@Diego Rossi
It's NOT about using it on a ray, it's about using an attack action (which vital strike requires) and a standard action (which firing the rays requires), the same way a wizard firing a ray of frost can't use vital strike the same way the jabberwock can't use vital strike with it's rays.
The problem lies with the vital strike and it's requirement of using the attack action.
The meaning of my reply was that:
If one can understand that you can't use pinpoint targeting with vital strike, since using pinpoint targeting requires a standard action and using vital strike requires an attack action, then one can understand that under the current rules of vital strike it can't be used with the rays.
I'm thinking of giving my Jabberwock a magic vest. What abilities should it have?
My vote goes to fortification, at least medium.
@Diego Rossi
It's NOT about using it on a ray, it's about using an attack action (which vital strike requires) and a standard action (which firing the rays requires), the same way a wizard firing a ray of frost can't use vital strike the same way the jabberwock can't use vital strike with it's rays.
The problem lies with the vital strike and it's requirement of using the attack action.The meaning of my reply was that:
If one can understand that you can't use pinpoint targeting with vital strike, since using pinpoint targeting requires a standard action and using vital strike requires an attack action, then one can understand that under the current rules of vital strike it can't be used with the rays.
Since Vital Strike works with scorching ray, it works with the Jabberwock's eye rays. After all, casting (most) spells is a standard action that also involves an attack roll, more than one in the case of Scorching Ray. In both cases multiple attack rolls are provided as psrt of its standard action.
If there is an FAQ that contradicts Vital Strike being combined with weapon/attack roll spells, then I stand corrected. Until then ... :)
Vital strike doesn't work with scorching ray.
You are confusing the attack action, which is a type of standard action, with the attack granted by casting the spell scorching ray.
The reason it doesn't work is the same reason vital strike doesn't work with spring attack, spring attack is a full round action that also grants you an attack but you can't use it with vital strike because it doesn't grant you an attack action, it just grants you an attack.
attack action!=attack
Vital strike doesn't work with scorching ray.
You are confusing the attack action, which is a type of standard action, with the attack granted by casting the spell scorching ray.
The reason it doesn't work is the same reason vital strike doesn't work with spring attack, spring attack is a full round action that also grants you an attack but you can't use it with vital strike because it doesn't grant you an attack action, it just grants you an attack.attack action!=attack
Sigh...
If the monster is reduced to fewer than 200 hit points, it takes to the air and circles, firing one eye ray per round with Vital Strike while it heals back up to at least 300 hit points before landing and entering melee again.
@Tobias
As you can see, previously on this thread this line on the lesser jabberwock's tactics has been mentioned, but because someone says that it can do it in a tactics section doesn't mean that it can do it without a special rule to override vital strike's mechanics.
If one was to write in a tactics section that a particular monk uses his high speed to move into the targets and uses his flurry blows, without giving him any way to actually do it would you believe it to be true? I don't think so, the most likely scenario is that either someone didn't know the rules very well or it was a typo.
@Tobias
As you can see, previously on this thread this line on the lesser jabberwock's tactics has been mentioned, but because someone says that it can do it in a tactics section doesn't mean that it can do it without a special rule to override vital strike's mechanics.If one was to write in a tactics section that a particular monk uses his high speed to move into the targets and uses his flurry blows, without giving him any way to actually do it would you believe it to be true? I don't think so, the most likely scenario is that either someone didn't know the rules very well or it was a typo.
Jabberwock stats state that the eye rays are a ranged touch attack made as a standard action. Vital Strike states that it works when you use an attack action. An attack action is when you use a standard action to make an attack.
To put it another way, the Jabberwock stats list Eye Rays as a Ranged Attack. Meanwhile, things like a Dragon's Breath Weapon is listed as a Special Attack. If the Eye Rays weren't a ranged attack (and thus able to work with Vital Strike) they would be listed as a special attack.
@Tobias
No you are mistaken, the jabberwock can use a stardard action to fire two rays from his eyes, it doesn't say that his eye beams are some kind of natural weapon and thus be able to be used with an attack action (which vital strike requires).
The same way, when you activate cleave you use a standard action to attack but you can't use vital strike with it.
You make an interesting case in your last post but still, whatever the way the stat block it's written the description of the ability doesn't allow you to use it with vital strike under the current rules of vital strike.
There have already been numerous threads about vital strike, if you want you can check them yourself, but as you will see if you go and see those threads you will see that the rule of thumb concerning vital strike is the following "in 99% of the times you think of a good combo with it, it doesn't work".
And in the jabberwock's case it's not even a good combo, since the tactics section says that it can fire only one of it's rays when using vital strike you are getting the same amount of damage you get when firing two but you get only one chance for burn, the only reason to do that is if the target has resist energy fire active.
@Tobias
No you are mistaken, the jabberwock can use a stardard action to fire two rays from his eyes, it doesn't say that his eye beams are some kind of natural weapon and thus be able to be used with an attack action (which vital strike requires).
The same way, when you activate cleave you use a standard action to attack but you can't use vital strike with it.You make an interesting case in your last post but still, whatever the way the stat block it's written the description of the ability doesn't allow you to use it with vital strike under the current rules of vital strike.
There have already been numerous threads about vital strike, if you want you can check them yourself, but as you will see if you go and see those threads you will see that the rule of thumb concerning vital strike is the following "in 99% of the times you think of a good combo with it, it doesn't work".
And in the jabberwock's case it's not even a good combo, since the tactics section says that it can fire only one of it's rays when using vital strike you are getting the same amount of damage you get when firing two but you get only one chance for burn, the only reason to do that is if the target has resist energy fire active.
Paizo seems to think it works and wrote the state block in such a way that it replicates a natural attack, listing out the number of attacks. They then went on to decide on tactics that incorporated that.
No offence, but I trust their understanding of the rules a bit more. From the events that lead up to this complaint, you don't seem to fully understand the systems and what actions do what.
By the way, have you had any luck finding any other monsters where they specifically explain the DR of a creature? Or is the Jabberwock's DR explaination an editing error they repeated twice or redundant waste of space?
On the jabberwock's DR i am going with redundant repeating*, i think that if they wanted to give him immunity to DR ignoring effects they would have said so.
*actually there is another possibility, DR X/epic and DR X/vorpal aren't covered and aren't explained (and how to overcome them) in the core book like any other kind of DR, now although DR X/epic is explained in both bestiaries rule section, DR X/vorpal isn't explained in either bestiary's rules section, so there is a good chance the write-up of this ability is used to explain how it can normally be overcomed.
Considering the vital strike history and the fact that once in a module (or AP, i don't remember correctly) a writer had it to be working with spring attack although they weren't intented to work together (that was before the errata/clarification of spring attack as a full round action), add to that the vital strike has been a headache to understand by the majority of people (from what i have seen here in the forums), i pretty much think that i can't trust a writer's understanding of the rules on the vital strike. Now if one of Paizo's elite (SKR, JJ or JB) was to pitch in and tell us how they wanted it work then i will accept that.
Admittedly, I have only the Bestiary 2 and not the AP. But I see no reason from what I have, why the eye rays cannot take advantage of Vital Strike. The feat merely requires a weapon (the eye rays are listed as the creature's natural range weapon), and a BAB +6. The feat would limit the creature to a single attack, but it can be used. Unless somebody can explain to me what I'm missing.
Also, the creature's listing in B2 mentions specifically that only a vorpal can overcome its DR. With most creatures with DR, it merely lists the DR in the stat block. In the Jabberwock's case, it actually gives further instructions in the description. To my mind, there is no doubt that indicates those special instructions override any normal DR rules.
To answer your question about vital strike i ask you to answer me a question first:
Can you use vital strike when you use the pinpoint targeting feat or when a magus uses his spellstrike?On the DR issue:
And the paladin's smite ovveride any normal DR rules, also as i have said in the core book says very specifically that DR X/magic can only be overcomed by magic weapons, by the logic you present the paladin's smite doesn't work on that either, also DR X/slashing specifically says that only slashing weapons can overcome this DR, by the logic you prestnt the paladin's smite doesn't work on that either, you see where i am going right?
No, I don't see where you are going, except to arbitrary-ville. This is purely an arbitrary decision on your part. One that you are masquerading as a rule. The only rule I am aware of on the subject, as to which of these "overrides" or takes precedence, is something in the Bestiaries that indicates that a special rule in a creature's entry take precedence. That would seem to indicate I am right. But I will allow that you simply are not going to be persuaded no matter what, based on your many posts where you just can't seem to let this go.
As to why Vital Strike cannot work with the eye rays, don't dodge it by answering a question with a question. I am curious as to an actual direct explanation.
Vital strike doesn't work with scorching ray.
You are confusing the attack action, which is a type of standard action, with the attack granted by casting the spell scorching ray.
The reason it doesn't work is the same reason vital strike doesn't work with spring attack, spring attack is a full round action that also grants you an attack but you can't use it with vital strike because it doesn't grant you an attack action, it just grants you an attack.attack action!=attack
An attack is a standard action. The eye rays are listed in the Jabberwock entry as its ranged attack form. It may use that attack in any way available to it in a given round; as part of a full attack, or as a single attack using a standard action. There is nothing at all to suggest otherwise; that is why it is in the stat block to begin with.
Since the Jabberwock can use its natural eye ray attack, appearing in its stat block as one of its basic attack forms (in this case, a ranged attack form), as a single attack or part of a full attack, it may apply any relevant feat to it that requires a single or standard action. Spring Attack seems as relevant to the conversation as your last girlfriend's favorite color.
You are wrong, an attack is just that an attack, it's not an action of itself. An attack action is one type of standard action that grants one attack and such an action is required to use vital strike.
Where do you see that the jabberwock can it's eye rays when it's full attacking?
The spring attack example and the previous question were there to help you understand the difference between an attack and an attack action.
Also you might want see that the eye rays are also listed under jabberwock's special attacks.
Admittedly, I have only the Bestiary 2 and not the AP. But I see no reason from what I have, why the eye rays cannot take advantage of Vital Strike. The feat merely requires a weapon (the eye rays are listed as the creature's natural range weapon), and a BAB +6. The feat would limit the creature to a single attack, but it can be used. Unless somebody can explain to me what I'm missing.
Also, the creature's listing in B2 mentions specifically that only a vorpal can overcome its DR. With most creatures with DR, it merely lists the DR in the stat block. In the Jabberwock's case, it actually gives further instructions in the description. To my mind, there is no doubt that indicates those special instructions override any normal DR rules.
To answer your question about vital strike i ask you to answer me a question first:
Can you use vital strike when you use the pinpoint targeting feat or when a magus uses his spellstrike?On the DR issue:
And the paladin's smite ovveride any normal DR rules, also as i have said in the core book says very specifically that DR X/magic can only be overcomed by magic weapons, by the logic you present the paladin's smite doesn't work on that either, also DR X/slashing specifically says that only slashing weapons can overcome this DR, by the logic you prestnt the paladin's smite doesn't work on that either, you see where i am going right?No, I don't see where you are going, except to arbitrary-ville. This is purely an arbitrary decision on your part. One that you are masquerading as a rule. The only rule I am aware of on the subject, as to which of these "overrides" or takes precedence, is something in the Bestiaries that indicates that a special rule in a creature's entry take precedence. That would seem to indicate I am right. But I will allow that you simply are not going to be persuaded no matter what, based on your many posts where you just can't seem to let this go.
Where do find a rule that says that anything in the bestiaries takes precedence over something that is written in any other book?
Also i will attempt to explain my point better by making it trying to make it simpler:
You say that a paladin's smite can't overcome jabberwock's DR because it specifically says that it can only be overcomed by vorpal weapons, right?
And i tell you that in the rules it also specifically says that DR X/magic can only be overcomed by magic weapons, both of them are rules and both of them tell you how to overcome a specific kind DR.
Now if you say that according to the rules the paladin's smite can't overcome the jabberwock's DR then according to the rules it can't overcome DR X/magic.
My understanding of the Pathfinder rules agrees with Bruunwlds's. The jabberwock may make an attack action (which is, as leo observes, a type of standard action that includes an attack) with an eye ray. It's a natural spell-like ability that requires an attack roll.
First of all the jabberwock's eye ray is supernatural and not spell-like.
And what kind of action does it require to activate his supernatural ability?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Diego Rossi
It's NOT about using it on a ray, it's about using an attack action (which vital strike requires) and a standard action (which firing the rays requires), the same way a wizard firing a ray of frost can't use vital strike the same way the jabberwock can't use vital strike with it's rays.
The problem lies with the vital strike and it's requirement of using the attack action.The meaning of my reply was that:
If one can understand that you can't use pinpoint targeting with vital strike, since using pinpoint targeting requires a standard action and using vital strike requires an attack action, then one can understand that under the current rules of vital strike it can't be used with the rays.
Firing both rays is a standard action.
Firing one ray is an attack and you can use vital strike on it.
|
My understanding of the Pathfinder rules agrees with Bruunwlds's. The jabberwock may make an attack action (which is, as leo observes, a type of standard action that includes an attack) with an eye ray. It's a natural spell-like ability that requires an attack roll.
First of all the jabberwock's eye ray is supernatural and not spell-like.
And what kind of action does it require to activate his supernatural ability?
Normally, a supernatural ability takes a standard action to activate.
|
|
Normally, a supernatural ability takes a standard action to activate.My understanding of the Pathfinder rules agrees with Bruunwlds's. The jabberwock may make an attack action (which is, as leo observes, a type of standard action that includes an attack) with an eye ray. It's a natural spell-like ability that requires an attack roll.
First of all the jabberwock's eye ray is supernatural and not spell-like.
And what kind of action does it require to activate his supernatural ability?
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.
No. Some SU ability is always active, some require an action, some are part of the combat action and so on.
No. Some SU ability is always active, some require an action, some are part of the combat action and so on.
In Combat Section:
Use Special Ability
Using a special ability is usually a standard action, but whether it is a standard action, a full-round action, or not an action at all is defined by the ability.
(...)
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Default action for supernatural ability is standard unless noted otherwise.
@Diego Rossi
It's NOT about using it on a ray, it's about using an attack action (which vital strike requires) and a standard action (which firing the rays requires), the same way a wizard firing a ray of frost can't use vital strike the same way the jabberwock can't use vital strike with it's rays.
The problem lies with the vital strike and it's requirement of using the attack action.The meaning of my reply was that:
If one can understand that you can't use pinpoint targeting with vital strike, since using pinpoint targeting requires a standard action and using vital strike requires an attack action, then one can understand that under the current rules of vital strike it can't be used with the rays.Firing both rays is a standard action.
Firing one ray is an attack and you can use vital strike on it.
Bestiary 2 lists the eye rays under both Ranged and Special Attacks. Being listed under special attacks, you have to look at the definition for eye rays which says both eye rays are fired as a standard action. No option is given for firing a single eye ray.
Leo1925 is right.
Of course, DMs are not constrained by the rules. Feel free to fire a single eye ray and use Vital Strike with it, if you feel that's the proper way to challenge your players.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Okay, I think you've convinced me. [Use supernatural ability] is a standard action, which includes an attack roll. But Vital Strike requires the [attack] action (also a standard action, also including an attack roll). It does not look like Vital Strike can be used in conjunction with a supernatural ability, as a general rule.
Another argument: Vital Strike was inteded to serve as a replacement for iterative strikes, allowing warriors to move and still do some damage higher than a single attack. Supernatural powers don't gain iterative attacks.
It's certainly possible that the jabberwock's eye beam is a special case. It's not just Richard Pett who wants Vital Strike to work that way; it's also James and Wes who looked over the manuscript and molded it into its final form.
Should Vital Strike work that way in your campaign? Up to you, as the table GM.
Bingo :)
The Vital Strike chain, until I find confirmation otherwise, (for which there is none in the errata) works with any standard action attack. It states nothing about not working with spells, special attacks or the like, only that it is in and of itself "exclusive" in conjunction with the single attack action.
I will of course check this, since my Chapter 6 upgrades are due to begin this week. Can't run around incinerating characters against the rules after all.
Thanks to you all who found the links about using a supernatural ability, i was away from my computer for a while.
Also i think that i know why there is an entry explaining the jabberwock's damage reduction. It's there because nowhere else in the rules there is a mention about DR X/vorpal, if it wasn't there we wouldn't know how to overcome it (without speculating), so it's not there for repeating reasons, neither is there to add an exception to DR ignoring effects, it is simply there because nowhere else in the rules tell us how DR X/vorpal can be overcomed normally.
Bestiary 2 lists the eye rays under both Ranged and Special Attacks. Being listed under special attacks, you have to look at the definition for eye rays which says both eye rays are fired as a standard action.
I beg to disagree. Eye ray is listed under ranged attack so should be subject to rules for ranged attacks, which includes taking a standard action known as attack action to make single ranged attack and thus subject to Vital Strike feat. There is also option of taking standard action to fire two rays, which cannot benefit from using Vital Strike as it is not regular attack action.
No option is given for firing a single eye ray.
If the eye rays weren't listed in ranged attack line and only in special abilities then I would agree with you. However, as they are listed as a ranged attack and there is no word that they are exeption to genral rules saying that you can perform single attack as a standard action I'd say that it can be fired singly to benefit from Vital Strike. Not that makes it unbalanced. Unbalanced would be Pleroma Aeon using their 20d8 touch with Vital Strike.
Another argument: Vital Strike was inteded to serve as a replacement for iterative strikes, allowing warriors to move and still do some damage higher than a single attack. Supernatural powers don't gain iterative attacks.
As far as I can tell Vital Strike wasn't intended as replacement for iterative attacks. It was intended as replacement for full attack: it works perfectly well with natural attacks (e.g. many dragons from the Bestiary get Vital Strike feats).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As far as I can tell Vital Strike wasn't intended as replacement for iterative attacks. It was intended as replacement for full attack: it works perfectly well with natural attacks (e.g. many dragons from the Bestiary get Vital Strike feats).
Can they use Vital Strike with their Supernatural breath weapons?
As far as I can tell Vital Strike wasn't intended as replacement for iterative attacks. It was intended as replacement for full attack: it works perfectly well with natural attacks (e.g. many dragons from the Bestiary get Vital Strike feats).Can they use Vital Strike with their Supernatural breath weapons?
No, because breath weapon is not natural weapon and is not used with attack action. Which is unlike Jabberwock eye rays as they are listed under ranged attack - and thus it could be assumed that they can be used with attack action.
Bestiary 2 lists the eye rays under both Ranged and Special Attacks. Being listed under special attacks, you have to look at the definition for eye rays which says both eye rays are fired as a standard action.I beg to disagree. Eye ray is listed under ranged attack so should be subject to rules for ranged attacks, which includes taking a standard action known as attack action to make single ranged attack and thus subject to Vital Strike feat. There is also option of taking standard action to fire two rays, which cannot benefit from using Vital Strike as it is not regular attack action.
So you believe that if a special ability is listed under ranged attack it can be taken as an attack action even if the description of the special ability says otherwise? Alchemical Golem or Brijidine Azata for examples.
How would you rule on the number of ranged attacks made by a hasted Jabberwock, hasted Brijidine Azata, and hasted Yrthak?
|
They obviously created this DR/Vorpal for this particularly creature because it is so powerful. DR/Vorpal also gives it fear of vorpal weapons, which makes it WEAKER, than if it had normal DR. Why do that if you were also going to let it be hurt by smiting paladins, high + weapons, etc.? Its that afraid of vorpal weapons because thats the only thing that bypasses its DR . You have to look at the whole picture of the jabberwock creature not just one aspect of his stat block.
There is no clear ruling either way for the DR to be allowed or not imo, so you have to look for other clues in how to rule this unique ability. I think the fear of vorpal gives us this clue.
|
From Beastiary 2:
can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal
weapon enhancement."
"...these stories also tell
of the creature’s fear of the tools some say were created in
ancient times for the sole purpose of defeating them—
vorpal weapons."
"The strange vulnerability a jabberwock possesses against vorpal weapons has long been a matter of intrigue and speculation among scholars. Most believe that, once upon a time, only one jabberwock existed, a creature of such great power that nothing could hurt it. Nothing, that is, save for a legendary sword forged for a mortal hero by a now-forgotten artisan or god. So epic was this battle that it created strange echoes throughout reality, and as a result, these echoes, in the form of the vorpal swords and jabberwocks known today, can be found on many worlds."
It's pretty clear that by this text and the description text about the Jabberwock that this creature's DR isn't bypassed by anything other than weapons with the Vorpal enhancement.
As for the matter of Eye Rays/Vital Strike, the attack action is a standard action. The Eye beams let it shoot the beams as a ranged touch attack as a standard action. That is an attack, as defined under 'ranged attack' in the attack action section of the CRB, pg. 182. Attack actions are standard actions. Eye beams are a standard action. Activating a supernatural ability is a standard action (same as a spell-like ability). Using Vital Strike is a single attack, and therefore a standard action. So clearly you can use Vital Strike to make a single attack with one Eye Beam.
You are wrong, an attack is just that an attack, it's not an action of itself. An attack action is one type of standard action that grants one attack and such an action is required to use vital strike.
I have no idea where you learned an attack is separate from a standard action. It IS a standard action, just one type of standard action you can do. In fact you contradicted yourself in the breadth of two sentences. Attacking is a standard action, period. CRB, pg. 182.
Do you need it to be any clearer for you? Stop trolling, because any further argument of these facts from you will be viewed henceforth as such.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
DoomCrow, I don't think there's any dispute as to how much time an eye-beam attack takes. So far as I can tell, nobody is arguing it takes anything other than a standard action.
But there are lots of attacks that take standard actions. For example, casting ray of frost. That's an action, it includes a ranged touch attack. But it can't be enhanced with Vital Strike.
It's an honest question we're trying to sort out, based on the rules and guidelines issued by the development team. It might be resolvable, or it might be an open question. But --speaking for myself-- I would appreciate it if you would give everybody participating the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're being sincere. Accusations of "troll" are more hostile than the discussion warrants.
|
|
It was my understanding that vital strike can only be applied to single attacks (not the full attack action), that is not in and of itself a unique standard action (for example, spring attack and cleave are standard action feats) that make the standard action "non-vanilla" if you will. Charge would be another example, since its a special action.
If that is true (and hell, the rules have changed so many damn times for vital strike on these boards, I cant keep up), then there is no way to know whether this is considered an extraordary "non-vanilla" type of attack or a normal form of attack for the jabberwocky. I have heard no evidence to clearly say this is a unique feat based or special form of attack (like cleave or charge), so by RAW I don't think you can declaratively say it goes one way or the other, perhaps leaning towards the default being it is allowed since it does not call it out as an special standard action.
However, the fact that its a capstone, major encounter, I imagine a fair bit of attention went into making sure its statblock and tactics were accurate, especially after the whole "spring attack+vital strike" tactic issue in another AP. Therefore, I think we can assume that when the tactics call for the jabberwocky to use his eye beams with vital strike, then its allowed because it was specifically called out in the text for running the encounter. This tells me the writer / designer/editors intended for this to be allowed as a combination, meaning the jabberwocky eye beam is a normal "vanilla" attack for this particular encounter.
If you are the GM and you think its too powerful for your campaign, just fall back on Rule #0 and don't use it.
I beg to disagree. Eye ray is listed under ranged attack so should be subject to rules for ranged attacks, which includes taking a standard action known as attack action to make single ranged attack and thus subject to Vital Strike feat. There is also option of taking standard action to fire two rays, which cannot benefit from using Vital Strike as it is not regular attack action.
I have to ask, right or wrong, what's the point of making this distinction? Either way, it's potentially 30d6, but using Vital Strike, burn only applies once. Or are you planning to give the jabberwock more feats from the Vital Strike tree?
Bingo :)
The Vital Strike chain, until I find confirmation otherwise, (for which there is none in the errata) works with any standard action attack. It states nothing about not working with spells, special attacks or the like, only that it is in and of itself "exclusive" in conjunction with the single attack action.
I will of course check this, since my Chapter 6 upgrades are due to begin this week. Can't run around incinerating characters against the rules after all.
An attack action is a specific type of standard action. This is clearly spelled out in the rules. Go ask what you're planning in the rules section and you will get your answer.
Vital Strike does not work with scorching ray or disintegrate or any attacks of that kind.
Only the module designer (which are not always game developers) decided to allow the Jabberwock to use a single eye ray with Vital Strike. It is not by the rules. This has been discussed many times in the rules section. You are the first person I've yet read to think Vital Strike works with ranged touch attacks from spells.
All of you using arbitrary logic to claim every standard action that uses an attack roll are all wrong according to every rule interpretation I have ever read.
An attack action is a very specific action. It is an action where you move up and make a single attack. You cannot make two attacks for ANY reason and call it an attack action. The only exception is if a special ability says you can, which I have not ready any special abitliy say as such.
For example, my two-weapon warrior can make an attack with each weapon as a standard action. That is not considered an attack action and cannot be coupled with Vital Strike.
A paladin's smite evil says it bypasses any DR even if the DR is untyped if the creature is evil. It doesn't matter if it is DR 100/-
Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
It could be DR 100/epic or DR 100/Vorpal or DR 100/must be a god or DR 1000/cosmic or DR 100/fluffy green frogs. Smite Evil bypasses DR. So does the Inquisitor Find Weakness. So does Penetrating Strike.
Some of you are trying to make house rules into RAW.
@Tobias
No you are mistaken, the jabberwock can use a stardard action to fire two rays from his eyes, it doesn't say that his eye beams are some kind of natural weapon and thus be able to be used with an attack action (which vital strike requires).
The same way, when you activate cleave you use a standard action to attack but you can't use vital strike with it.You make an interesting case in your last post but still, whatever the way the stat block it's written the description of the ability doesn't allow you to use it with vital strike under the current rules of vital strike.
There have already been numerous threads about vital strike, if you want you can check them yourself, but as you will see if you go and see those threads you will see that the rule of thumb concerning vital strike is the following "in 99% of the times you think of a good combo with it, it doesn't work".
And in the jabberwock's case it's not even a good combo, since the tactics section says that it can fire only one of it's rays when using vital strike you are getting the same amount of damage you get when firing two but you get only one chance for burn, the only reason to do that is if the target has resist energy fire active.
Paizo seems to think it works and wrote the state block in such a way that it replicates a natural attack, listing out the number of attacks. They then went on to decide on tactics that incorporated that.
No offence, but I trust their understanding of the rules a bit more. From the events that lead up to this complaint, you don't seem to fully understand the systems and what actions do what.
By the way, have you had any luck finding any other monsters where they specifically explain the DR of a creature? Or is the Jabberwock's DR explaination an editing error they repeated twice or redundant waste of space?
Paizo module writers are not always game designers. This is bad logic on your part.
leo,
Go and clip the rules. They aren't hard to find. Anyone that things a Paladin's smite evil doesn't bypass a Jabberwock's DR are making stuff up.
There is nothing in the Smite Evil entry that indicates any DR stands against it. None whatsoever. Not a god's DR, not a demon lords, not Jabberwock's, absolute no DR stands against Smite Evil if the creature is evil.
Period. End of story. Not open for discussion. Why are you even engaging in the discussion when the paladin entry clearly says no amount of DR even if it is specific DR with a special entry under the creature stops Smite Evil.
You're arguing with a bunch of people that don't feel like reading or following the rules. And prefer to make their own rules up about Smite Evil.
|
|
All of you using arbitrary logic to claim every standard action that uses an attack roll are all wrong according to every rule interpretation I have ever read.
An attack action is a very specific action. It is an action where you move up and make a single attack. You cannot make two attacks for ANY reason and call it an attack action. The only exception is if a special ability says you can, which I have not ready any special abitliy say as such.
For example, my two-weapon warrior can make an attack with each weapon as a standard action. That is not considered an attack action and cannot be coupled with Vital Strike.
A paladin's smite evil says it bypasses any DR even if the DR is untyped if the creature is evil. It doesn't matter if it is DR 100/-
Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
It could be DR 100/epic or DR 100/Vorpal or DR 100/must be a god or DR 1000/cosmic or DR 100/fluffy green frogs. Smite Evil bypasses DR. So does the Inquisitor Find Weakness. So does Penetrating Strike.
Some of you are trying to make house rules into RAW.
This is faulty logic. We just agreed that the jabberwocky introduced a new kind of DR, so new rules could apply. Before the titan mauler introduced new rules, you were not able to wield a two handed weapon with one hand in PF. Now you can. Unless you are the designer that made DR/vorpal, you cannot say for certain that paladin smite bypasses it, you are just guessing based on the rules we have so far to date..just like we are. Thats why I suggested you had to look at the rest of the creature to try and intuit what the designers had in mind when they created DR/vorpal.
Admittedly, I have only the Bestiary 2 and not the AP. But I see no reason from what I have, why the eye rays cannot take advantage of Vital Strike. The feat merely requires a weapon (the eye rays are listed as the creature's natural range weapon), and a BAB +6. The feat would limit the creature to a single attack, but it can be used. Unless somebody can explain to me what I'm missing.
Also, the creature's listing in B2 mentions specifically that only a vorpal can overcome its DR. With most creatures with DR, it merely lists the DR in the stat block. In the Jabberwock's case, it actually gives further instructions in the description. To my mind, there is no doubt that indicates those special instructions override any normal DR rules.
You are incorrect on both counts. The only reason they spell out the vorpal DR is because it is unique the Jabberwock. It does not in the entry say anywhere that it overerides a single rule regarding DR. You have proof that it does? If not, then stop making stuff up.
Vital Strike has been discussed many times. It doesn't work with Spring Attack, it doesn't work with charge, it doesn't work with spells, it doesn't work with two-weapon warrior double attack.
I allow it to work with the Overhand Chop two-hander ability, but according to RAW it doesn't work with that.
It only works when you make an attack action. Which is a very specific type of action where you make a single melee or ranged attack with a weapon. Not any standard action attack.
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.
It also says you can take only one attack. So not two eye rays with Vital Strike or three scorching rays.
It is very easy to take the time to read the rules and see how they work. I suggest some of the people intending to run the Jabberwock do so before you allow it to do things it cannot do. If you want to say because of your house rules that it works that way, fine. But don't pretend you're following the rules as they were intended or as they are read.
This is faulty logic as you try make a house rule seem like an actual rule. We just agreed that the jabberwocky introduced a new kind of DR, so new rules could apply. Before the titan mauler introduced new rules, you were not able to wield a two handed weapon with one hand in PF. Now you can. Unless you are the designer that made DR/vorpal, you cannot say for certain that paladin smite bypasses it, you are just guessing based on the rules we have so far to date..just like we are. Thats why I suggested you had to look at the rest of the creature to try and intuit what the designers had in mind when they created DR/vorpal.All of you using arbitrary logic to claim every standard action that uses an attack roll are all wrong according to every rule interpretation I have ever read.
An attack action is a very specific action. It is an action where you move up and make a single attack. You cannot make two attacks for ANY reason and call it an attack action. The only exception is if a special ability says you can, which I have not ready any special abitliy say as such.
For example, my two-weapon warrior can make an attack with each weapon as a standard action. That is not considered an attack action and cannot be coupled with Vital Strike.
A paladin's smite evil says it bypasses any DR even if the DR is untyped if the creature is evil. It doesn't matter if it is DR 100/-
Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
It could be DR 100/epic or DR 100/Vorpal or DR 100/must be a god or DR 1000/cosmic or DR 100/fluffy green frogs. Smite Evil bypasses DR. So does the Inquisitor Find Weakness. So does Penetrating Strike.
Some of you are trying to make house rules into RAW.
The Titan Mauler gives specific rules in its entry does it not? Why, yes it does.
So don't try to sell me on your faulty logic pr a house rule you're trying to implement. Do you think game designers are not aware of Smite Evil? A core rulebook ability given to one of their core classes. If they did not want Smite Evil to work, they would have said so in the Jabberwock's entry.
Go post this on the rules forum. Watch your house rule get destroyed. Then hit the FAQ button, watch the game designers ignore your question because the rule is obvious. They don't often clarify a rule when it is obvious how it works.
And this is obvious. Smite Evil bypasses all DR unless a specific entry in the DR says that it doesn't.
Can you list a specific entry in the Jabberwock that states Smite Evil, Penetrating Strike, or Exploit Weakness do not work? If you cannot, then they work.
End of story. Your logic is wrong. And as I said, go post this in the rules section and see what kind of answers you get. Go ahead. Go prove me wrong. Go ask for a game designer to decide. See if they even bother to answer a question like this when the answer is obvious.
|
|
This is faulty logic as you try make a house rule seem like an actual rule. We just agreed that the jabberwocky introduced a new kind of DR, so new rules could apply. Before the titan mauler introduced new rules, you were not able to wield a two handed weapon with one hand in PF. Now you can. Unless you are the designer that made DR/vorpal, you cannot say for certain that paladin smite bypasses it, you are just guessing based on the rules we have so far to date..just like we are. Thats why I suggested you had to look at the rest of the creature to try and intuit what the designers had in mind when they created DR/vorpal.All of you using arbitrary logic to claim every standard action that uses an attack roll are all wrong according to every rule interpretation I have ever read.
An attack action is a very specific action. It is an action where you move up and make a single attack. You cannot make two attacks for ANY reason and call it an attack action. The only exception is if a special ability says you can, which I have not ready any special abitliy say as such.
For example, my two-weapon warrior can make an attack with each weapon as a standard action. That is not considered an attack action and cannot be coupled with Vital Strike.
A paladin's smite evil says it bypasses any DR even if the DR is untyped if the creature is evil. It doesn't matter if it is DR 100/-
Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
It could be DR 100/epic or DR 100/Vorpal or DR 100/must be a god or DR 1000/cosmic or DR 100/fluffy green frogs. Smite Evil bypasses DR. So does the Inquisitor Find Weakness. So does Penetrating Strike.
Some of you are trying to make house rules into RAW.
The Titan Mauler gives specific rules in its entry does it not? Why, yes it does.
So don't try to sell me on your faulty logic pr a house rule you're trying to implement. Do you think game...
Do you think the designers arent aware of vital strike? You cant have it both ways. If its absolutely true that it has to be spelled out specifically to apply, then vital strike must apply, despite any other argument, because its spelled out. If you insist on these being absolutes, then it must apply equally, not when you feel like it.
Have no fear Maddigan, I am not telling you that you are wrong (since you seem to feel the need to be right), I was merely saying that one cannot know for sure unless they were one of the people making the AP issue or you have him or her on speed dial and personally asked them.
Dude? Chill. No one has denied that the wording of Smite Evil is pretty all inclusive. We have merely observed that:
A) DR/Vorpal did not exist in the Pathfinder rules when Smite Evil was written.
B) Compared to the standard types of DR, this is a highly specialized type.
C) The Jabberwock's entry specifically states that it's DR is only overcome by Vorpal weapons. Which could be read as a detailed explanation of what DR/Vorpal means, or it could be read as shutting down alternate means of DR penetration.
Now, I agree that it is a house rule. One I would implement without a second thought after seeing a paladin turn an encounter with a demilich into an utter anticlimax, but a houserule nonetheless. But there is at least some mild ambiguity in the rules, and acting pissy about people making that observation is, simply, unpleasant.
...This is faulty logic as you try make a house rule seem like an actual rule. We just agreed that the jabberwocky introduced a new kind of DR, so new rules could apply. Before the titan mauler introduced new rules, you were not able to wield a two handed weapon with one hand in PF. Now you can. Unless you are the designer that made DR/vorpal, you cannot say for certain that paladin smite bypasses it, you are just guessing based on the rules we have so far to date..just like we are. Thats why I suggested you had to look at the rest of the creature to try and intuit what the designers had in mind when they created DR/vorpal.All of you using arbitrary logic to claim every standard action that uses an attack roll are all wrong according to every rule interpretation I have ever read.
An attack action is a very specific action. It is an action where you move up and make a single attack. You cannot make two attacks for ANY reason and call it an attack action. The only exception is if a special ability says you can, which I have not ready any special abitliy say as such.
For example, my two-weapon warrior can make an attack with each weapon as a standard action. That is not considered an attack action and cannot be coupled with Vital Strike.
A paladin's smite evil says it bypasses any DR even if the DR is untyped if the creature is evil. It doesn't matter if it is DR 100/-
Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
It could be DR 100/epic or DR 100/Vorpal or DR 100/must be a god or DR 1000/cosmic or DR 100/fluffy green frogs. Smite Evil bypasses DR. So does the Inquisitor Find Weakness. So does Penetrating Strike.
Some of you are trying to make house rules into RAW.
The Titan Mauler gives specific rules in its entry does it not? Why, yes it does.
So don't try to sell me on your faulty logic pr a house rule you're trying to implement. Do
Yes. I am aware of what the game designers say about Vital Strike. I go to the rules section and read what the game designers say. I don't always agree, but I do like to know what the current stance is.
As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.
Hope that helps...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Vital Strike has been pretty heavily discussed. Which is why I know it doesn't work the way folks on here are claiming it works. And its iffy that it works with even a single eye ray.
I don't fault people for wanting to make up their own house rules. But admit they are house rules and don't try to hammer on this guy leo like he broke the rules or something unless like Diego Rossi you can point out the specific rule rather claiming house rules are RAW.
I don't much like seeing people gang up on leo when he is right on how the rules work in regards to Smite Evil and DR.
Dude? Chill. No one has denied that the wording of Smite Evil is pretty all inclusive. We have merely observed that:
A) DR/Vorpal did not exist in the Pathfinder rules when Smite Evil was written.
B) Compared to the standard types of DR, this is a highly specialized type.
C) The Jabberwock's entry specifically states that it's DR is only overcome by Vorpal weapons. Which could be read as a detailed explanation of what DR/Vorpal means, or it could be read as shutting down alternate means of DR penetration.I agree that it is a house rule. One I would implement without a second thought after seeing a paladin turn an encounter with a demilich into an utter anticlimax, but a houserule nonetheless. But there is at least some mild ambiguity in the rules, and acting pissy about people making that observation is, simply, unpleasant.
If the posts I took offense to were written like yours, I would not even have responded.
A few people were not making an observation. They were claiming their house rule as an actual rule. And they were ganging up on Leo telling him he broke the rules. I find that unpleasant, especially when they are not correct (the DR rule) or up to date on the current stance of the game designers (the Vital Strike discussion).
If you are going to hammer on someone, then know what you're talking about. This doesn't apply to you hopefully, but it applies to a few on this thread.
Specific trumps general (this is an exception-based rules system). If it specifically calls out that its vital strikeable in its tactics thats specific.
Tactics write ups for monsters are not rules. They are module or game designers attempting to give you an idea on how best to use a creature's abilities.
I always encourage DMs to go over the tactics to make sure they follow the rules and to see if you can come up with better.
Thank you Maddigan for carrying the torch through the night (at least where i am), you have pretty much said what i would have said.
Don't worry about me i won't be easily persuaded by people who don't give concrete RAW proof about things they are saying (like Diego Rossi did with the rods arguement) and i hadn't doubted the paladin's ability ti ignore DR even for a moment.