a sizeable fraction (75% or so) of the damage dealt by a full attack, even if your character is a fighter with 30 Strength, Power Attack, a +5 greatsword of speed, weapon training (greatsword), and Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword).
If retraining rules existed in Pathfinder I would consider it at lower levels. There are also specialized Druid builds I might consider it as is
However, the use is limited, even at those levels and it scales HORRIBLY when you increase levels.
It's unfortunate, as I see it as an attempt of the design team to make mobility a real option in combat. It just doesn't do what it is supposed to.
I have never had the spring attack come up, but I always rule vital strike as a single feat that scales.
We run it RAW.
Seeing as I'm the only one in my groups who keeps abreast of "Official Errata," and I conveniently forgot to mention the change to Spring Attack, Vital Strike always has, and always will work with Spring Attack. And most of us don't even call it a "House Rule."
You should write it as Schrödinger's Vital Strike, on your character sheet :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run it RAW, though I have been sorely tempted to make a virtual feat out of the whole chain. It actually sees a lot of use in the hands of the party's barbarian.
I think the problem with the two feats working together is that it forces the opponent into an extremely disadvantaged state. The Spring-attacking vital-striker is essential forcing his opponents into chasing him with standard attacks, While he gets to deal out higher damage in the skirmish game.
Now the opposition can of course change tactics, switching to ranged attacks, playing with terrain, etc. That is cool, but is it fair for one feat combo to do this. Is it not a "feat-tax" with everyone needing the vital strike to stay relatively equal?
Hmmm. If you are house-ruling to give everyone vital strike with their iterative attacks for free, I think the two should be allowed to stack. But otherwise its essentially adding 2d6 (greatsword) to your damage with one feat (albeit under specific conditions), while simultaneously forcing another melee opponent out of their full attack. And if you have greater vital strike, etc, its even more bonus damage that your opponent isn't able to counter with, unless they can quickdraw a comp longbow.
Lemme ask you this though. Would it be worth a separate feat to combine regular Vital Strike and Spring Attack, knowing the weapon damage would never get beyond double? Say with a prereq of +11 BAB so its on par with Improved Vital Strike?
The feat seems fair RAW. it only averages a little less damage than a full attack, factoring in the smaller hit chance of the second and third attack. Plus, its cool that the fighter that runs up and smashes does more damage than the spring attack fencer guy.
I'm all for house rules because I think RAW by and large stinks, but I don't know that Vital Strike needs anything.
It doesn't stink, its just not something you can use every round. When your opponent has moved to meet you and you can close the gap with a vital strike, then its worth it. Any time you would be forced to take a move action and attack, rather than full attack, its worth it. Its still bonus damage with no downside, other than not being as good as a full attack.
Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?
Some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, collected from a few recent house rule threads:
I allow vital strikes to work as Spring Attacks and charges and all that.Another wide-spread (quasi-)house rule is a change to the Vital Strike feats that make them work whenever you make a single attack during your turn, so it works with nearly everything - spring attack, charge, you name it.We also use the Vital Strike combines with spring attack and charge houserule.vital strike + spring attack works2) Vital Strike works anytime you make a single attack, including during Spring Attacks and charges....and we allow vital strike on the charge.I allow Vital Strike to combine with all feats and actions. So you can vital strike on a Charge, Cleave, Spring attack, full attack and such. It can only apply to one attack.
We use it as written. I also do not think it's a bad feat chain - my players, my NPCs and my own characters have taken them. It's rather that nobody takes spring attack due to the hefty feat investments.
I think the problem with the two feats working together is that it forces the opponent into an extremely disadvantaged state. The Spring-attacking vital-striker is essential forcing his opponents into chasing him with standard attacks, While he gets to deal out higher damage in the skirmish game.The opposing argument, of course, is that this isn't a two-feat combo. It's a six-feat combo: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike. If you're willing to invest 60% of your total (non-bonus) feats into one tactic, shouldn't that tactic be one that works fairly well?
Also, the wording of Fly-By Attack is much less restrictive than the wording of Spring Attack. Why should a creature be able to Vital Strike Fly-By Attack but not Vital Strike Spring Attack?
I don't think they should be allowed to Fly-By Vital Strike. And if they can, its because the game did not get errata'd properly. Actually I think Fly-By Attack aught to work just like Ride-By Attack. That is, it should require a charge action.
No one's ever officially brought it up in our group (in an "ask for a houserule" sort of way) but so far as I've seen them do it the melee are playing under the assumption that it works with a charge, at least.
None of us that I'm aware of have mobility and such, but I assume they'd handle it the same way.
So I guess that puts me onto the side of "we use the original, un-nerfed version" lol :)
-S
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think the problem with the two feats working together is that it forces the opponent into an extremely disadvantaged state. The Spring-attacking vital-striker is essential forcing his opponents into chasing him with standard attacks, While he gets to deal out higher damage in the skirmish game.The opposing argument, of course, is that this isn't a two-feat combo. It's a six-feat combo: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike. If you're willing to invest 60% of your total (non-bonus) feats into one tactic, shouldn't that tactic be one that works fairly well?
Also, the wording of Fly-By Attack is much less restrictive than the wording of Spring Attack. Why should a creature be able to Vital Strike Fly-By Attack but not Vital Strike Spring Attack?
Flyby Attack is an entirely different feat concept than Spring Attack, because:
a. It doesn't prevent AoOs from the creature you attack (though if you have enough reach it doesn't matter).
b. It enables spellcasting, dragon breath, ranged attack, melee attack, or anything else you could do with a standard action mid-move.
BTW, I use Vital Strike as written, and at least one character in the party (a fighter/ranger cohort specializing in elven curve blade) has taken it. I don't recall if he took IVS. (PCs are 13th level, so he would have just made 11th and I don't know what his most recent feat choice was).
In play, I find it comes up pretty often that, because the battlefield is dynamic, you often must move and do a standard action, so it's extra damage when you do. The cohort also has Cleave, but often you don't have two adjacent foes and/or he doesn't want to take the AC penalty.
It's no super-feat, but it has its uses.
It's not designed to be a primary attack. It's supposed to be used in bad situations where you can't charge (or don't want to charge) and can't take a full attack.
I would allow Vital Strike to work with Spring Attack. Ignoring the various advices and informal corrections made by staff at this board (which are conflicting), I consider this--
Spring Attack requires a single attack.
Vital Strike describes an "attack action" (which is a vague phrase not consistently used elsewhere) which I interpret to mean a "single attack".
I know the debate is that since Spring Attack is described as a full attack action and probably what Vital Strike SHOULD say is that it's a STANDARD action, the two shouldn't work together.
(Also: someone who can Spring Attack and Vital Strike has to have at least a BAB of +6, a Dexterity of 13, and Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and Vital Strike. A Fighter can accomplish this at 6th level at the earliest and have dedicated more than half his feats to get there. Any other full BAB class will not be able to accomplish this until 7th level (6th if they are human) and dedicate ALL their feats to being able to do this. Other classes will not be able to manage this until they are higher level--for example, a monk who wants to use Vital Strike (for when he can't flurry) has to wait until 8th level (toward the end of a typical low-mid level campaign). The way this has to be paced out and be part of a dedicated build I think is an adequate tradeoff--although in fairness, I have yet to see it in practice).
I suppose I would just re-write Spring Attack as a Move Action and clarify Vital Strike as a Standard action, so the two can work together.
So the clarified feats in my house rules would look like this:
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single melee attack that deals more damage than usual. 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.
Normal: Making a single melee attack as a standard action does not deal additional damage.
===
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: When making a single melee attack as a standard action, you can move both before and after the attack without provoking attacks of opportunity for moving through a threatened area. You must move at least 10 feet before attacking and at least 5 feet after attacking, and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. This movement counts as your move action for the turn. 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.
ETA: I realize the spring attack wording also allows for some combat maneuvers to be made as part of a spring attack, but I'm okay with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not designed to be a primary attack. It's supposed to be used in bad situations where you can't charge (or don't want to charge) and can't take a full attack.
This is all fun and games until you realize that feats are a very limited resource (expecially for fighters, since it's more or less all they have).
Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?
Some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, collected from a few recent house rule threads:
I allow vital strikes to work as Spring Attacks and charges and all that.Another wide-spread (quasi-)house rule is a change to the Vital Strike feats that make them work whenever you make a single attack during your turn, so it works with nearly everything - spring attack, charge, you name it.
I like how I'm the second mention. Right behind James Jacobs. And the guy is probably only mentioned first because he's got that Paizo symbol next to his dinosaur!
I'm important! :D
It's not designed to be a primary attack. It's supposed to be used in bad situations where you can't charge (or don't want to charge) and can't take a full attack.This is all fun and games until you realize that feats are a very limited resource (expecially for fighters, since it's more or less all they have).
It depends on the GM and the campaign. If the GM constantly has staggering effects hitting the party, constantly uses difficult terrain, constantly deprives people the option to full attack, then Vital Strike is OK. It's not *incredibly good*, but it's OK.
What's not OK is trying to base a character completely on the mechanic.
Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?
Some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, collected from a few recent house rule threads:
I allow vital strikes to work as Spring Attacks and charges and all that.Another wide-spread (quasi-)house rule is a change to the Vital Strike feats that make them work whenever you make a single attack during your turn, so it works with nearly everything - spring attack, charge, you name it.I like how I'm the second mention. Right behind James Jacobs. And the guy is probably only mentioned first because he's got that Paizo symbol next to his dinosaur!
I'm important! :D
You just keep telling yourself that....
House ruling isn't neccessary. RAW seems to support it just fine.Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?
... well, until the designer came along and pooped on that particular parade, by saying, basically, "Well, I didn't write it very well, but I meant for it not to work with anything."
... well, until the designer came along and pooped on that particular parade, by saying, basically, "Well, I didn't write it very well, but I meant for it not to work with anything."House ruling isn't neccessary. RAW seems to support it just fine.Is there anyone with house rules that don't allow Vital Strike to work while charging or using Spring Attack?
That's pretty much how I feel about the whole issue.
It's a dumb ruling.
I think the problem with the two feats working together is that it forces the opponent into an extremely disadvantaged state. The Spring-attacking vital-striker is essential forcing his opponents into chasing him with standard attacks, While he gets to deal out higher damage in the skirmish game.The opposing argument, of course, is that this isn't a two-feat combo. It's a six-feat combo: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike. If you're willing to invest 60% of your total (non-bonus) feats into one tactic, shouldn't that tactic be one that works fairly well?
Also, the wording of Fly-By Attack is much less restrictive than the wording of Spring Attack. Why should a creature be able to Vital Strike Fly-By Attack but not Vital Strike Spring Attack?
Flyby Attack is an entirely different feat concept than Spring Attack, because:
a. It doesn't prevent AoOs from the creature you attack (though if you have enough reach it doesn't matter).
b. It enables spellcasting, dragon breath, ranged attack, melee attack, or anything else you could do with a standard action mid-move.
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?
What's not OK is trying to base a character completely on the mechanic.
Could you please elaborate this?
Vital Strike is a really amazing feat sitting on the other side of the table.
Any monster with one big attack gets scary benefits. Dragons also work fantastically with it.
This is the reason I can't see making the Vital Strike line all one feat.
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.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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 pretty much it. They are both structured around the principle of "move and act somewhere in the middle of moving," but come at it in different ways.
SA is better defense, more restricted offense.
FBA is better options for offense, less good defense.
FBA is better options for offense, less good defense.
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.