I have looked at a couple of different places, but is it possible to use vital strike with a spell like Touch of Idiocy?
I have looked at a couple of different places, but is it possible to use vital strike with a spell like Touch of Idiocy?
No. Vital Strike only affects weapon damage, not spell damage.
Let's take for example, a creature with the Shocking Grasp spell. The creature casts it and attempts a Touch Attack on the PC. They roll a 2, and fail horribly. The Touch Spell is still there as per "Holding the Charge" rules listed in the Core.
If the Creature has the Vital Strike feat(s), and wants to perform a Natural Claw Vital Strike attack, rolling a 12 with base pluses, hits the target's 18 AC (compared to their 15 touch), and applies the numbers as usual.
Now, what happens to the spell? It goes off as per the rules, but the thing is, it goes of inadvertantly, and is a separate entity from the weapon (for this example, the Claw attack). Since the Claw is the weapon, the Claw receives the benefits of Vital Strike. The Spell, which is an added-on spell effect to the Claw Attack and a separate entity from the weapon itself used, which is the claw, the Vital Strike benefits aren't applied to the Shocking Grasp spell.
I hope this clears it up for you.
Alright Thanks for help, I just saw that a monster used vital strike with its ray attacks, so I was curious.
|
If it is a "weapon like spell" it would work. for example, you could vital strike with a flame blade as the spell creates something that it like a scimitar.
I am not sure on how rays fall under that, but you can take feats like improved critical (rays) and weapon focus (rays), which seems to treat them as weapons, but I would say that they are not personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is a "weapon like spell" it would work. for example, you could vital strike with a flame blade as the spell creates something that it like a scimitar.
I am not sure on how rays fall under that, but you can take feats like improved critical (rays) and weapon focus (rays), which seems to treat them as weapons, but I would say that they are not personally.
Yes, but it's not a weapon-like spell. As far as game balance mechanics are concerned, it makes casters more powerful than they already are. In terms of RAW, Rays aren't treated as traditional weapons, and Vital Strike requires an Attack Action. Scorching Rays and such are Spell casts which require a standard action, not an Attack Action.
If a creature has a Ray attack as a Weapon-like Spell, or can use a Ray attack as an Attack Action, then it would be allowed. But Rays from Spells or other sources wouldn't be allowed because it isn't considered a physical weapon (as in it has a solid structured, corporeal manifestation), nor are the actions done to create said Rays to deal damage considered an Attack Action.
|
|
Thanks, never thought about it as the attack action used to delineate.
So, in a somewhat related note, could use use the vital strike feat in conjunction with a held touch spell?
I ask this since you deliver the touch spell as an attack action if you hold it for a later round.
For example, could a level 15 magus cast vampiric touch, hold the charge and then use improved vital strike to hit and do 24d6 damage (and gain the same amount as temp hp?)
Thanks, never thought about it as the attack action used to delineate.
So, in a somewhat related note, could use use the vital strike feat in conjunction with a held touch spell?
I ask this since you deliver the touch spell as an attack action if you hold it for a later round.
For example, could a level 15 magus cast vampiric touch, hold the charge and then use improved vital strike to hit and do 24d6 damage (and gain the same amount as temp hp?)
I already explained that with the example listed above. I will cite it again for you, though.
Let's take for example, a creature with the Shocking Grasp spell. The creature casts it and attempts a Touch Attack on the PC. They roll a 2, and fail horribly. The Touch Spell is still there as per "Holding the Charge" rules listed in the Core.
If the Creature has the Vital Strike feat(s), and wants to perform a Natural Claw Vital Strike attack, rolling a 12 with base pluses, hits the target's 22 AC (compared to their 15 touch), and applies the numbers as usual.
Now, what happens to the spell? It goes off as per the rules, but the thing is, it goes of inadvertantly, and is a separate entity from the weapon (for this example, the Claw attack). Since the Claw is the weapon, the Claw receives the benefits of Vital Strike. The Spell, which is an added-on spell effect to the Claw Attack and a separate entity from the weapon itself used, which is the claw, the Vital Strike benefits aren't applied to the Shocking Grasp spell.
Another thing I can add on to this example is that the Shocking Grasp is a spell, and as such behaves like a spell, not an Attack Action. It requires you to make an attack action to deliver the spell (should you fail on the free action upon casting within the same round)
Even while holding the charge and discharging it later, it is still a separate entity from a weapon-like spell, and regardless if it is a Ray or not and exhausted through an attack action, the spell behaves as if it were a spell, and not a weapon.
If the Magus were to cast Vampiric Touch on his Scimitar +2 and use the Vital Strike action next round, only the Scimitar is affected, because the Scimitar is the weapon used, not the spell Vampiric Touch, which is an addition. As such, the weapon damage dealt through Vital Strike does not apply to Vampiric Touch, nor does the weapon damage dealt add to the wielder's Temp HP.
If the Magus were to just use a touch attack action to discharge the spell, the Vital Strike action would not be feasible as not only does the attack action weapon (which is your hand) not deal any damage, but its mechanics is more-or-less interchangable with your Scimitar, in that it is a weapon and behaves like a weapon, much like a Monk's Unarmed Strike or a Tiger's Claw Attack.
Vital Strike requires a weapon. Now, the problem with that statement is that spells (back in 3.5) have been ruled weapon-like and thus qualify for feats and abilities that other weapons qualify for. PF has not quite carried that forward but they have indicated similar things.
So we have the following:
Are spells weapon-like and thus may be combined with feats and abilities that require weapons? (Note: manufactured weapons and natural weapons are subclasses of weapons. Weapon-like spells would be one more subclass of weapon.)
IF Yes, then as Vital Strike as it is currently written can be used on any attack spell that is a standard action to attack. Key phrase there: the attack roll requires a standard action.
That seriously limits the options to Touch Attacks on a subsequent round.
CRB p186 states that Ranged Touch attacks are part of the spell and since you cannot make a separate standard attack action they are not eligible for Vital Strike (on that basis).
CRB p185 states that Touch attacks are a free action to make the attack with (thus no Vital Strike). However, a held touch attack requires a standard action and thus MIGHT be eligible for Vital Strike.
So what do we have? The only time a touch attack MIGHT be eligible for Vital Strike is when:
A) It is made as a standard attack action.
B) It is considered a weapon.
A) is not in question, B still is and would require a Developer making a broad statement that touch spells are weapon-like spells and thus subject to ALL feats that modify weapons (rather than a subset of feats such as weapon focus, weapon specialization, and improved critical).
BTW, it is my belief that RAI is no, you cannot apply Vital Strike to a weapon-like spell.
- Gauss
|
did we ever get an official ruling on this? the FAQ is silent on the issue... lots of build nowadays use shocking grasp and other touch delivery spells... heck even scorching ray requires a ranged touch
what the FAQ *does* say though is that vital strike works with the attack action, and a strict reading of the attack action clearly spells out that you make them with melee or ranged weapons:
"Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
[...]
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
[...]"
Spells can be weaponlike, but you can't perform a standard attack with one using normal options. Even if you hold the charge.
Would the Magus's spellstrike work with Vital Strike? It's part of an attack action rather than an attack action unto itself. So a Rhoka charged with an Intensified Shocking Grasp would do 2d8+20d6 before additives... yeah.
Someone please explain to me that I'm misreading and this doesn't actually work.
Spells can be weaponlike, but you can't perform a standard attack with one using normal options. Even if you hold the charge.
You should be able to with flame blade or Gozreh's Trident. You wield them like weapons.
Last time we had a couple of hundred pages on this question, the grudging consensus was no.
Not because of the attack action, but because touch attack spells, although they share many attributes of melee weapons, are not in fact weapons, and thus do not qualify for Vital Strike use.
Because you can totally take the attack action with a held spell.
Weapon-like spells such as Flame Blade CAN Vital Strike. Rays can also Vital Strike, IF you can take the attack action with them (Lantern Archon).
Would the Magus's spellstrike work with Vital Strike? It's part of an attack action rather than an attack action unto itself. So a Rhoka charged with an Intensified Shocking Grasp would do 2d8+20d6 before additives... yeah.
Someone please explain to me that I'm misreading and this doesn't actually work.
Because you're Vital Striking with the sword, and the spell is a rider, not part of the attack.
Spells can be weaponlike, but you can't perform a standard attack with one using normal options. Even if you hold the charge.You should be able to with flame blade or Gozreh's Trident. You wield them like weapons.
Those, sure.
However, for holding a charge, we shall consult the Attack and Cast a Spell sections of the Combat chapter.
Attack:
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
There's some other stuff here, but nothing about touch attacks specifically. Again, this is under Attacks, not under the rules for attack rolls.
This is from Cast a Spell
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Emphasis mine. So, it is technically possible to Vital Strike with a held spell, but only if you make a normal attack, and in that case, you gain the feat benefits with the base damage; the spell discharges as a rider. I.e. you can't use Vital Strike to amp up shocking grasp's damage.