So, as many people point out, the Vital Strike feat, its upgrades, as well as its correlatory feats, are nigh-useless to PCs using them, and one thing that many people state is that the feat chain itself is done quite poorly. I too am in that department, and I am of the belief that the feat chain would be more worthwhile if it were constructed better.
Here is my proposition of how the feat chain should go for both Vital Strike and its sidekick, Devastating Strike:
Vital Strike
When you make an Attack Action at your highest Base Attack Bonus, you may multiply your weapon damage dice by two. When the character reaches Base Attack Bonus +11 and Base Attack Bonus +16, they add an additional multiple to the weapon damage dice.
Improved Vital Strike
The character may now multiply their strength bonus to damage equal to the damage dice multiple when using Vital Strike.
Greater Vital Strike
The character may now multiply all other damage bonuses equal to the damage dice multiple when using Vital Strike.
Devastating Strike
Same as before, however, multiply damage bonus by 50% if using as a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands), and divide damage bonus by 50% if using as a light/off-hand weapon. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
Improved Devastating Strike
Reduce critical confirmation bonus by half, but apply an equal amount of bonus to the attack roll itself. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
Any thoughts as to whether this makes the feat chain too good?
Devastating Strike
Same as before, however, multiply damage bonus by 50% if using as a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands), and divide damage bonus by 50% if using as a light/off-hand weapon. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
I know what you're intending here, but you should reword the percentages for clarity's sake. As written...
Two-handed weapon:
DamageBonus * 50% = DamageBonus * 0.5 = DamageBonus / 2
Light weapon:
DamageBonus / 50% = Damage Bonus / 0.5 = DamageBonus * 2
I suggest using the phrase "increase/decrease the damage bonus by 50%" instead of "multiply".
.
Otherwise, this looks pretty nifty, and I like it. I'd love to hear how it works in actual play, though.
Devastating Strike
Same as before, however, multiply damage bonus by 50% if using as a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands), and divide damage bonus by 50% if using as a light/off-hand weapon. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
I know what you're intending here, but you should reword the percentages for clarity's sake. As written...
Two-handed weapon:
DamageBonus * 50% = DamageBonus * 0.5 = DamageBonus / 2Light weapon:
DamageBonus / 50% = Damage Bonus / 0.5 = DamageBonus * 2I suggest using the phrase "increase/decrease the damage bonus by 50%" instead of "multiply".
.
Otherwise, this looks pretty nifty, and I like it. I'd love to hear how it works in actual play, though.
I suppose it would need re-wording. The normal feat allows you to apply a +2 damage bonus to your total damage dealt when using the Vital Strike feat. What I want the feat to do is stay as is in terms of general mechanics, but to instead apply wielding bonuses/penalties to it like they would for Power Attack; so if I am using a light or off-hand weapon with the Vital Strike feat, it only grants a +1 damage bonus, and if I'm using a two-handed weapon with it, it grants a +3 damage bonus.
The RAW also says the damage scales with an additional 'multiple' when you achieve the Improved and Greater Vital Strike versions. So using the unadjusted version, having an Improved Vital Strike feat upgrades the bonus received from Devastating Strike to +4 normally. With my adjusted version, the damage would increase to +2 for Light/Off-hand, or +6 for Two-handed.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Myth Vital Strike is useless.
Fact Vital Strike is a feat that is not ideal for all characters. This is true for most feats actually. Power Attack and Cleave are useless to my conjuror.
I know the argument against Vital Strike. I just don't see the feat as all that bad. In fact, one of my recent characters made good use of the feat, and I'm planning on giving it to an upcoming character as well.
The character that used Vital Strike was a guisarme-wielding paladin with high Dex and Combat Reflexes. His general strategy was to ready an attack against anyone who approached. That attack was made with Vital Strike. After the readied attack he would step back 5 ft. He would then use his attack of opportunity against the creature who advanced on him. 2 attacks at full BAB, with one attack being Vital Strike. If that creature was a grunt, he usually killed it in one round. And he would still have 3 more attacks of opportunity from his combat reflexes.
I just don't understand the notion that if a feat is not an obvious choice, then it is somehow worthless.
And that character would have done more damage if he'd used a full attack.
Extra damage dice are mostly meaningless - it's the bonus damage that does all the real work.
The ultimate issue is that Vital Strike suffers from not only random number generation (i.e. Damage Dice results), but also the lack of cumulative bonuses that others would normally get from Full Attacks. Vital Strike is great if your only chance to hit is with one hit (which greatly outweighs any Full Attack, though if you can only hit with one single attack, then there is a problem).
My fix is an attempt to close the gap, though I also don't want to make it so that Vital Strike doesn't just outright make Full Attacks useless. With my fix, Vital Strike is now much more useful in that it allows a character more consistent, powerful damage with single attacks, but it is also still weaker than a character who would otherwise make a Full Attack option with Haste.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that character would have done more damage if he'd used a full attack.
Extra damage dice are mostly meaningless - it's the bonus damage that does all the real work.
How would he have done more damage with full attack? He was doing the SAME NUMBER of attacks, but all were made at full BAB. Plus he still had 3 more attacks of opportunity.
Which would you rather have?
Melee guisarme +10/+10 (2d8+10/1d8+10)
OR
Melee guisarme +10/+5 (1d8+10/1d8+10)
The first one is using Vital Strike, the second is full attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that character would have done more damage if he'd used a full attack.
Extra damage dice are mostly meaningless - it's the bonus damage that does all the real work.
The ultimate issue is that Vital Strike suffers from not only random number generation (i.e. Damage Dice results), but also the lack of cumulative bonuses that others would normally get from Full Attacks. Vital Strike is great if your only chance to hit is with one hit (which greatly outweighs any Full Attack, though if you can only hit with one single attack, then there is a problem).
My fix is an attempt to close the gap, though I also don't want to make it so that Vital Strike doesn't just outright make Full Attacks useless. With my fix, Vital Strike is now much more useful in that it allows a character more consistent, powerful damage with single attacks, but it is also still weaker than a character who would otherwise make a Full Attack option with Haste.
This is exactly my point. Vital Strike is intended for characters who are not going to be making full attacks. It is not a feat for the power attacking barbarian with the greatsword standing on the front line. It is a more tactical feat. There is nothing wrong with that. Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are similarly tactical feats that are not recommended for characters who want to full attack. That does not make them worthless.
And that character would have done more damage if he'd used a full attack.
Extra damage dice are mostly meaningless - it's the bonus damage that does all the real work.
How would he have done more damage with full attack? He was doing the SAME NUMBER of attacks, but all were made at full BAB. Plus he still had 3 more attacks of opportunity.
Which would you rather have?
Melee guisarme +10/+10 (2d8+10/1d8+10)
OR
Melee guisarme +10/+5 (1d8+10/1d8+10)
The first one is using Vital Strike, the second is full attack.
How is the first one even viable? Vital Strike only allows a single attack in a given turn, and you can't use it outside your turn. You don't even include other attacks with it. So, excluding Attacks of Opportunity (which, if math was done correctly, would have actually been added to both sides instead of just the one if we are comparing a Full Attack V.S. Vital Strike, both receiving a single Attack of Opportunity), it would go like so, assuming all attacks hit:
+10/+10 (2D8+10/1D8+10)
V.S.
+10/+5/+10 (1D8+10/1D8+10/1D8+10)
Net totals would be as follows:
3D8+20
V.S.
3D8+30
The difference is 10 damage, which is pretty much adding an additional multiple of your generic static bonuses. In a given round, adding up, you're losing out on 10 damage per round, which would equate to 30 damage in a standard 3-round combat.
I will probably take the Vital Strike differences but I think I will leave Devastating Strike and that chain alone. I mean 2H Weapons already get plenty of shiny already.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you read my first post, you will see I explained how he did so. The first attack is a readied action, followed by a 5 ft step. The second attack is an attack of opportunity.
To get a full attack, he would either need to close with the attacking creature or wait for the creature to close. So in two rounds the PC gets 3 attacks and the monster gets 1 or the PC gets 4 attacks and the monster gets 2.
Using his strategy, my PC would, in those two rounds, get 4 attacks to the monster's 2. (On the second round, he would full attack if there was only one monster, or withdraw if there were many, because withdrawing would allow him to get more attacks of opportunity).
You don't need to explain the math to me. I am capable of the calculations. I have done the math. For that character, it was tactically better to use Vital Strike at least once in most combats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly my point. Vital Strike is intended for characters who are not going to be making full attacks. It is not a feat for the power attacking barbarian with the greatsword standing on the front line. It is a more tactical feat. There is nothing wrong with that. Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are similarly tactical feats that are not recommended for characters who want to full attack. That does not make them worthless.And that character would have done more damage if he'd used a full attack.
Extra damage dice are mostly meaningless - it's the bonus damage that does all the real work.
The ultimate issue is that Vital Strike suffers from not only random number generation (i.e. Damage Dice results), but also the lack of cumulative bonuses that others would normally get from Full Attacks. Vital Strike is great if your only chance to hit is with one hit (which greatly outweighs any Full Attack, though if you can only hit with one single attack, then there is a problem).
My fix is an attempt to close the gap, though I also don't want to make it so that Vital Strike doesn't just outright make Full Attacks useless. With my fix, Vital Strike is now much more useful in that it allows a character more consistent, powerful damage with single attacks, but it is also still weaker than a character who would otherwise make a Full Attack option with Haste.
+1
And that's awesome, Darksol. It brings it much closer in line with a normal full attack, without obsoleting it. That's exactly how it should be. Though, for a five feat investment, it should probably be even closer.
I personally think it's close enough. For a character who is making a Full Attack w/ Haste, they get 5 attacks. My adjusted Vital Strike is going to basically amount to a 4/5 Full Attack with much more consistent damage/hits per round, or if they somehow miss their highest attack, would result in a 0 hit, which is going to be very scarce, or because of a very bad roll (1's and 2's, anybody?), which is going to happen here and there.
Full Attacks have a variance of getting 2 to 4 hits, with even 5 being a very generous roll, and/or dependency of target having significantly lower AC.
In addition, taking a character with Furious Focus as two-hander and comparing the two, this now 6-feat investment allows Furious Focus to apply to a net amount of 4 attacks versus with the adjusted Vital Strike, compared to the single attack of a Full Attack character.
Vital Strike is a Fine Feat. But this is perfect for buffing it.
I especially like that, if I am reading it right, it works with the Two-Weapon Warrior's Ability to TWF as a Standard Action.
Vital Strike is a Fine Feat. But this is perfect for buffing it.
I especially like that, if I am reading it right, it works with the Two-Weapon Warrior's Ability to TWF as a Standard Action.
It works for making a single Attack Action. If the Two-Weapon Warrior's feature allows them to make an attack with both weapons with a single Attack Action, that target is going to die quickly...
Are you talking a Standard Attack or just any Standard Action that involves an Attack. Which is what I allow.
Are you talking a Standard Attack or just any Standard Action that involves an Attack. Which is what I allow.
The RAW feat (as well as my adjusted version) lists the Attack Action, a specific Standard Action. If the Two Weapon Warrior can use both weapons on a single attack for an Attack Action, then it would be allowed.
If the special ability does not allow this, then they can only use a single weapon.
This may be too much, I would consider granting half bonus damage per multiplier at the top end. With Full BAB it would become more consistent damage than a full attack routine due to the lack of iterative penalties.
I like your solution trogdar. That sounds like it will be my new house rule. Maybe I'll have it be full bonus damage on the first weapon damage dice though. Thanks! Good discussion guys.
It already has the Full Damage bonus on the First Weapon Damage Dice.
Simple fix - allow Vital Strike damage dice to be allowed to 1st attack (only) in a Full Attack action. There, now VS doesn't suck. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I would change with Vital Strike is allow it to work anytime you can make an attack, such as a on a Charge attack or AOO. I hate that it is a Full-Round action
My simple fix:
Vital Strike Feat Chain: Works on any Action that involves making a single Attack Roll with each weapon wielded. But only on a Single Attack with each Weapon.
This means my TWW wielding Twin Gladius can now use their special class feature to make a TWF Improved Vital Strike for 3d6+X each. or my 2H Fighter can use Great Cleave and Vital Strike on their first Attack then use normal attacks following that. Say I would get three attacks using cleave with my Greatsword that means: 1 at 4d6+X on the first Attack then 2d6 on the following 2 attacks.
@northbrb: It is a Standard Attack Action. Not a Full-Round Action.
Sorry, My bad. but my point still stands lol
How does mine sound?
How does mine sound?
I like yours much better than the original version
:D
Yeah, I would really love to see this function as a modifier of standard attack actions. I don't think getting a Bonus multiplier from another feat as a bad thing though, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
VITAL STRIKE
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefits: When you make only a single attack in a given round (whether in conjunction with normal movement or Spring Attack, at the end of a charge, or simply by voluntarily giving up your other attacks) you gain a +2d6 bonus on damage. This bonus damage is precision-based and is not multiplied on a successful crit.
Notes:
Well, the thing with your fix that I like is that the benefit would apply to all characters using it on an equal level, though that is the original beauty of the feat to begin with; characters using big weapons in one deadly swing would be nigh-equally as effective as a character swinging multiple times with a smaller weapon.
Plus, calling it precision damage would lead to confusion of stackability; take for example, a Rogue with 6D6 Sneak Attack damage, also considered precision damage. Would these two sources of precision damage stack, or since they are the same bonus and damage type, they would not?
I find that the original mechanic isn't an issue, it's how it was fleshed out that poses the problem.
Why not have Vital Strike apply to the first successful attack, each round?
Are you doing away with the BAB requirement?
Does this work on a charge?
Does this work with Spring Attack?
Are you doing away with the BAB requirement?
Does this work on a charge?
Does this work with Spring Attack?
No, No, and No. Vital Strike's current design is to work against extremely high AC opponents with lots of DR. I am simply expanding it as an extra option in comparison to a full attack. Allowing it to work with a Charge (which is broken as is for mounted characters) or a Spring Attack (which is a unique action of itself) defeats the purpose of even having them as standard feats, when at that point you could simply change it to "Improved Vital Strike allowed with a Spring Attack" or "Greater Vital Strike allowed with a Charge."
The whole point of my adjustments is to keep the mechanic concept of Vital Strike the same, but to make it more effective at what it was designed to be: A super powerful attack. Charge and Spring Attack are special actions that involve attacking, but are not of itself a super powerful attack (except mounted charging, in which case why would you make them even more powerful considering the damage they deal is beyond ridiculous as it currently stands?).
My preference on the subject is that Vital Strike should simply be a core ability of all characters.
If you make Vital Strike good enough to be worth taking, then it would practically become a feat tax, so rather than create a feat tax, make it something everyone can do.
Alternatively, and I'd do this in a heartbeat if I had a group willing to give it a shot:
Abolish the "Full Attack Action." Allow people to take all their attacks with a Standard action. Boom! Suddenly mobility is important again, Pounce is a novelty rather than a requirement for serious melee combatants, and melee will keep pace with casters at least in action economy, if nothing else.
Just make it the way a non-full attack works would make it effective then make Devastating Strike and such a optional feat that scales.
Are you doing away with the BAB requirement?
Does this work on a charge?
Does this work with Spring Attack?
No, No, and No. Vital Strike's current design is to work against extremely high AC opponents with lots of DR. I am simply expanding it as an extra option in comparison to a full attack. Allowing it to work with a Charge (which is broken as is for mounted characters) or a Spring Attack (which is a unique action of itself) defeats the purpose of even having them as standard feats, when at that point you could simply change it to "Improved Vital Strike allowed with a Spring Attack" or "Greater Vital Strike allowed with a Charge."
The whole point of my adjustments is to keep the mechanic concept of Vital Strike the same, but to make it more effective at what it was designed to be: A super powerful attack. Charge and Spring Attack are special actions that involve attacking, but are not of itself a super powerful attack (except mounted charging, in which case why would you make them even more powerful considering the damage they deal is beyond ridiculous as it currently stands?).
I'm not asking you to do any of these things. I'm just pointing out that your description doesn't mention them, in any way.
Perhaps it should. Saves me the trouble of trying to figure out what you 'meant'. I'd honestly have guessed maybe, no, and yes from your text.
So, as many people point out, the Vital Strike feat, its upgrades, as well as its correlatory feats, are nigh-useless to PCs using them, and one thing that many people state is that the feat chain itself is done quite poorly. I too am in that department, and I am of the belief that the feat chain would be more worthwhile if it were constructed better.
Here is my proposition of how the feat chain should go for both Vital Strike and its sidekick, Devastating Strike:
Vital Strike
When you make an Attack Action at your highest Base Attack Bonus, you may multiply your weapon damage dice by two. When the character reaches Base Attack Bonus +11 and Base Attack Bonus +16, they add an additional multiple to the weapon damage dice.Improved Vital Strike
The character may now multiply their strength bonus to damage equal to the damage dice multiple when using Vital Strike.
Greater Vital Strike
The character may now multiply all other damage bonuses equal to the damage dice multiple when using Vital Strike.
Devastating Strike
Same as before, however, multiply damage bonus by 50% if using as a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands), and divide damage bonus by 50% if using as a light/off-hand weapon. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
Improved Devastating Strike
Reduce critical confirmation bonus by half, but apply an equal amount of bonus to the attack roll itself. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
Any thoughts as to whether this makes the feat chain too good?
How would the math work if you made it one extra dice at maximum? You only get one attack but ... It would be, say, 1d8+8 plus bonuses?
So, as many people point out, the Vital Strike feat, its upgrades, as well as its correlatory feats, are nigh-useless to PCs using them, and one thing that many people state is that the feat chain itself is done quite poorly. I too am in that department, and I am of the belief that the feat chain would be more worthwhile if it were constructed better.
Here is my proposition of how the feat chain should go for both Vital Strike and its sidekick, Devastating Strike:
Vital Strike
When you make an Attack Action at your highest Base Attack Bonus, you may multiply your weapon damage dice by two. When the character reaches Base Attack Bonus +11 and Base Attack Bonus +16, they add an additional multiple to the weapon damage dice.Improved Vital Strike
The character may now multiply their strength bonus to damage equal to the damage dice multiple when using Vital Strike.
Greater Vital Strike
The character may now multiply all other damage bonuses equal to the damage dice multiple when using Vital Strike.
Devastating Strike
Same as before, however, multiply damage bonus by 50% if using as a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands), and divide damage bonus by 50% if using as a light/off-hand weapon. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
Improved Devastating Strike
Reduce critical confirmation bonus by half, but apply an equal amount of bonus to the attack roll itself. Bonus scales based on additional multiples of weapon damage dice.
Any thoughts as to whether this makes the feat chain too good?
How would the math work if you made it one extra dice at maximum? You only get one attack but ... It would be, say, 1d8+8 plus bonuses?
With that subject, it would make huge damage dice creatures more powerful than it should be. Taking a creature that does 4D8, it's 4D8 + 96 + X, which can be outright insane, even for a 20th level PC on a given single hit; a critical would probably outright kill any PC (assuming X3 multiplier). While it scales more in line with the crazy mounted charge benefits, those benefits are fairly difficult to stack in comparison to this method, making the opposing methods obsolete.
The idea is to make Vital Strike more competitive and ultimately more viable for PC's, not to make it a "Who's Weapon is Bigger?" Contest.
My own suggestion to fix Vital Strike is much simpler: Each iteration grants you +2d6 damage, regardless of what weapon you use.
That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own suggestion to fix Vital Strike is much simpler: Each iteration grants you +2d6 damage, regardless of what weapon you use.
That's it.
From a couple of posts above:
VITAL STRIKE
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefits: When you make only a single attack in a given round (whether in conjunction with normal movement or Spring Attack, at the end of a charge, or simply by voluntarily giving up your other attacks), you gain a +2d6 bonus on damage. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a successful crit.
If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher, the bonus damage increases to 4d6.
If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, the bonus damage increases to 6d6.
I disagree the only time vital strike is of any use is whilst wielding an impact greatsword whilst enlarged (4d6x), or whilst using the right kind of wild shape with the the strong jaw spell and improved natural attack(12d8x). So your alteration makes an already suboptimal feat even more so.My own suggestion to fix Vital Strike is much simpler: Each iteration grants you +2d6 damage, regardless of what weapon you use.
That's it.
I disagree with your disagreement. The problem is that Vital Strike is often underpowered (only an extra 1d4 with a dagger) or rarely over-powered (extra 4d8 on a dragon's bite). It's not consistent. A straight dice bonus makes it much more amenable across the board.
Vital Strike is not, so far as I can tell, intended to make you abandon all your iterative attacks for one big strike, it's there to make you more effective when you have to move (I'd make it applicable on a charge, too). However, not everyone plays enlarged greatsword-wielding fighters. The ones who NEED a damage boost are often those that gain the least from VS.
Hmm.
Vital Strikes
You may make 3 additional combat actions:
Total Attack: You may take a -4 AC penalty for a +2 to hit. If you have at least 3 Ranks in Jump, this AC penalty is -3. This is the reverse of Defensive Fighting.
One Attack: Whenever you make a full attack, you may give up your iterative attacks (if any) to gain a +2 bonus on AC, to-hit or the saving throw of your choice. This bonus increases by +1 for each iterative attack you lose. (and this makes Vital Strike useful at level 1!)
Strike at the Vitals: You may make a single attack as a part of a standard action or charge (but not a Pounce), including a Spring Attack. For each iterative attack you have past the 1st, you do an additional +2d6 damage (+2d6 at 6 BAB, +4d6 at 11 BAB, etc).
If you are a Fighter, you may add your damage from Weapon Specialization to each +2d6.
Improved Vital Strike
BAB+6, Req: Vital Strike
You may add the Enhancement bonus to damage from your weapon to each +2d6 from Striking at the Vitals.
If you have the Improved Critical feat for your weapon, your weapon increases its threat range by one additional increment for each +2d6 of Vital Strike damage.
If you are a Fighter, you may add your weapon training bonus to each +2d6 of damage.
I am staying away from using +Str to damage because too many people rely on stats, and stats get rapidly out of control. It's much easier to rely on fixed bonuses that cannot exceed given limits.
I give Fighters extra because I believe Fighters should get more out of Feats then other classes.
Kirth has the +2d6 perfectly...Vital Strike is of equal benefit to everyone, not just those with monstrously huge main attacks.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Vital Strike is that bad. It's not a super great feat, but it is good for some situations.
As an example of how hard it is to write such a feat correctly, OP, your suggested feat text is a huge gift to ranged combat characters, who may now apply their strength bonus to attacks that didn't allow it previously. :)
As an example of how hard it is to write such a feat correctly, OP, your suggested feat text is a huge gift to ranged combat characters, who may now apply their strength bonus to attacks that didn't allow it previously. :)
Incorrect. The wording is "The character may now multiply their strength bonus to damage..."
When using, say, a Crossbow, you have no strength bonus to damage, so 0x2=0.
As an example of how hard it is to write such a feat correctly, OP, your suggested feat text is a huge gift to ranged combat characters, who may now apply their strength bonus to attacks that didn't allow it previously. :)Incorrect. The wording is "The character may now multiply their strength bonus to damage..."
When using, say, a Crossbow, you have no strength bonus to damage, so 0x2=0.
But thrown weapons, slings and mighty composite bows do.