No, you would still suck if you did that.
Because you'd be making one attack instead of a bunch and your weapon damage die is such an insignificant part of your overall damage, adding another one is like emptying a bottle of water into the ocean.
Spring Attack, Vital Strike, Monks, even Dex based fighters that aren't Dervish Dancing or using an Agile weapon--they all suck. Combining multiple sucky things still sucks.
|
Because you'd be making one attack instead of a bunch and your weapon damage die is such an insignificant part of your overall damage, adding another one is like emptying a bottle of water into the ocean.
But sometimes it's beneficial to have "hit and run" tactics and it also goes with the concept of the character. A rapier wielding "swashbuckler" type fighter would be brilliant for this type of thing. I wouldn't imagine them just standing there trading blows with a monster.
The only class that would have it work for them arguably would be the rogue/ninja. The extra dice help, especially if you are a skirmisher/knife master.
Then each of those feats would potentially be worth taking.
It would be a happy day if they worked together. Still wouldn't be a great choice most of the time, but would open up a lot of options. There might be some other "Standard Action Attack" ability that could be abused, but I none come to mind. Most of those are so awful as to make Vital Strike look really awesome by comparison.
The only class that would have it work for them arguably would be the rogue/ninja. The extra dice help, especially if you are a skirmisher/knife master.
The extra dice from vital strike are even less helpful to people with small weapons (like a knife master) than they are to those with big ones. Sneak Attack characters totally rely on multiple attacks, though. Spring Attacking for Sneak Attack damage is a joke.
Hit and run characters are defensive builds. They exist to avoid full attacks and retaliatory strikes. They get in chip away at an opponent and then move away so opponents can't full attack.
If people start letting go of DPS as the only viable strategy they'll see the game is full of great options.
I don't think DPS is the only viable strategy at all. I just don't see how this helps you.
When you Spring Attack, you attack them once and they attack you once. Without Spring Attack, you attack them with a full attack and they attack you with a full attack. There's no difference there except in the number of rounds it takes for combat to end.
There are dozens of better defensive builds, in fact. Just being a ranged attacker and staying far away, casting control spells and staying out of reach, etc. Vital Strike is garbage--the opportunity cost is too high because of all the good feats you could be taking instead. Even if it did work with Spring Attack, it still wouldn't be worth taking.
|
|
When you Spring Attack, you attack them once and they attack you once. Without Spring Attack, you attack them with a full attack and they attack you with a full attack. There's no difference there except in the number of rounds it takes for combat to end.
More to it than that. "Spring Attack" can force a creature to end up stepping through someone elses square drawing AoO etc in order to get to you.
More to it than that. "Spring Attack" can force a creature to end up stepping through someone elses square drawing AoO etc in order to get to you.
Why would they chase you down, then, if there were other targets they could go after?
I could see it being fun with some kind of half-orc rogue or ninja with a greataxe and spring attack+vital strike. I agree that I can't think of anything super powerful you could do with the combo, but there would be some fun shticks for sure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More to it than that. "Spring Attack" can force a creature to end up stepping through someone elses square drawing AoO etc in order to get to you.Why would they chase you down, then, if there were other targets they could go after?
Then congratulations you dealt more damage to your opponent then they dealt to you! Your defensive build WORKED!
Actually, it was your assumption that they would chase you down. No one else mentioned it.
In my limited experience, a squishy character can contribute by chipping away at the monster while the tank stands toe-to-toe with it. Or it can be used to position a character for a flank by Spring Attacking to get past the creature, then stepping up next round to set up the flank for their ally.
As far as I know, Spring Attack in 3.5 allowed you to do anything you could normally do as an "attack action" in the middle of your move and the sky didn't implode. Like everyone says, you're giving up iteratives for a single attack per round. It's situational, sure, but it would make you feel better about your 3 feat investment (or your monk's bonus feat + high movement rate) if you could Spring Cleave, Spring Vital Strike, or Spring Pick Up That Thing Over There.
|
|
Actually, it was your assumption that they would chase you down. No one else mentioned it.
In my limited experience, a squishy character can contribute by chipping away at the monster while the tank stands toe-to-toe with it. Or it can be used to position a character for a flank by Spring Attacking to get past the creature, then stepping up next round to set up the flank for their ally.
That's right, it's called team work not Rockem Sockem Robots.
They are both good feats in their own right.
Vital Strike is great for Action Economy, in that it helps you make a Full Attack without really making a Full Attack. On top of this, it greatly helps reduce the effectiveness of DR on creatures, since multiple attacks would have multiple DR applications to the overall damage you deal. It also synergizes quite well with Power Attack and Furious Focus. It's certainly a lot better than getting Penetrating Strike and its upgrades...
Spring Attack is a good tactical feat; hit and run is what it's all about, because that's how the feat is designed. It's nice in that you can chip away at a single target without much consequence. It's not so good in that its defensive tactics only apply to a single target, meaning if you're getting swarmed, this may not be a good (or even viable) tactic to use. (It'd be Cleave time then.)
I can find much worse feats to pick than these 2 *cough*Whirlwind Attack*cough*, and combining them would make that single tactic that much more powerful. Almost devastating, even.
I wished they worked together also. I think it would be good for a class like the shadowdancer.
I could see it working with the Skulking Slayer/Scout rogue, but even then there are so many better ways to get a free sneak attack.
If they worked together you would see more mobility builds in peoples' games.
Personally, I think that the absolute worst thing you could do when picking feats is to not take the rest of your party into consideration. Depending on your abilities and the abilities of other party members, any feat's usefulness changes. In the case of Spring Attack, you could have a party with a Rogue in it.
In an example encounter, you're in a group that happens to include a Rogue. For whatever reason, he's unable to flank anything to Sneak Attack, and you're seperated from him, with the only way to meet up with him to flank someone is through the threatened area of an Orc for argument's sake. For whatever reason, you don't want to risk an AoO. Maybe the orc is a Barbarian who's currently raging, and one good hit can knock you down. Normally, you'd be SOL. As it turns out, however, you took Spring Attack, despite people on the forums telling you it was a bad idea. So, you Spring Attack past the Orc, giving him a nick in passing out of spite, and set yourself up on the other side of another monster, just within 5 feet of the Rogue. The Rogue's turn comes along, he five-foot-steps to the monster, and stabs it a half-dozen times with Sneak Attack damage, completely destroying it. You're also both now in position to do the same to the Orc if he decides to pursue you.
Basically, what I'm saying is, NOTHING is truly useless, unless the party dynamic and the campaign set-up make it so.
P.S.: Vital Strike is awesome with Power Attack+Furious Focus. :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it would allow classes that don't have the ac to stay in melee, to still contribute. it would be a very good combo if you were planning on taking dodge and mobility already.
the developers themselves said " maybe we made vital strike to restricting." i think it would be a great addition to the game, and make spring attack a good choice for a feat build.
Darkstar, only the creature you are making an attack on is unable to make an Attack of Opportunity from you when using Spring Attack. All other creatures provoke as normal, meaning that Orc guy is going to still get his attack on you.
@ Jupp: I think Vital Strike should apply as par of an attack action, whereas Spring Attack would be a special attack action, as far as combining it is concerned.
If you allowed these feats to work together, cats and dogs would sleep together. Paizo's secret ninja rules enforcement police would make you disappear. Libertarians and Progressives would take control of Congress and bipartisan cooper...oh, who am I kidding?
I've allowed Vital Strike and its follow-ons to work in any situation where you'd ordinarily only get to make a single attack roll. Including with Spring Attack. It's scary, but nowhere near as hideously bad for game balance as, say, a Gunslinger with Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots unloading full attacks versus touch AC.
vital strike is viable for monks I believe. They struggle with DR and have very large damage dice pools. I think with the right combination of size enhancing spells (like lead blades) you would have a good damage contribution. I think you would need a dip into a full bab class to get the last tier though.
If you allowed these feats to work together, cats and dogs would sleep together. Paizo's secret ninja rules enforcement police would make you disappear. Libertarians and Progressives would take control of Congress and bipartisan cooper...oh, who am I kidding?
I've allowed Vital Strike and its follow-ons to work in any situation where you'd ordinarily only get to make a single attack roll. Including with Spring Attack. It's scary, but nowhere near as hideously bad for game balance as, say, a Gunslinger with Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots unloading full attacks versus touch AC.
For some reason I thought that feat only applied to bows.
Hmmm..noted.
Vital Strike is flawed and poorly implemented in every possible way. Not being compatible with Spring Attack is but one of its problems.
Even if they worked together, the obvious intent would be for a skirmisher type to use the feats, but those characters tend to have lighter, lower base damage weapons. Vital Strike rewards big honkin' clubs and giant natural weapons. The feat would remain best for a Druid, druid's animal companion, or Synthesist/Eidolon, anyone that can get their base weapon damage super high with Imp. Natural Attack and Strong Jaw.
I suggested long ago to base VS damage on the user's base attack bonus, with a cap to the max possible damage bonus to help keep it from getting too obscene with "piles of HD" monsters. But this suggestion was ignored.
VS: +1 per BAB; max +10 (at BAB +10)
Imp. VS: +2 per BAB; max +30 (at BAB +15)
Greater VS: +3 per BAB; max +60 (at BAB +20)
....or make it 1x, 1.5x, and 2x for the multipliers if you think those damages are too high, I think it's fine that way.
With a note that the damage is never multiplied (just like current VS rules state) and that it can be combined with Spring Attack.
@SotS: I'm not going to argue the "intent" of the Vital Strike feat, since the "intent" of the feat can have multiple interpretations, many of which may differ from yours. I listed mine in my first post, in that it's great for the action economy, and that it helps in overcoming multiple DR applications that would normally apply to Full Attacks, functioning even better than the Penetrating Strike feats (which are garbage in comparison, by the way).
The issue is that people try to limit the feat to what the RAW says, and don't expand upon what the RAW doesn't list. I wouldn't say it's "poorly implemented" at all. It's not optimally implemented, because if it was, Mounted Lance + Charge + Vital Strike = thousands of points of damage, and lots o' dice being rolled.
Because you'd be making one attack instead of a bunch and your weapon damage die is such an insignificant part of your overall damage, adding another one is like emptying a bottle of water into the ocean.
Spring Attack, Vital Strike, Monks, even Dex based fighters that aren't Dervish Dancing or using an Agile weapon--they all suck. Combining multiple sucky things still sucks.
True, but for a two handed fighter with a greatsword it makes a good combo along with the cleaving finish feat line. Cleaving finish triggers WHENEVER you drop an opponent to 0 which means off a charge attack or EVEN a vital strike. Why is it that spring attack doesn't work with Vital strike? not sure that is correct information there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Da--it! knew I should have shut up. Spring attack is a full round action,and to quote Chris Griffon"THAT-SUUUUUCKS!!"
For a Greatsword user, Vital Strike still only adds 7 average damage. That's pretty terrible to rely on. It's a consolation prize at best. See, the trick is, nobody should want to Vital Strike. Everyone should be trying to make full attacks as often as possible.
You only make Standard Action attacks when you absolutely have to. So the decision to take Vital Strike is basically weighing the amount of time you spend stuck taking standard action attacks (typically, that's not very often) and the paltry benefit it gives you in those situations against every other feat ever that might help more and more often.
It's just not a great feat, and combining it with Spring Attack won't change that.
I've heard the argument thoough that a good GM playing high level monsters to their fullest tactically will only be allowing a fighter one attack, so why not greater vital strike with power attack at that point? still better also since its at highest base meaning better chance of hitting. I don't hink vital strike line is bad depending on how a GM plays the opposition. Sure if they stand toe to toe get more to hit bonus and cream them with full attacks. If the GM is tactical and won't give you the opportunity then Vital strike is an option to consider.Let's not forget that the extra damage can help against damage reduction so lets not be so quick to dismiss it just because you don't get the modifiers for 2or 3 attacks. If you focus on one big hit and not missing 2 or 3 times per full attack, it works.
If you're stuck with a standard action attack every round, then yeah, why not have it? But I severely doubt being limited like that is common enough to warrant three feats, nevermind one.
If your GM is different, then sure, take it. But if he's limiting fighters to 1 attack, whether they have Greater Vital Strike or not, he's basically saying, "non-casters need not apply to my game," so you'd still be better off not taking Vital Strike if only because you're better off not playing a melee-type.
I kind of agree, I simply feel that some GM's like to play intelligent, mobile opposition and the line could work in that case. If you can get full attacks and still hit with the lower bonuses then go for that.
Vital Strike is a bad feat and doesn't scale well without requiring further investment in a bad feat.
It's inferior in every way to a full attack and isn't worth the resource cost in terms of feats in order to make it somewhat worthwhile.
The only thing it's really good for is giving it to really big monsters that don't have a ton of natural attacks. A Tyrannosaurus with vital strike is somewhat scary.
It's just such a half-hearted fix to the fighter mobility issue that it's depressing that people still invest feat choices pursuing it.
Hey, I just noticed that they removed the "can't perform a Spring Attack in medium or heavy armor" restriction in Pathfinder. Now it seems that Spring Attack is a feat that I would consider taking for a glaive wielding Fighter with Stand Still.
I don't think I would ever take Vital Strike even if it worked with Spring Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if you did that the very first thing I'd do would be to congratulate you on moving past "Pure RAW, All The Time".
The second thing would be to link this post by Jason talking about why he did it originally, and perhaps more importantly, him talking about how it's probably too restrictive.
I suggested long ago to base VS damage on the user's base attack bonus, with a cap to the max possible damage bonus to help keep it from getting too obscene with "piles of HD" monsters. But this suggestion was ignored.
Oooh, do you still have a link to that suggestion, or would you be able to dig it up? I'd like to see the discussion it generated.
For a Greatsword user, Vital Strike still only adds 7 average damage. That's pretty terrible to rely on. It's a consolation prize at best. See, the trick is, nobody should want to Vital Strike. Everyone should be trying to make full attacks as often as possible.
You only make Standard Action attacks when you absolutely have to. So the decision to take Vital Strike is basically weighing the amount of time you spend stuck taking standard action attacks (typically, that's not very often) and the paltry benefit it gives you in those situations against every other feat ever that might help more and more often.
It's just not a great feat, and combining it with Spring Attack won't change that.
ONLY adds 7 average damage? How much do you want for one feat? And before you mention deadly aim and power attack, those are still only +2/+3 every 4 levels at best, I'm not going to count their maximum potential in one lump sum.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike is a bit of a "consolation prize" feat for when you have to move during a round. It's nice on the the first round of combat and not much after - kind of like Improved Initiative that way. I've gotten use out of it in a "I have it, so might as well use it since I can't full attack anyway" sense. I don't think that one should construct a build around it, that doesn't seem to be what it's for. It's not a bad choice at fighter 7, before your start getting to the juicy +8 BAB and higher feats.
Our group has always allowed Vital Strike to work with any single attack and it hasn't been a problem, however.
It can be a very strong monster feat - 10d6 eye beam with Vital Strike = 20d6 eye beam, yes please.
ONLY adds 7 average damage? How much do you want for one feat?
The value of the feat needs to be measured in one of two ways:
1) How much does it add vs. making a full attack (hint: everyone's full attack should deal at least 7 damage more than their standard action attack). If it increases your damage by a significant amount, it may be worth taking and using often, even when you're not forced to.
2) How often will it be used given the above comparison? In most games, you'll use this maybe, at most, once per fight. Is 7 damage once per fight worth it? Not to me it's not (and that's even counting the best base damage weapon in the game).
Vital Strike ultimately ends up a feat for animals with very few natural attacks to take, and that's about it.
In comparison to what is the average damage on a full attack run when you get 3+ attacks the impact of vital strike is pretty minor. You certainly would never want to use vital strike when you could full attack except in rare circumstances when opposition DR is simply too hard to bypass and generally those situations mean you are heavily outclassed anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, the feat was never meant to replace full-attacking. As ryric stated, it's meant to be for when you have to move around. If your battles are the set-piece slug'em brawls where everyone just stands still and full-attacks, it won't be too useful.
If your battles are more dynamic and involve a lot of moving around, it's a decent feat to pick. The average player won't have Pounce, but this lets them do a bit more damage.
It just seems like a poor substitute for pounce and pounce like abilities which just creates a massive bridge between the pounce capable archetypes and those that don't get a way to get pounce.
As it is it just seems like you should either go with a pounce build or build an archer build if you are going to want consistent DPR round after round.
|
|
Vital Strike is a bad feat and doesn't scale well without requiring further investment in a bad feat.
It's inferior in every way to a full attack and isn't worth the resource cost in terms of feats in order to make it somewhat worthwhile.
Your mistake is comparing "Vital Strike" to a full attack. Vital strike isn't supposed to take the place of a full attack when you have three or more attacks. It is for classes that rely on hit and run tactics.
Edit: Ninja'd
|
|
The issue with a defensive build is that you get ignored in favor of your higher dps allies.Hit and run characters are defensive builds. They exist to avoid full attacks and retaliatory strikes. They get in chip away at an opponent and then move away so opponents can't full attack.
If people start letting go of DPS as the only viable strategy they'll see the game is full of great options.
All depends on what you are fighting.