i am thinking about making a barbarian that fights with a two handed weapon and i was looking at taking the vital strike feat but want some clarification before taking it it say i can do double damage on an attack action. is it referring to a full attack or a attack that is just a standard action such as after a move action?
i am thinking about making a barbarian that fights with a two handed weapon and i was looking at taking the vital strike feat but want some clarification before taking it it say i can do double damage on an attack action. is it referring to a full attack or a attack that is just a standard action such as after a move action?
To Vital Strike you use the attack action. To use the attack action is a standard action. Remember that it only multiplies weapon damage (2D6 in your case).
[edit: added the distinction between a standard action and an attack action.]
Vital strike is a standard action. It is actually a very limiting feat, especially past level six
Considering a barbarian can't get it until level seven, when do you think it isn't a very limiting feat?
thanks for the input.
i also dont see how its is a limiting feat considering i can move, and make one attack dealing as much damage as a full attack
|
Consider using a large bastard sword with the Exotic Proficiency feat.
-2 to attack, 2d8 base damage. With the Lead Blades spell or Enlarge Person, you've got a 3d6 weapon ; 4d6 with both. Vital strike becomes a 8d6 + 1/1-2 strength modifier, up to 16d6 with Greater Vital Strike, or 16d6+6 base damage with Devastating Strike.
thanks for the input.
i also dont see how its is a limiting feat considering i can move, and make one attack dealing as much damage as a full attack
Read the feat again. It only multiplies weapon damage, not strength or anything else.
thanks for the input.
i also dont see how its is a limiting feat considering i can move, and make one attack dealing as much damage as a full attack
Oh, no you absolutely can't. You can move and make one attack that deals the dice of damage equivalent of two attacks, but you are ignoring that most of your damage is coming from static bonuses.
For example, let's say you are level 8. You started with 18 Strength and raised it twice to 20 and have a magic item that boosts it to 22. You Rage and get +4 more Strength for 26 total. Then you power attack.
A normal swing is thus 2d6+21 damage, or 28 average.
With Vital Strike, you deal 4d6+21, which averages 35. With two hits, you deal 4d6+42, which averages 56. Kind of a big difference.
|
If your weapon is d10 or bigger, and you get must move-and-attack approximately 50% of the time in combat, Vital Strike is comparable to Weapon Specialization in terms of how much extra damage it will grant.
The bigger your weapon dice and lower your numeric bonus, the greater the percentage difference increase in damage will be. E.g., a monk whose unarmed strike is 2d6+6 gets a lot more out of going to 4d6+6 (54% more average damage) than a barbarian who normally swings for 2d6+21 going to 4d6+21 (25% more average damage).
Vital Strike is thus a good feat for builds which normally rely upon full-attacks of many lesser attacks, as it permits them to not be as hosed when situations prevent full-attacks.
(At 15th level, an Enlarged monk wearing Monk's Robes and who has Greater Vital Strike will hit for 16d8+[whatever] on a single unarmed strike, or an extra 54 damage whenever he's limited to one attack.)
If your weapon is d10 or bigger, and you get must move-and-attack approximately 50% of the time in combat, Vital Strike is comparable to Weapon Specialization in terms of how much extra damage it will grant.
The bigger your weapon dice and lower your numeric bonus, the greater the percentage difference increase in damage will be. E.g., a monk whose unarmed strike is 2d6+6 gets a lot more out of going to 4d6+6 (54% more average damage) than a barbarian who normally swings for 2d6+21 going to 4d6+21 (25% more average damage).
Vital Strike is thus a good feat for builds which normally rely upon full-attacks of many lesser attacks, as it permits them to not be as hosed when situations prevent full-attacks.
(At 15th level, an Enlarged monk wearing Monk's Robes and who has Greater Vital Strike will hit for 16d8+[whatever] on a single unarmed strike, or an extra 54 damage whenever he's limited to one attack.)
This is true to a point, but I think your character resources are far better spent on ways to let you make multiple attacks more often than on consolation prizes for when you can't.
I also think it's deceptive to look at how much Vital Strike adds to your single swing (saying it gives +54% to the monk and +25% to the Barbarian) rather than looking at how much it adds compared to a full attack by the same character.
At level 8, the Barbarian in the example can either use Vital Strike to add 7 damage, or a second swing to add 28.
Meanwhile, that Monk (that must be at least level 11 with a Monk's Robe to deal 2d6 base damage) can either use Vital strike to add 7 damage, or attack eight more times (assuming Medusa's Wrath and a Ki Point) to add 94 damage.
I think this is kind of critical to point out because a lot of people mistakenly think Vital Strike is something they could use instead of a Full Attack, rather than something that gives them a tiny amount of extra damage when they are forced to make a single attack.
Vital Strike is not something to build around! It is a back-up plan--a consolation prize.
Might be worthwhile in a Weapon Finesse build. Althought the Weapon Finesse weapons are not as 'thumpy'.
Also, something to consider is that Vital Strike increases the damage of a single shot, quite the bit worthwhile when facing off against Damage Reduction.
|
|
This is true to a point, but I think your character resources are far better spent on ways to let you make multiple attacks more often than on consolation prizes for when you can't.
I don't need more damage when I'm awesome getting a full-attack. -- I want more damage when my opponent is making me suck by forcing me into standard-action single attacks.
|
Really the only way Vital Strike is useful is if you're not using a full attack and doing something else with your move action. Such as feinting to get sneak attack or something else. I know I use it with my rogue who doesn't do a lot of without sneak attack so the vital strike is an added kicker to the sneak attack. I get the extra damage die without having to make a second attack and get sneak attack. Never seen it used for anything else with PCs.
Monsters on the other hand use it very well. Especially after the figure out that only the primary attack is going to hit reliably. So they use the vital strike chain and get to do some massive damage to the PC that has the high AC.
We house ruled the following for Vital Strike, as it was simply not pulling its weight for the feats invested in the chain:
1) It's an Attack Action that precludes inclusion in a Full Attack, not a Standard Action. This allows Vital Strike to work with Spring Attack.
2) The extra dice of damage ARE multiplied by critical hits.
|
|
We house ruled the following for Vital Strike, as it was simply not pulling its weight for the feats invested in the chain:
Let me play a core monk in your campaign at 15th level, and you'll change your mind so quick you wouldn't believe it.
<guzzle potion of Enlarge; start move/punching for 12d8+whatever with two feats tossed at VS/IVS>
Meanwhile, what's the fighter getting from four feats in GWF/GWS? +4 dmg....lotta good that's going to do him when the opponent is denying full-attacks -- which they should be if they're even slightly not stupid.
The extra dice of damage ARE multiplied by critical hits
So, I punch for 24d8 on a crit?
...like I said: you'll change your mind.
The biggest issue is truly that it is 3 feats. If it were one scaling feat, it'd be worth it.
Another area where Vital Strike would be useful would be a rogue (Scout) archetype using skirmish, since they'd be moving in order to get their sneak attack on non-flanked opponents, thus only getting one attack with sneak attack. Adding more dice to that damage would always be good, especially if they can up their number of dice on their weapon by taking a multi-die weapon somehow (lead blades via UMD/multiclassing, or falcata proficiency, etc).
|
personally i am going to put vital strike on my musket master gunslinger, what's that? I have to move? fine, 2d12+dex. ranged builds don't really have many choices if they are limited to a standard, although a d8 isn't really a good choice for vital strike, if you keep gravity bow up though, 4d6 isn't to bad.
oh mike, if you just would use the APG like everyone else you could use lead blades and increase that damage, i'm sure of it
We house ruled the following for Vital Strike, as it was simply not pulling its weight for the feats invested in the chain:Let me play a core monk in your campaign at 15th level, and you'll change your mind so quick you wouldn't believe it.
<guzzle potion of Enlarge; start move/punching for 12d8+whatever with two feats tossed at VS/IVS>
Meanwhile, what's the fighter getting from four feats in GWF/GWS? +4 dmg....lotta good that's going to do him when the opponent is denying full-attacks -- which they should be if they're even slightly not stupid.
The extra dice of damage ARE multiplied by critical hitsSo, I punch for 24d8 on a crit?
...like I said: you'll change your mind.
Our campaigns usually top out at 8th to 12th level because the complexity of running a character in combat outweighs the fun.
The biggest issue is truly that it is 3 feats. If it were one scaling feat, it'd be worth it.Greater Weapon Specialization is four feats that don't scale. And they only apply to one weapon.
But that's different. Weapon Focus and Specialization always apply to attacks with said weapon. Every attack with said weapon, regardless of whether it's on a charge, a standard action, a whirlwind strike, or a full-attack action. And the bonus to hit applies to combat maneuvers made with said weapon, if any are applicable. Y'know, as opposed to a measly 1d8 or whatever.
Obviously, vital strike is a good option if you're using stupidly high damage dice (say, if you're a titan mauler or something)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'd always assumed that Vital Strike was a standard action in and of itself, so it would be useful to know if Focused Shot and Vital Strike stack after all? I have a ranged Scout who's looking interested...
I'd always assumed that Vital Strike was a standard action in and of itself, so it would be useful to know if Focused Shot and Vital Strike stack after all? I have a ranged Scout who's looking interested...
No they don't work together, focused shot requires a standard action to use, if it could be used when using the attack action then yes they could be used together.
|
|
Focused Shot : "standard action", but not "attack action". So unless you enter homebrew territory and ask your DM (shouldn't be hard to ask for two suboptimal options to stack, though prepared attacks against spellcasters would hurt much) or play my fantabulous Crossbowman Revisited, they don't stack.
We house ruled the following for Vital Strike, as it was simply not pulling its weight for the feats invested in the chain:Let me play a core monk in your campaign at 15th level, and you'll change your mind so quick you wouldn't believe it.
<guzzle potion of Enlarge; start move/punching for 12d8+whatever with two feats tossed at VS/IVS>
Or you could spend one feat on Lunge and, when Enlarged, flurry enemies that are up to 15 feet away and grab Step Up and Stand Still so they can't get away from your Flurry reach. In other words, rather than throwing two feats at a consolation prize for when your best tactic fails, throw feats at making sure your best tactic fails less.
Hell, you can always use Qinggong to get Blood Crow Strike and take some feats for extra Ki so you can Flurry at range with badass crow-shooting fists.
If you do it right, I'd wager it's quite possible to flurry 80% of the time--probably more.
Meanwhile, what's the fighter getting from four feats in GWF/GWS? +4 dmg....lotta good that's going to do him when the opponent is denying full-attacks -- which they should be if they're even slightly not stupid.
It's not +4 damage. It's +4 damage AND +2 to hit. +2 to hit is like increasing your total damage by 10% of your average hit. That's a pretty big boost. Plus, it applies every round, and not just the rare few times you're denied a full attack.
You're talking about enemies like they are all going to be denying full attacks all the time--I can see casters do that, but melee monsters want to make Full Attacks as much as the PCs do, so they're going to help the situation, not hurt it.
1-level dip of Synthesiest gives pounce = full attack, yay!
That's like judging a fire sorceror only on his damage output against cold subtyped opponents. Medusa's Wrath requires opponents to already have a status effect on them. Ki points you don't spend on Vital Strike rounds are available for other uses later.
I was assuming you would use Stunning Fist to make enemies susceptible to Medusa's Wrath. You could even just use the Staggered effect to do it, since it lasts multiple rounds. But it's fine. Even if you add only five extra attacks, it still dwarfs the 7 damage you get out of Vital Strike.
You're also assuming flurry is an option. Maneuver Master can't flurry for damage and a few archetypes including the much lauded Tetori don't flurry at all.
The Maneuver master shouldn't be taking Vital Strike because they should, surprise, be using a Maneuver instead of making an attack when they can't get a full attack action in. And the Tetori, obviously, should be grappling on their one attack, instead of using Vital Strike.
There is also Devastating Strike. It's still a consolation prize, but it gives back enough static damage that Vital Strike shouldn't be a complete joke for anyone but flurry capable monks and TWFers.
It caps at +6 if you have three other feats. Sorry, that's more of an insult than a consolation prize. Someone with a two handed weapon and Power Attack gets +6 damage at BAB +4. To get +6 damage after four feats and +16 BAB? That's horrible.
I'd always assumed that Vital Strike was a standard action in and of itself, so it would be useful to know if Focused Shot and Vital Strike stack after all? I have a ranged Scout who's looking interested...No they don't work together, focused shot requires a standard action to use, if it could be used when using the attack action then yes they could be used together.
So Focused Shot is a standard action attack, and the attack action is always a standard action, but a standard action attack (FS) isn't an attack action despite being a standard action?
Who invented these rules? :-)
It's for PFS, so GM rulings won't help.
An attack action is always either a standard action, or taken as part of a full round attack.
If you have iterative attacks, for example, and you take a full round attack action, you have a number of attack actions in that equal to your iterative count (for example, if you are a 2h fighter with 7BAB, you have two attack actions in your full round attack).
If you have an ability that can be used as an attack action (such as trip), then you can trip any time you can take an attack action. If a feat is performed as part of an attack action, then anytime you take an attack action, you can use the feat. If you have two feats that apply to an attack action, then you can stack them. If one feat requires a standard action, and the other an attack action, you can only stack them if the standard action feat also includes the use of an attack action. If you have two feats that both take standard actions, you can't stack them.
An attack action is always either a standard action, or taken as part of a full round attack.
If you have iterative attacks, for example, and you take a full round attack action, you have a number of attack actions in that equal to your iterative count (for example, if you are a 2h fighter with 7BAB, you have two attack actions in your full round attack).
If you have an ability that can be used as an attack action (such as trip), then you can trip any time you can take an attack action. If a feat is performed as part of an attack action, then anytime you take an attack action, you can use the feat. If you have two feats that apply to an attack action, then you can stack them. If one feat requires a standard action, and the other an attack action, you can only stack them if the standard action feat also includes the use of an attack action. If you have two feats that both take standard actions, you can't stack them.
So Focused Shot is a standard action that involves an attack and Vital Strike can be applied to an attack action, so that looks like it works?
By your logic Vital Strike can also be used as part of a full round attack but only applies to one of the attacks (even if hasted or with iteratives). "You can make one attack [with bonus]" but it doesn't preclude making other attacks.
I don't know one way or the other myself.
Edit: in fact it says each time you use an Attack Action you can make one attack with the bonus weapon dice. If you get more than one attack action when hasted or making iterative attacks you could apply Vital Strike to each attack action as no limit is specified and gain the bonus on all attacks. It also says you can use your highest attack bonus each time, so that cannot be right as you'd get max BAB on the iteratives too. Which means not all attacks can be attack actions.
|
|
So Focused Shot is a standard action attack, and the attack action is always a standard action, but a standard action attack (FS) isn't an attack action despite being a standard action?
Who invented these rules? :-)
It's for PFS, so GM rulings won't help.
Focused Shot is a "standard action" during which you happen to make an attack. The "attack action" itself is a kind of "standard action".
Because you happen to do an attack during a standard action doesn't mean you are doing an "attack action", otherwise a lot of wizards would be doing it, and a spell like Scorching Ray could be understood as "I vital strike each ray, after all, I'm using an attack action with each ray !".
So Focused Shot is a standard action attack, and the attack action is always a standard action, but a standard action attack (FS) isn't an attack action despite being a standard action?
Who invented these rules? :-)
It's for PFS, so GM rulings won't help.
Focused Shot is a "standard action" during which you happen to make an attack. The "attack action" itself is a kind of "standard action".
Because you happen to do an attack during a standard action doesn't mean you are doing an "attack action", otherwise a lot of wizards would be doing it, and a spell like Scorching Ray could be understood as "I vital strike each ray, after all, I'm using an attack action with each ray !".
The CRB refers to Attack actions and Full-attack actions as separate things, so you couldn't full attack with Vital Strike. As FS is a standard action though it arguably falls under the Attack action moniker. It's not 'cast a spell and get a free attack', it's make a standard action attack with bonus.
|
|
The CRB refers to Attack actions and Full-attack actions as separate things, so you couldn't full attack with Vital Strike.
Never argued about this fact.
As FS is a standard action though it arguably falls under the Attack action moniker. It's not 'cast a spell and get a free attack', it's make a standard action attack with bonus.
Nope, while VS is clear on the bonus being provided to an attack action, FS is marked as a standard action of it's own, not a bonus provided to a standard attack action. Another interpretation would be houseruling, not that it's a bad thing.
The CRB refers to Attack actions and Full-attack actions as separate things, so you couldn't full attack with Vital Strike.Never argued about this fact.
No, it was in response to mdt above who suggested each attack was an attack action.
I've FAQ'd the FS/VS combo as you never know what the official ruling will be. I'm assuming it doesn't work for now.
i am thinking about making a barbarian that fights with a two handed weapon and i was looking at taking the vital strike feat but want some clarification before taking it it say i can do double damage on an attack action. is it referring to a full attack or a attack that is just a standard action such as after a move action?
Although it has been mentioned many, many times, Vital Strike is effective for those characters who are forced to move and make an attack action, not for full round attack actions. I find that beasts get the best effects from the vital strike chain, especially the dragons I have been playing. However, for those classes the rely on multiple attacks per round,rangers and fighters, it is not as effective, unless the creature you are fighting limits that ability to make full round attacks.
For an example of the verbage needed by a feat to let it be combinable with Vital Strike, see the Felling Smash feat in UC:
If you use the attack action to make a single melee attack at your highest base attack bonus while using Power Attack and you hit an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attempt a trip combat maneuver against that opponent.
An attack action is always either a standard action, or taken as part of a full round attack.
If you have iterative attacks, for example, and you take a full round attack action, you have a number of attack actions in that equal to your iterative count (for example, if you are a 2h fighter with 7BAB, you have two attack actions in your full round attack).
If you have an ability that can be used as an attack action (such as trip), then you can trip any time you can take an attack action. If a feat is performed as part of an attack action, then anytime you take an attack action, you can use the feat. If you have two feats that apply to an attack action, then you can stack them. If one feat requires a standard action, and the other an attack action, you can only stack them if the standard action feat also includes the use of an attack action. If you have two feats that both take standard actions, you can't stack them.
This is all completely wrong.
An attack action is a standard action.
A full attack is a full-round action.
The two are completely incompatible.
To use your iterative attacks, you need a full-attack, not an attack action.
Trip can be made in place of a melee attack, not only during an attack action. If it said attack action, then it couldn't be made during a full attack, whirlwind attack, AoO, etc.
Vital Strike can be made only during an attack action, which is why it can't be used with a full attack, charge, spring attack, whirlwind, etc.
So Focused Shot is a standard action attack, and the attack action is always a standard action, but a standard action attack (FS) isn't an attack action despite being a standard action?
Who invented these rules? :-)
To help clarify:
Your standard action can be used to do anything that takes a standard action, including the attack action, casting a standard spell, focused shot, aid another, channel energy, etc. All of those things are standard actions. You can't Aid Another and Channel Energy at the same time, just like you can't make a Focused Shot and Attack Action (to use Vital Strike) at the same time.
|
You can't Aid Another and Channel Energy at the same time, just like you can't make a Focused Shot and Attack Action (to use Vital Strike) at the same time.
Just because I can. With these two feats:
Quick Channeland
Swift Aid
You can Channel and aid another in the same turn. In fact, you could channel, do an attack action, aid another, and move 5' in the same turn with those two feats..
I know, you are not dealing with the feats, but I was feeling silly and wanted to point that out.
I guess I didn't quite say it correctly Grick.
There are two different terms used when you're talking about attacks and feats. One is the action of attacking, that is, you make an attack roll. This is either a standard action, or you have multiple attacks taken as part of a full attack, if you have iterative attacks. Some feats can be taken as a standard/attack action, some have benefits when you make an attack, regardless of whether it's part of a standard action attack, or a full action attack.
Those feats that can be used with an attack, can be used with every attack roll. Those that require a standard action, can only be used with a standard action.
Vital Strike is an example of something that requires a standard action attack.
Performing a trip action (which is an attack) can be done anytime you can make an attack, which can be a standard action, an attack made as one attack in a full attack action, or an attack of opportunity.
The biggest issue is truly that it is 3 feats. If it were one scaling feat, it'd be worth it.Greater Weapon Specialization is four feats that don't scale. And they only apply to one weapon.
Again, if it were scaling it'd be worth it.
So what do you think about Vital Strike as a defensive feat?
What I mean by this is that while you do less damage doing a Vital Strike rather than a full attack... it is entirely likely that your foe does as well. If you have a character who is using vital strike and able to move away (tumbling, mobility, sprint attack, etc) then your enemy has to move up to continue to be in melee with you and thus is taken down to one attack (assuming they want to be in melee).
This is particularly effective in two very common scenarios:
1) Your enemy is getting more attacks at a higher chance to hit than if you got multiple attacks... so if you get +6/+1 and he gets Bite/Claw/Claw/Wing/Wing/Tail (or whatever), then you loosing one attack that is +1 to his losing 5 attacks is a fantastic defensive trade.
2) You just happen to be travelling with a group of people. You choosing to only get hit by one attack rather than many means you take less damage while your ranged friends lay down the damage. Sort of a tactical fall back.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
So what do you think about Vital Strike as a defensive feat?
What I mean by this is that while you do less damage doing a Vital Strike rather than a full attack... it is entirely likely that your foe does as well. If you have a character who is using vital strike and able to move away (tumbling, mobility, sprint attack, etc) then your enemy has to move up to continue to be in melee with you and thus is taken down to one attack (assuming they want to be in melee).
Hear, hear. -- Somebody gets it.
Example: 9th-level ninja with polearm is invisible; he moves to flank, power-sneaks using Vital Strike, then vanishes as a Swift. 2d10+5d6+15. This compares quite well to throwing a pile of shurikens (only first getting sneak) or two not-flanking melee attacks (only first getting sneak), and leaves him invisible once again.
Those feats that can be used with an attack, can be used with every attack roll. Those that require a standard action, can only be used with a standard action.
And those that require the attack action can only be used with the attack action.
Cleave and Deadly Stroke both require a standard action. When you use these, it's an attack, and it's a standard action, but it's not the attack action.
Vital Strike is an example of something that requires a standard action attack.
It requires the attack action, which is a standard action. Any other standard action, even if it's an attack, doesn't apply.
I think now that's what you were trying to say. When you say "the action of attacking" you're meaning English word version of action, rather than game mechanic action type. Game mechanics really need reserved words!