| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Brace - Vital Strike - Readying an Action
It is definitely clear that you can ready a vital strike; you can ready a standard action and vital strike is a standard action.
However, can you ready a vital strike with a brace weapon to deal double damage vs. a charging opponent? That is, is bracing a weapon a separate action that requires a standard action on its own or passive bonus any time you ready an attack against a charge with a brace weapon?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What does "Brace" say ?
Brace: If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging creature (see Combat).
What does "Vital Strike" say ?
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
So setting a brace weapon against a charge is certainly a standard action. Vital Strike is an attack action, wich is a type of standard action (an as such, can be readied).
They're both attack actions, but I don't think they're the SAME attack action. I'll agree that it's not completely clear. I'll hit the FAQ button.
Isn't all the mess of Vital Strike from the ridiculously ambiguous phrase "attack action"?
No, the question would still be relevant for something like Cleave.
The question is: Is "set a brace weapon against a charge" a specific action, or does it apply to any readied action that is triggered by a charging opponent?"
The answer isn't clear, but in most cases, it's assumed to be specific.
Can't we just get some errata to replace "attack action" with "Standard Action" or something else?
Certainly. There's a great fix proposed here. The problem is that "attack action" has been in the rules so long, they would not only have to fix the Attack Action section, but also change every instance of attack action in all the books since then.
The problem is that "attack action" has been in the rules so long, they would not only have to fix the Attack Action section, but also change every instance of attack action in all the books since then.
It does not appear as much as one might think. I think it shows up in the Core book less than 4 times.
In fact, in the whole of the PRD, the term "attack action" only shows up 13 times, specifically in the...
- Mounted Skirmisher feat
- Overhand Chop fighter class ability
- Automatic Misses and Hits rule
- Slow Time monk class ability
- Snap Shot rogue talent
- Skirmisher rogue class ability
- Vital Strike line of feats
- Gory Finish feat
- Felling Smash feat
- Sunder combat maneuver (which I believe to be an error)
- Hunter's Tricks rules for ranger
- Gaze Attack universal monster rules
- Performing a Combat Maneuver rules
That's 13 times in at least ten books. Some of those instances use the term inconsistently.
The term needs to be removed from the system entirely. It was never properly defined in an official source and has only ever caused confusion.
The designers are well aware of this problem and seem to be trying to phase the term out in newly released sources. It has not appeared at all in the last several books (such as the Advanced Race Guide or Ultimate Equipment) that Paizo has released. Thank the Lord for small blessings I suppose.
It does not appear as much as one might think. I think it shows up in the Core book less than 4 times.The problem is that "attack action" has been in the rules so long, they would not only have to fix the Attack Action section, but also change every instance of attack action in all the books since then.
From a quick PRD search:
CRB: Automatic Misses and Hits, Sunder, Vital Strike, IVS, GVS
Bestiaries: Wearing a Blindfold(Gaze)
APG: Mounted Skirmisher, Overhand Chop, Slow Time(Monk of the Four Winds), Snap Shot(rogue talent), Skirmisher (rogue), Hunter's Tricks(ranger)
UC: Gory Finish, Felling Smash
That's leaving out anything I missed, that the search function didn't pick up, and all the non-PRD sources.
I mean, I would love it if they implemented Avalon's fix, I really would, I just suspect that it's really not going to happen.
(Reposted because the stupid edit timer ran out on me.)
"Attack Action" is an archaic term that is actively avoided by Paizo in all of their newer books precisely because of the confusion it causes.
The problem is that "attack action" has been in the rules so long, they would not only have to fix the Attack Action section, but also change every instance of attack action in all the books since then.
It does not appear as much as one might think.
In fact, in the whole of the Pathfinder line of hardback books, the term "attack action" only shows up 19 times, specifically in the...
- Mounted Skirmisher feat
- Overhand Chop fighter class ability
- Automatic Misses and Hits rule
- Slow Time monk class ability
- Snap Shot rogue talent
- Skirmisher rogue class ability
- Vital Strike line of feats
- Gory Finish feat
- Felling Smash feat
- Sunder combat maneuver (which I believe to be an error)
- Hunter's Tricks rules for ranger
- Gaze Attack universal monster rules
- Performing a Combat Maneuver rules
- Raging Hurler feat
- Sunlight Powerlessness ability of the shadow demon
- Heated Rock ability of the fire giant
- Slime ability of the omox
- Great Cleave feat
- Siege Engine rules for rams
That's 19 times in at least ten books (fully half of which are from the core rulebook). Some of those instances use the term inconsistently.
The term needs to be removed from the system entirely. It was never properly defined in an official source and has only ever caused confusion.
I agree that this is poorly defined, and have marked it for FAQ. However, giving my own personal reading on this:
Weapons Readied against a Charge: Spears, tridents, and other weapons with the brace feature deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.
Is the weapon being readied? Check. Is the creature charging? Check. Given this, I would rule that you can Vital Strike when Bracing, and that bracing is not a separate standard action.