|
While I've not really got anything against Vital Strike as such, I do recognise that it's a sub-par Feat chain. For it to stay relevant at all, you need to keep investing in the chain - so that's a full 30% of the Feats an average character gets over the course of their 20-level career, before you even look at Devastating Strike, Improved Devastating Strike, and the like... 50% or more of your Feats to be better on those odd occassions where you completely screw-up your normal combat tactics seems a little steep to me...
... So I'd suggest it's not a Feat chain you start investing in 'on the off chance', but one you only take if you plan to use it a lot, as the basis of your character's combat tactics. Fighters with Feats to spare may be the exception... but the whole 'Feats to spare' thing is really a bit misleading, because a Fighter who's invested in Feats he's not planning on using a lot, is a Fighter who's made the choice to nerf his own Class Features.
Now, there are some advantages to building a Vital Strike-based character. The Crossbowman archetype from the APG, for example, has a lot of Class Features based on readied actions, so the Vital Strike chain looks like a must for him. You're also better against opponents with really large amounts of DR... but they're few and far between (and an adamantine weapon is going to be a better bet anyway).
The bestial leaper Barbarian rage power helps, of course - being what Spring Attack always should have been... but Barbarians can get pounce anyway...
So... it mostly comes down to a flavour choice. Vital Striking is sub-optimal... but not by so much it'll make your character pointless or anything; and every now and then you'll get to shine. But it's an awfully big Feat investment just for flavour.
|
While I've not really got anything against Vital Strike as such, I do recognise that it's a sub-par Feat chain. For it to stay relevant at all, you need to keep investing in the chain - so that's a full 30% of the Feats an average character gets over the course of their 20-level career, before you even look at Devastating Strike, Improved Devastating Strike, and the like... 50% or more of your Feats to be better on those odd occassions where you completely screw-up your normal combat tactics seems a little steep to me...
... So I'd suggest it's not a Feat chain you start investing in 'on the off chance', but one you only take if you plan to use it a lot, as the basis of your character's combat tactics. Fighters with Feats to spare may be the exception... but the whole 'Feats to spare' thing is really a bit misleading, because a Fighter who's invested in Feats he's not planning on using a lot, is a Fighter who's made the choice to nerf his own Class Features.
Now, there are some advantages to building a Vital Strike-based character. The Crossbowman archetype from the APG, for example, has a lot of Class Features based on readied actions, so the Vital Strike chain looks like a must for him. You're also better against opponents with really large amounts of DR... but they're few and far between (and an adamantine weapon is going to be a better bet anyway).
The bestial leaper Barbarian rage power helps, of course - being what Spring Attack always should have been... but Barbarians can get pounce anyway...
So... it mostly comes down to a flavour choice. Vital Striking is sub-optimal... but not by so much it'll make your character pointless or anything; and every now and then you'll get to shine. But it's an awfully big Feat investment just for flavour.
Hence the argument to reduce it to 1 feat. It's still an investment, and still quite likely to be sub-optimal, but it does provide some benefit.
As I said earlier in the thread: I'm definitely going to house rule it down to two feats (one at BAB 6, on at BAB 11 that introduces scaling). I may house-rule it down to one, but that part is still in the "not terribly likely" camp simply because I'm resistant to shifting stuff too much at once.
|
|
To be honest, if I were to change it at all, I'm leaning towards the 'just make it a combat option' camp. That'd still leave Devastating Strike and all that UC stuff for those who want to make their Vital Striking better, and give players more reason to be tactical and interesting in combat instead of just having their characters stand toe-to-toe full-attacking until someone drops.
@SD & DS:
I think you're both missing some of my points, the ones that agree with yours, and adding in other points I haven't made. As in I haven't mentioned any 'ridiculous' VS focused characters. (Those were other people. My PCs would never 'focus' on VS, nor build/bother with a combo to amp it up.)
Twice I've mentioned how a "non Full Attack" melee PC is untenable/contrived, so bringing Full Attack into the PC equation is off topic re: my arguments.
I even mention Against the Giants, where I would avoid VS because it's toe-to-toe through the bulk of it. Though I suppose a crafty DM could have the giants knock me down and around a whole lot. But then, I'd probably be a Dwarf. :)
Once I even mentioned how VS can disappoint most players once examined. (Which is why I think it gets so much focus on the boards vs. other feats that are demonstrably worse.)
So, in the 20th level (yuk) example, it's still a 20% boost for when you only get a standard attack. Still not necessarily worth it for 3 feats (and NOT if non-Fighter), but that is the angle I'm coming from.
My PC-VS arguments focus on how often PCs who fight a healthy mix of opponent types in a mix of terrains are forced to make one Standard Action only, and how many of those cases involve the enemy having the upper hand (not just the PC moving/readying/surprise round).
AFAIK, there isn't data or a baseline for non-FA vs. FA opportunities, but from the games I run, melee characters have only one attack very often, though FA more than half the time of course, unless the villain has the upper hand which circles us back to...
Anyway, at this point I wonder if anybody's bothered to count the ratio in a mixed encounters adventure of PCs using one attack vs FA, (most AP modules would work). Doubt it, but... Anybody?
This is how come some magic tricks on these boards involve the caster Telekinesis-ing the Fighter up to get an FA, or DDing him up (at great risk to themselves, but not, because the 'delayed' Fighter insta-kills the opponent. I think we can agree...
Full Attack is king.
I'm just saying VS is there for when the throne is empty. (And might be the best feat that addresses that semi-common issue.)
@DS, re: monsters:
Still unsure (from our last VS discussion) where I stand re: high CR melee monsters needing a boost. You may be right, I've only seen mine who seem brutal enough.
I'm looking at the recommended damage increase per CR in the Bestiary (which I can imagine many GMs don't, especially teens) and seeing room for abuse (unintentionally, I hope) if VS changed.
(BTW, SD, I posited the 2d6 as a max already.)
Did you ponder the "Add BAB to damage, let it multiply on a crit" option I mentioned?
Then you don't get those odd jumps in power, and abuse would be reduced.
Also, most of the monsters who take the VS chain have lots of attacks, and get especially nerfed when reduced to single attacks, so need that to compensate and keep within their CR damage parameters. Their VS doesn't scare me. (Again, an 'upper hand' issue, where PCs usually have it. 'Slow' being a favorite of my players.)
Technically, none of the VS talk 'scares' me for my own sake, but rather for the game's sake.
Looking at 20th level PCs is what I "should" be doing? (Ummm..., no?) That's a bit out of most peoples 'play zone'.
But I do love seeing numbers crunched. :) (Hmm, that may come across as sarcasm, but it isn't.) I, too, wouldn't take VS with a 2d4 weapon. And if I was focused on crits (and perpetual Stun/blind/bleed/whatnot) I'd get khukris personally to lock up/debuff the opponents at the expense of damage.
But that's neither here nor there. So I'll spoiler it.
Anyway, it's been fun mucking about this idea. I'm jumping threads now.
(Oh, and, SD, please look at what I say, rather than what people who agree with me say.)
JMK
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if a better change would be to (instead of the normal mechanic) increase your total damage by 25% with vital strike, 50% at BAB 11 and 75% at BAB16. That way it doesn't depend solely on dice versus bonus, it's just a multiplier. If you critical, it only applies to the non-critical portion. It also would not apply to any damage that does not multiply on a critical (like sneak attack). This means it bridges the gap between standard and full-round, without running the risk of silly situations where it adds almost nothing OR the silly situations where it makes standard attack equal to or better than full-round.
The main downside is that this requires more math.
Now the "big dude" situation is averted, and everyone gets about the same benefit from it. Mr. "2d4 + 46" can do an average of 127.5 on vital strike (higher than normal but still barely over half of a full-round, and only gets to apply critical effects once), but Mr. Cloud Giant would no longer have the same damage on standard as on full-round (the ratio would theoretically be the same given the same to-hit).
I like the "Bridging the gap between Standard & Full Action" throughline.
Still crunching it about in my head.
There'd have to be a simple one or two step formula to calculate the bonus for all melee types (iterative attacks, one big one, several smaller, etc). Gamers won't want to figure DPR for every mix of buffs/debuffs, though the designer could factor that in.
Hmmm...
Edit: I guess a natural question then is, how far should the bridge cross the gap?
And:
A % increase does favor the 'one big attack' (OBA) guys. Maybe the bonus could be tied to how many attacks they're losing? 'OBA' guys shouldn't get VS if their damage is appropriate for their CR already.
(This option likely has too much math/too many steps...)
Hmm. How about...
For every attack forfeited, you gain +weapon damage, +BAB damage, +2d6, or +X%.
Not that it's a choice, but which design might work best.
RAW would have to close some loopholes, I guess.
Hmm, also, squids/Grell may become too tough... And Xorn...
Still crunching...
JMK
I wonder if a better change would be to (instead of the normal mechanic) increase your total damage by 25% with vital strike, 50% at BAB 11 and 75% at BAB16. That way it doesn't depend solely on dice versus bonus, it's just a multiplier. If you critical, it only applies to the non-critical portion. It also would not apply to any damage that does not multiply on a critical (like sneak attack). This means it bridges the gap between standard and full-round, without running the risk of silly situations where it adds almost nothing OR the silly situations where it makes standard attack equal to or better than full-round.
The main downside is that this requires more math.
Now the "big dude" situation is averted, and everyone gets about the same benefit from it. Mr. "2d4 + 46" can do an average of 127.5 on vital strike (higher than normal but still barely over half of a full-round, and only gets to apply critical effects once), but Mr. Cloud Giant would no longer have the same damage on standard as on full-round (the ratio would theoretically be the same given the same to-hit).
I agree this might be a good way to go. And math schmath most games I have played in someone had a calculator, laptop, or i-pad type item to do the math fast enough.
@Castilliano the flat top BAB bonus is not an awful idea but after seeing a craven(BoVD 3.5 feat) rogue I am unsure. Flat top bonuses appear to rule the roost in this game.
Of course I have played in a game where if you applied more STR mod to non natural weapon damage than the max you could roll on the die you ran the risk of breaking it. (Too strong for your own good and magical pluses obviously increased the max) which was interesting way of mitigating flat top bonuses.
Even a flattop bonus that can't work with a Full Attack?
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, the Vital Strike feat chain is rather underwhelming. That said, Ultimate Combat offers some ways to make it better. Devastating Strike adds some bonus damage and Furious Finish allows a barbarian to maximize its damage at the cost of his rage.
So, to make it work, a character needs immunity to fatigue.Checking the Furious Finish text, this doesn't actually work...
'... If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).'
... it looks like Furious Finish counters any fatigue immunity the character may have going on (to counter just such a spamming of the Feat, I guess). So you can only use Furious Finish one time, then you're fatigued, no matter what. To make this work you need to look for something that removes the fatigued condition, rather than prevents it, since there's nothing in the Furious Finish text to say you can remove it after it's hit you.
Two levels of paladin...oh right paladins are still chained to lawful good alignment...and the lawful good rogues are throwing tomatoes at them...
P.S. It's cool you guys are here and it's live, but I will be heading out to work soon. Don't want you to think I'm bailing on the conversation.
Even a flattop bonus that can't work with a Full Attack?
No worries on the work thing I totally understand.
Craven was a feat that allowed you to add your level to sneak attack. TWF with kukri's was brutal less so if only one attack but a free +20 plus 10d6 Sneak attack plus the weapon and other bonuses before a crit meant a lot of death from massive damage checks. Yea flat tops even situational ones that can start going above +10 are really, really good. I am not convinced it's too good I just have to chew on it for a while. I want to see less of the C-M D so much so that I think any improvement to vital strike is working towards that goal, for me. Even if it is due to activating the death from massive damage rules.
|
|
I like the "Bridging the gap between Standard & Full Action" throughline.
Still crunching it about in my head.
There'd have to be a simple one or two step formula to calculate the bonus for all melee types (iterative attacks, one big one, several smaller, etc). Gamers won't want to figure DPR for every mix of buffs/debuffs, though the designer could factor that in.
Hmmm...Edit: I guess a natural question then is, how far should the bridge cross the gap?
And:
A % increase does favor the 'one big attack' (OBA) guys. Maybe the bonus could be tied to how many attacks they're losing? 'OBA' guys shouldn't get VS if their damage is appropriate for their CR already.
(This option likely has too much math/too many steps...)
Hmm. How about...
For every attack forfeited, you gain +weapon damage, +BAB damage, +2d6, or +X%.
Not that it's a choice, but which design might work best.
RAW would have to close some loopholes, I guess.
Hmm, also, squids/Grell may become too tough... And Xorn...
Still crunching...
JMK
How about making it so that if you want to use it for natural attacks the requirement is X natural attacks instead. So to use to get the +25% you must have at least 2 natural attacks , to get the +50% you'd need 3 natural attacks and to get the +75% you'd need 4 natural attacks.
Prerequisites: BAB of +6 or 2 natural attacks
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. If you meet the BAB requirement, increase the damage dealt by such an attack made by a manufactured weapon by 25%. If you meet the natural attack requirement, increase the damage dealt by such an attack made by a natural weapon by 25%. This does not increase damage that is not multiplied by a critical hit, and the bonus damage is itself not multiplied by a critical hit. If you roll a critical hit, roll your normal damage first, apply the bonus, then roll your bonus damage from critical and any damage that doesn't multiply on critical hits.
At a BAB of +11 and +16 the bonus damage for a manufactured weapon increases by 25% (for a total bonus of 75% at BAB 16). For each natural attack possessed above 2 the bonus damage increases by 25% for natural weapons (maximum bonus of 75% at 4 natural attacks).
Stabbity-D,
We're thinking alike.
Here's what I was thinking of at work. (On breaks, of course.)
(RAW a bit messy, but you'll get it.)
Vital Strike:
Req: BAB +6
(Flavor?)
As a standard action you make one attack.
If, during a full attack, you would normally have a second attack or more, you may add the damage die or dice (but not other bonuses) from one of those attacks to your Vital Strike damage.
At BAB +11, you may add the damage die/dice from a third separate attack.
At BAB +16, you may add the damage die/dice from a fourth separate attack.
All of these attacks must be attacks you would normally be able to make in a Full Attack with the attack used for Vital Strike.
Vital Strike may be used with the Spring Attack feat. (Had to...)
Iterative attacks count as separate attacks, even if using same weapon.
Do not multiply the extra damage on a critical.
Normal: (blah, blah, blah)
Runthrough of attack styles in game and the effects of this VS:
PCs/"Iterative Attacks": No problems, it works just like the current chain, but with the 'one feat/BAB scale' so many cry for.
Frost Worms/"One Huge Attack": No problem, they have only one attack and can add nothing to break CR damage norm.
Dragons/"Several Chunky Attacks": Slightly less damage than VS chain, but gain back some feats.
(Advanced) Xorn/"One huge attack, several minor": No issue of giving up the nothing attacks to multiply the huge one, as a minor attack given up=a minor dice bonus added.
Elementals/"Two Large Attacks": Nice to take, and it won't outshine their Full Attacks.
Squids/TWF PCs: "Tons of attacks": Cap on amount of attacks added to primary attack prevents abuse.
Others?
Even people with one-handed weapons might take it if it were like this. Still better for THW builds, but they're the most hurt by being reduced to standard actions, as it's offense keeping them alive.
Given Paizo's anti-power creep bias (God bless you, Paizo, for erring in that direction) I'm not sure this will fly, or have any effect until at least a new edition, but maybe, just maybe, a seed's been planted.
JMK
It will never be as impressive as a full attack. If it was it would be a no brainer feat and everyone would grab it. Your on the correct track however for getting the most out of it as it's written. Big Big weapons.
Here are some spells that work with vital strike very well -
Enlarge person (1 increase in weapon size)
Lead blades (Increases weapon size damage with out increasing weapon).
If your group allows 3.5 materials:
Fullblade
+Monkey Grip
+Lead Blades
+Enlarge Person
+Greater Vital Strike
=24d8 Damage