| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi there,
I just finished remaking an old 3.5 Gish character in PF.
Suddenly, I realized that Vital Strike works with an attack action.
I assume that if you cast a touch spell and deliver it in the same round, it's not an attack action, but a spellcasting action. So in order to 'sploit this, you need to cast and hold the charge.
That said, it works thus:
1 - cast Vampiric Touch, such as while preparing for an ambush. Hold the charge.
2 - on your turn, make an attack action to deliver the touch spell. Thanks to Vital Strike, you do double damage, and also receive double the temp HP.
Now, my Gish build by level 20 casts as a 17th level caster and has +17 BAB, and has Improved Vital Strike. That said, I'd be able to deliver 24-144 damage (and get that in temp HP) with this trick!?!? This is one hell of an opening move.
How far am I off my rocker on this?
I assume that if you cast a touch spell and deliver it in the same round, it's not an attack action, but a spellcasting action.
In the same round that you cast a touch spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.
1 - cast Vampiric Touch, such as while preparing for an ambush. Hold the charge.
2 - on your turn, make an attack action to deliver the touch spell. Thanks to Vital Strike, you do double damage, and also receive double the temp HP.
Vital Strike: "Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice..."
Vampiric Touch is not a weapon. If you're using an unarmed strike or natural attack to deliver the touch, you could roll those damage dice twice, though. Assuming you're a medium humanoid without monk levels, that's 2d3+StrBonus and the spell effect if you hit normal (not touch) AC.
The amount of damage that you are doing at level 20 is not that far out of alignment and may be a little on the light side. Many classes will be able to shut down or triple your damage every round without too much problem.
That being said I am unsure on how or if Vital Strike would work with a touch spell.
A Magus at that level could full attack while using spell combat for 4 or 5 attacks plus cast a 10d6 vamp touch that could crit on a 15-20 for X2 damage on the weapon plus 20d6 damage/temp hit points. (assumes haste, full attack, and scimitar with improved crit.) If he uses an arcana he could even have that maximized without too much effort.
So overall the ability you have listed is not what I would call overpowered for the level.
Vital Strike only work on work on weapon and weapon like spell.
When you crit with a spell (on a natural 20) you do double damage. So you could try to increase the chance of that.
Javelins of Lightning are a much more interesting combination with vital strike. *
Can casters NOT take weapon focus (touch attack) and (ray) and the like?
No doubt that this is a bit of cheese (and a small one IMO), but I'm of the impression that in the past, the line between a touch spell or ray and a weapon has been blurred.
|
Can casters NOT take weapon focus (touch attack) and (ray) and the like?
No doubt that this is a bit of cheese (and a small one IMO), but I'm of the impression that in the past, the line between a touch spell or ray and a weapon has been blurred.
They can - of course improved critical ray is fun too .... if just be a Magus.
See, the whole Weapon Focus (touch) thing is what I was thinking of, in qualifying a touch effect as a weapon.
I think the cheese factor is more about starting off not only doing high damage, but also gaining a big chunk of temporary hitpoints.
That's a tasty damage buffer to have in direct combat; splendid against "big tough monster" or "platoon of tanks" type encounters.
My gish would effectively be doing an "account transfer" of an average of 84 hitpoints, from enemy to himself.
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11
The linked FAQ item:
Weapon Specialization (page 137): Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?
All four of those are valid choices.
Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
—Sean K Reynolds, 10/23/10
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11
The linked FAQ item:
Weapon Specialization (page 137): Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?
All four of those are valid choices.
Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
—Sean K Reynolds, 10/23/10
Grick, I found my source, finally. I understand that it is 3.5 material and is not official Pathfinder RAW, however, my stance is that, given the advertisement that PF is backwards compatible with 3.5 and that there is a precedent (with ray spells as you showed above), then this is by logical extension legal in PF.
FEATS AND WEAPONLIKE SPELLS
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects. As such, several feats that improve weapon performance can be used to enhance weaponlike spells.WEAPONLIKE SPELLS
For the purpose of taking combat-enhancing feats, weaponlike spells fall into two categories—ranged spells and touch spells.
It goes on to further explain what feats qualify, but Weapon Focus is on that list.
Happy to see I opened a can of worms here.
Just remember, you need BAB +6 for Vital Strike, which means a dedicated arcanist can't take it till level 12, and a magus or cleric can't take it till level 8.
And, to throw a bit of corn oil into the fire...
Read Deadly Aim and Power Attack. There is text there specifically denying its use in touch attacks ("The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.") That's Power Attack. Notice that this little disclaimer is glaringly absent from Vital Strike.
I look forward to building a Magus/Eldritch Knight or just a plain old wiz/figther/EK using this interpretation of what constitutes a weapon.
When I start Greater Vital Striking Maximized Disintegrate at lvl 17 or 18 for 960 damage on a touch attack, nobody is going to complain about the gunslinger...
Erhm this is scary. FAQ'ing it.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Vital Strike doesn't double the spell damage. The spell damage isn't considered weapon damage. You're doubling only the damage dice from the weapon itself (i.e. 2d6 for a rapier instead of 1d6).
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.
Much like flaming, the spell would be considered "other damage bonuses." It is not part of the weapon.
Vital Strike doesn't double the spell damage. The spell damage isn't considered weapon damage. You're doubling only the damage dice from the weapon itself (i.e. 2d6 for a rapier instead of 1d6).
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.Much like flaming, the spell would be considered "other damage bonuses." It is not part of the weapon.
In the case of the Magus using Spellstrike, your opinion is plausible. However, until Paizo FAQs this, Vital Strike appears to be "legal" (though not in PFS, I'm sure; I don't keep up with that).
The crux of the issue is that Vital Strike's phrasing does not specifically call out a melee weapon or a ranged weapon, it just says weapon. Rays are weapons, and touch spells are weapons.
I do not think that the ability to apply weapon focus to rays and touch spells need to be taken away, but rather that Vital Strike needs to be clarified such that "weapon" is distinctly a non-spell weapon. Touch spells are NOT unarmed attacks since the spell is considered a weapon in this instance. Simply making a note at the end of Vital Strike that weapon-like spells do not qualify should suffice.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I do not think that the ability to apply weapon focus to rays and touch spells need to be taken away, but rather that Vital Strike needs to be clarified such that "weapon" is distinctly a non-spell weapon. Touch spells are NOT unarmed attacks since the spell is considered a weapon in this instance. Simply making a note at the end of Vital Strike that weapon-like spells do not qualify should suffice.
I think the implication is pretty clear. Look at the wording for Weapon Focus:
Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Emphasis mine.
This says to me "under normal circumstances, unarmed strikes, grapples, and rays ARE NOT WEAPONS." For the purpose of this feat, they can be. Otherwise, no. If the feat doesn't say it CAN be applied to spells/rays/etc., then those things should not be assumed to count as weapons.
|
|
I can see this becoming very nasty with a Magus:
-Medium attack bonus progression = access to Improved Vital Strike @ lvl 15
-Access to disintegrate by lvl 16
If this would indeed work, you could pull 96D6 with a ray on a failed Fort save. Not sure how this would work if the target succeeds on a save, would it still be only 5d6, regardless of Imp. Vital Strike?
Also, how would this interact with Empowered, Maximized, or Intensified touch spells?
Does this "weapon-like spell" business imply that vital strike can be used with these spell lines, assuming you make only 1 attack roll?
Which spells in particular?
Rays, no. You can't hold the charge of a ray, and if you cast a ray spell that's when the attack happens. To use Vital Strike you must use the attack action. Even if you quickened a ray, the ray still fires with that swift action, not later in the turn when you could use the attack action.
-edit- Has anyone cited any reason beyond a non-core 3.5 book for touch spells being weapons?
Magic, Range, Touch: "You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can."
If the touch spell was a weapon, it wouldn't crit "just as a weapon can," it would crit "just like every other weapon can."
While rays have similar language, they are called out specifically in the FAQ as being weapon-like.
Besides, vital-striking your buddy to deliver cure light wounds for an extra d8 is clearly not the intent.
Something tells me the combo won't be allowed.
Just have to wait and see. Also, sneaky dotting for reference.
Ashiel did mention making vamperic touch with a coupe de grace, technically I do not think it works either, but if it did it would be a scary amount of potential hitpoints.
Ashiel did mention making vamperic touch with a coupe de grace, technically I do not think it works either, but if it did it would be a scary amount of potential hitpoints.
Coup de Grace: "As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace... You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target."
Even if touch spells were weapons,
Vampiric touch: "You can't gain more than the subject's current hit points + the subject's Constitution score (which is enough to kill the subject)."
Still good, but not as scary.
Using Vital Strike is still a standard action.
This is an important thing to remember when you try to combine it with something.
The OP calls it an attack action (rather than a standard), but holding the charge after casting would still provide the standard action required on the following round.
I'm all for any kind of official stance that puts casters down a notch, however, in this case, it's going to feel immensely unfair to allow rays to benefit from weapon feats, but not touch spells.
Again, it's my opinion that such rules against touch spell not be enforced, but rather that vital strike be changed to exclude spells from qualifying.
How about you make your touch attack (which deals no damage so you can have your extra damage from Vital strike times 0) and that attack with your weapon(touch attack) releases the charge you were holding. The spell itself isn't the weapon, your hand glowing with some magical energy that no one wants to be hit with is.
As the charge is "rider" damage it has no interaction with the Vital Strike chain, just like sneak attack damage doesn't get increased.
Developer comment has been the same, time, and time again.
Using Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
That is what you have to work with.
What is proposed by the original post:
Round one:
>> Standard Action: Cast vampiric touch. Do not make free touch attack.
>> Move Action: Whatever.
Round Two:
>> Standard Action: Vital Strike (with vampiric touch as weapon-like spell)
If there is a reason you brought this up a second time that I missed, please explain why.
|
i was thinking about doing this with a magus. but it was a little to controversial. in my opinion if you DONT use the free action to apply the touch attack then use an attack action to apply the touch it would technically apply vitalstrike modifiers to the damage.
but here is the issue:
no where in the CRB does it state that you can use a "touch attack" as part of an attack action. the only thing i can find is "free action" after casting the spell. so the gm would have to rule whether or not it works, and no gm in there right mind, ESPECIALLY a PFS GM, would rule in favor of a 40d6 maxamized shocking grasp as an attack action
Developer comment has been the same, time, and time again.
Using Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
That is what you have to work with.
What is proposed by the original post:
Round one:
>> Standard Action: Cast vampiric touch. Do not make free touch attack.
>> Move Action: Whatever.Round Two:
>> Standard Action: Vital Strike (with vampiric touch as weapon-like spell)If there is a reason you brought this up a second time that I missed, please explain why.
I'm not speaking for him, but it reads to me after your scenario as, "Round 2: You may spend your standard action to make an attack action using your vampiric strike, OR you may spend your standard action to make a Vital Strike."
Spells make you 'armed' for the purposes of threatening squares and attacks of opportunity, but they are not weapons. You cannot, for example, cast vampiric touch and then get your vampiric touch enchanted with a +1 keen effect, because it is not, itself, a weapon.
Vital strike doesn't say it can be combined with spells. Vampiric touch is a spell. Therefore you cannot combine them.
1) We are not 100% sure that touch spells are not still considered "weapon-like" in Pathfinder. All the FAQs have given us is that rays are still considered weapons since 3.5. I do not think it illogical to assume the same for touch spells at this point.
2) If the above issue is resolved, then one of two things will happen:
A) Touch spells are weaponized and can be used in conjunction with Vital Strike as written (and should be amended to fix this, citing manufactured melee or ranged weapons) or
B) Touch spells are determined by Paizo to NOT be weaponized and the whole issue is moot.
In either case, I maintain that I do not think this combo should be legal. I'm just an advocate of touch spells remaining weaponized.
1) We are not 100% sure that touch spells are not still considered "weapon-like" in Pathfinder.
Since nothing in the rules say (or even implies) that touch spells are weapons, and the only reason Rays are considered weapons is an explicit FAQ posting, and since the PF developers chose not to include the extra rules 3.5 had which weaponized them, I don't see any reason for the default assumption to be that they are.
And since weaponizing the touches would include all sorts of unintended consequences (Weapon Specialization on cure spells?) and would basically require immediate errata to almost every weapon-related rule, I think it's pretty safe to assume that touch spells are not weapons. Neither are Close spells, or Personal spells, or Long spells. Non-ray ranged touch spells are not weapons, either.
All the FAQs have given us is that rays are still considered weapons since 3.5. I do not think it illogical to assume the same for touch spells at this point.
The FAQ only says that rays are weapons for PFRPG, it doesn't mention 3.5 at all. I'm sure there are other FAQ responses which maintain a similar rule to 3.5 but that doesn't make ALL rules from 3.5 valid.
Weapon Specialization on cure spells
I think there's already something about weapon spec only applying on hit point damage, so this would only work on undead.
Weapon Specialization on cure spellsI think there's already something about weapon spec only applying on hit point damage, so this would only work on undead.
"You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls"
Same with Vital Strike: "Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice..."I don't think there's any way "damage" can be considered healing, so I guess it's not nearly as bad as I thought.
The whole thing with vital strike change is you give up you second, third and forth atack if you have them. If you do not have said tpye of attack then you can use the feat. Cause no one want to see Fighter/ Wizard doing 160d6 on Vital stike 4 caster level 20 wizard.
Rember any build you can do as player the GM can do as NPC and you will see the GM verison first. It will kill you and will need to start all over. The cheese way work both ways and the GM allways wins. Bside the GM has more cheese in his bag of tricks than any player. The GM controlls # appering, the envioment and any thing else they have to thinks up.
As the ruling of Vital Strike, it says it is a part of a Standard Attack Action (which is 1 attack); saying the character cannot use the Vital Strike Action with a Touch Attack because it also takes a standard action makes no sense, why even take Vital Strike or its upgrades and correlary feats, if Vital Strike can't technically do anything to begin with?
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.
Emphasis Mine: A spell is not considered a weapon. Even a Touch Spell. Yes, you are making a Touch Attack with the spell; however, missing or waiting until the second round to utilize Vital Strike would not grant any bonuses because the spell isn't the attack you are making with an unarmed strike (or a weapon, in the case of a Magus, which would only affect the weapon's damage, not the spell's damage). The Touch Attack you make with the spell is only to affect their Touch AC and to see if you could even discharge the spell via touching them.
I don't see how it's hard to understand that Vital Strike is meant for a physical weapon, and not a spell. Their intent is pretty clear that it's meant for a melee attack, and since Touch Attacks to discharge spells don't deal damage, there's no reason to take or use Vital Strike, since there's no weapon damage dice to multiply (which is a touch attack to discharge the spell).
Weapon Specialization on cure spellsI think there's already something about weapon spec only applying on hit point damage, so this would only work on undead.
"You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls"
Same with Vital Strike: "Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice..."I don't think there's any way "damage" can be considered healing, so I guess it's not nearly as bad as I thought.
I won't argue with you on the whole thing. Per RAW and the FAQ, you're right. That rules don't explicitly say touch spells are weaponized isn't a completely valid argument; normally I'm against such. However, this appears in all cases to be a topic that Paizo has tiptoed around by excluding language that expressly prohibits it, perhaps because it's something they expect to be ruled by the DM. I can't say. All I know is that I would rather see it official than to rule it out.
As it's pointed out, feats that improve damage for weapons, if allowed to apply to touch spells, would not also affect healing. And once more I would like to remind other's reading this that I feel like Vital Strike should NOT be an option for spells. That breaks the intended use of the feat to replace iterative attacks with greater damage on a single attack.
Afterthought: I suppose it is simpler to just say that no, spells other than rays can't be treated as weapons as per RAW because it creates too many corner cases as new feats are printed, and as such falls best in the realm of houserules. Simpler, but less satisfying.