|
Vital Strike is a very real feat for druids, dragons, and anything else with Flyby Attack. Just because it's not good for everyone doesn't mean it's no good at all. Power Attack isn't all that great for rogues either, doesn't make it a bad feat though.
And I don't think it's "the GM screwing you" if enemies won't line up nicely to be Full-Attacked. Presumably they're also scattering to avoid lining up for the AoE spells. That's just a difference in NPC tactics (between "suicide" and "at least trying"). Full attacks are nice, but I think it's unhealthy to assume they're the vast majority of all attacks.
The "winding caverns" scenario isn't a GM singling out fighters either; it's much harder on archers or wizards actually, since they can just give up on LoS/LoE at all. It's actually the dream environment of melee characters.
Cavalry skirmishes on the wide open plains are indeed an archer's wet dream, but less joyful for the wizard who notices none of the enemies are within 30ft of each other. The fighter just runs around picking them off one by one, and vital strike means he does adequately.
In the forest, VS functions too; you'll often have to make turns, straight charges are hard. LoE/LoS is blocked by trees after a while, so the archer and wizard constantly need to move. And worry about forest fires.
So I think VS can be an analogy for fighters as a whole: not the absolute best for any given situation, but it increases the range of situations in which you're useful. VS is for when Full Attack isn't possible (instead of crying that the GM is screwing you).
---
And the Arsinoitherium druid. That's just horrible.
Vital Strike is a very real feat for druids, dragons, and anything else with Flyby Attack. Just because it's not good for everyone doesn't mean it's no good at all.
That's fair. I thought I mentioned it was good for big natural attacks?
Power Attack isn't all that great for rogues either, doesn't make it a bad feat though.
Power Attack is good for everyone that uses a weapon in two hands.
And I don't think it's "the GM screwing you" if enemies won't line up nicely to be Full-Attacked.
Not lining up and "never getting a full attack" are very different things.
Full attacks are nice, but I think it's unhealthy to assume they're the vast majority of all attacks.
Then the core rules of 3rd edition D&D, which Pathfinder is built upon, are unhealthy. I'm not really going to disagree with you here--like I said, I really dislike that you have to stay still to use all your attacks, since those attacks are the only thing keeping you remotely viable.
The "winding caverns" scenario isn't a GM singling out fighters either; it's much harder on archers or wizards actually, since they can just give up on LoS/LoE at all. It's actually the dream environment of melee characters.
Yeah, because they can always get full attacks by 5 foot stepping through the winding cavern.
it increases the range of situations in which you're useful.
It really doesn't, though. It just slightly reduces how crappy you are in situations where you can't full attack. But, well, you're still crappy, just less so.
If Vital Strike just let you deal double damage, I'd agree it was useful to Fighters. The vast majority of damage is dealt by static mods, not weapon dice. Doubling the weapon dice is like giving the guy whose arm was cut off a tube of neosporin. It's almost more of an insult in the long run.
Power Attack is good for everyone that uses a weapon in two hands.
>> Disagree. Twohanders love it, but one-handers with shield love it too, as they can output more damage.
Because they can always get full attacks by 5 foot stepping through the winding cavern.
>> Yes, moving 50 feet per minute. Man, are those monks going to laugh their asses off. No too mention in a fight.
It just slightly reduces how crappy you are in situations where you can't full attack. But, well, you're still crappy, just less so.
>> Isn't that the meaning of feats?
>> Fighter with +2 reflex gets Lightning reflexes for +4. He is LESS SUCKY at dodging than before?
If Vital Strike just let you deal double damage, I'd agree it was useful to Fighters.
>> Than it would be a must-have... But I fail to see that VS is the DIRECT opposite? It's nice, but not a must-have, and definitely not a trap-feat.
I can see it going like in a tournament.
First round you size up, and then you start clobbering. Some use a lot of quick attacks, some prefer only hard-hitting attacks..
And some like to diferentiate.
Whatever floats your boat, but it's not a trap-feat. My player with a vital striking greatsword fighter is really looking forward to the 3* weapon dice portion. He loves to smash things in the face, even when they acrobaticed 10 feet away from him...
Catch phrase: "Guess again!"
it increases the range of situations in which you're useful.It really doesn't, though. It just slightly reduces how crappy you are in situations where you can't full attack. But, well, you're still crappy, just less so.
It's a terrible idea to build all your feats around being awesome in one specific situation. That type of build is probably the number one cause of strife between GMs and players. And "being able to full attack" is a very specific situation. Most individual enemies you face are lucky to last one round if your group is focus firing, which they should be unless they really love blowing all their healing spells every fight. So unless they line up neatly in a row, good luck with your full attacks.
Here's what Vital Strike should do:
1) At level 1, it allows you to make a Full Attack with bonuses. I suggest +2 to AC, To-hit, or to a single save class of your choice.
This bonus increases by +1 per iterative attack you are allowed. So at BAB +6 it would be +3, +11 is +4, +16 is +5, etc. YOu only get the one attack on the full attack action, but it's a very good attack.
So, at levels 1-5, you can move and hit, or full attack and get a +2 bonus on your one attack.
It auto scales and adds the extra dice on each instance you take a single attack instead of a full attack.
Thus, your options are now: Vital Strike for extra dice and move; Vital Strike, 5'step, and gain +3 to something; or make a full attack.
Fighters add Weapon Training and Weapon Spec to the dice of damage.
Improved Vital Strike: Vital Strike works with cleave, spring attack, charges, whirlwind attack, although only the first hit.
ANd done. Now it's useful at ALL levels, it scales, and fighters get more out of it then other classes, totally appropriate for a feat.
==Aelryinth
I think it's fair enough for fighters to take Vital Strike, given that they're drowning in feats. It's not optimal, but only so many optimal feats can exist: And what is optimal depends on build. In this case, if you're a fighter with big base damage dice and feats you haven't dedicated, maybe this is worth your time. Maybe. Although I haven't tested this, I doubt it's worth it unless you have at least a d10 weapon. I suspect that other martial characters will find the feat tree far too costly for its benefit.
It does have lots of competition, that's for sure. Druids, alchemists, and monks can get pounce. Oracles of battle can get a free move a few times a day. Anybody with teleportation spells can follow the Dimensional feat tree. Any character can use a mount, lance and follow the very-powerful mounted combat line which gives full attacks good competition; or any of these mounted characters can take mounted skirmisher so they can keep on Full Attacking after approaching.
There are a few fighter archetypes that get competitive abilities, too. The Free Hand Fighter can combine a Full Attack with a move; later he makes Full Attacks or Whirlwind Attacks as standard actions. The rough rider can make a full attack after moving his mount and dismounting; later he can make a full attack with each attack at any point during the move (without dismounting). It may not be an amazing option, but the Two-weapon warrior can make an attack with both his weapons as a Standard action. It's not four times your damage dice, sure -- but at least you get your static bonuses twice to make up for it.
And a quick runner's shirt can help anybody get full attacks, just once per day but cheaply.
I think a lot of this comes down to how people value abilities. Some people see that Vital Strike isn't the best thing that can be taken, and so as far as they're concerned, that means it's bad. Some of these people have a sense of balance that isn't bipolar, but for the others, the scale only consists of 'optimal' and 'terrible'.
I have a decent amount of sympathy for it -- I don't like players taking a feat and then feeling cheated by it. I recently had this experience with a tower shield.
It does seem Vital Strike could be beefed up. Vital Strike was one of the founding elements of the Pathfinder system when James started working on it -- we didn't have pouncing druids, barbarians, alchemists and synthesists. The game has changed a lot around them, the way a lot of the 3.0 material aged as 3.5 marched forward. I'd like to see it do what it does with fewer feats, or be combined with more actions. Its effectiveness works a lot more for niche characters than it appears. But I don't know if we'll see errata, the release of new Vital feats to set it back in line, if they'll just re-release it in a new edition -- or if we'll never see it changed at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike is a feat I rarely take at level 6. Typically I save it for Level 7 and have Furious Focus. This means when I have to move my Greatsword Wielder can Strike with both Vital Strike and Power Attack with out penalty.
|
|
I still don't agree that full attacks are "the standard" and that if they're not happening regularly you're being treated unfairly.
FAs do a lot of damage, so intelligent enemies should be avoiding situations that let you FA. So VS helps if the enemy is effectively dodging your attempts to set up FA.
The point of VS is not to make FA obsolete or to be just as good. It's about making the best of a poor situation. It's about having a backup plan if the FA plan isn't going to work.
The only "advanced tactics" that make vital strike worthless are the tactics of whining to the GM until he makes enemies tailor-made for you, or, apparently, making the rest of the party into your servants. I know a lot of people who play wizards, and none of them want to spend their time as a g@!+~%n taxi service. Maybe it would work out on paper for them to do that, but if I suggested in game "hey, enough with the fireballs, shuttle me around for the rest of this fight" that would be the end of me in that group.
Please, we can do without the condescending "glad you are enjoying it" when you started off insulting me.
|
|
I don't think I'd go further than VS itself, but I do think that's worthwhile. One feat for +2d6 damage in a situation that occurs fairly frequently. I think that's okay; not great, but not bad.
I agree that a wizard probably wants to set up fighter+enemies so that the fighter can neatly FA his way through their ranks, but I'm not sure that's reliable enough that the fighter will have a FA every round. And if the wizard is busy handling some other problem, it's nice if the fighter can function on his own merits.
I also think there can be applications if your tactic is to hit, then move away so that the enemy doesn't get a FA against you. VS will help you improve damage, which was kinda low since you're not FA-ing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's good from 7-11, and retains usefulness if you can increase your attacking size.
See, if you are casting Lead Blades and getting ENlarged, now your Vital Strike is kicking in 4-24. If your Weapon is Heavy and already hits as one size larger, it's kicking in 6-36. If you use Giant Form to reach size H, it's kicking in 8-48.
Vital Strike scales by SIZE, not by level directly. So, if you have the tools to get bigger, Vital Strike can be really good. Not as good as full attacks, but still good. YOu start missing the fixed damage of a full attack less when your additional dice are that numerous.
==Aelryinth
Funny you mention that... 7 Damage was the difference between my Fighter Player dropping a Dragon to -1 or leaving it at 6 HP on his Standard Attack. The situation was bad enough that he couldn't have gotten a Full-Attack.
Then what can shore up the low frequency of full attacks? And something that can work without requiring a certain Archetype or jumping through hoops.
Ooh! I like open-ended questions. Well, Stealth and/or Invisibility, and Improved Initiative. A quickrunner's shirt. Step Up and Strike. Improved Trip or Stand Still, preferably with a reach weapon, but you might be able to do it with a regular weapon if you can frequently create Difficult Terrain.
Off the top of my head. Of course, there will be people complaining at the idea of trying to use combat maneuvers.
Step Up and Strike only works if they take a 5-Foot Step. Quickrunner's Shirt is up to GM interpretation.
All of these require major Jumping through hoops. Either through WBL or Feat Chains with Prerequisites that are usually not met on your average Martial Build. Stealth typically requires major Skill Investment and then if you are in heavier armour you will suffer.
Invisibility requires a spell that casters might not have. Improved Initiative is the only easy to acquire. And it is the Easiest to counter.
The problem with full attacks is rarely about an enemy getting away, it's usually that individual enemies die too fast. I think nobody expects a single feat to make a standard action the exact equivalent of a full-round action without any additional penalty. I think they expect it's more practical than having a party member who gives up on the vast array of useful damage and control options open to him in favor of making sure that another player does a few more points of damage. If anything is a "trap" in Pathfinder, it's expecting every scenario to allow your character to be 100% effective every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will take my Vital Strike Fighter over most other builds any day. Why? Because I know I can still get some respectable damage regardless of whether I can get planted for my FA or not.
And the funny thing is the 4 Feats I use for the Vital Strike Line with Devastating Strike are usually well within my "buffer" feat allotment.
Heck I have a fighter where I took Toughness just to fill an empty slot in the progression.
My NPC mobs, human and otherwise use vital strike all the time. Works great there. Damage gets spikey, lets my NPCs be mobile and makes for dramatic moments at time.You send mobs of Humans after the PCs? Do you use a swarm template of sorts?
By "spikey" do you mean piercing? That sentence makes no sense.
This was sort of answered already but I thought I would give some additional clarification.
Mob - What this means is Mobile Object.
Yes it is a term most heard today in MMOs but it also goes WAY back to text based MUDs. Claiming that it came from WoW or similiar new MMO is grossly inappropiate.
The best Pathfinder translation would be faceless NPC. However, call me crazy but yes I would expect that most people who play Pathfinder would know what I meant if I said 'mob'. That doesn't mean I would fault them for if they didn't know - I would just explain it and move on.
Saying spikey damage meaning piercing did earn a minor facepalm, but that might just be my background in gaming. Prehaps bursty damage would be a better translation? Either way the definition would be irregular damage, sometimes very high and usually with a degree of unpredicatibilty.
I do know that BBT seems to have a serious hate for MMOs though :)
You can't ready a Half-Charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Azaelas Fayth, I agree with you.
It's a good feat, for those situations where you wish you had it.
These guys are all about "DPR" and "omgwtfbbq". I know that I see my players grin when the fighter says "Vital Strike" and offs the evil dude that got out of his FA reach.
And yes, we are currently playing at level 10-11.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read nearly every Combat Feat out there. And around 75% of all General Feats. Vital Strike is one of the Few Feats that can allow a nice hit on a Standard Action. But as I said before it isn't something I take when it is first made Available. So my fighter doesn't take it at Level 6 he waits til level 7 to get it.
It might not be optimal but it is still a useful feat.
What's wrong with jumping through hoops?
Nothing, if you're a trained animal? o.O
Personally, I want to have a character in mind, and build him appropriately. Not have a character sheet, and fill in the blanks so that everything makes sense.
Question for the assembled: how much, if at all, does this conversation change if you're capped at level 12 (as in PFS)?
You'll only have three attacks for one level (11 - 12), and that third attack is unlikely to hit much. Taking my 11 Titan Mauler (sub-optimal!) Barbarian / Ranger (further sub-optimal!) as an example:
If buffed with Lead Blades and Enlarge Person, she's doing 4d8 base damage with her Large Bastard Sword.
Full Attack: +20/+12/+7 4d8+22, average damage: 26 + 10 + 2 = 38
Hasted: +20/+17/+12/+7 4d8+22, average damage: 26 + 20 + 10 + 2 = 58
On a Vital Strike: +20 8d8+22, average damage: 37.7
On an Improved Vital Strike: +20 12d8+22, average damage: 49.4
4d8 + 22 averages 40 damage
8d8 + 22 averages 58 damage
12d8 + 22 averages 76 damage
Average AC for a CR 14 is 28.
+20 hits 65% of the time, so 40 * 0.65 = 26
+17 hits 50% ... = 20
+12 hits 25% ... = 10
+7 hits 5% ... = 2
I almost certainly did that math wrong, and I'm kind of guessing at DPR conventions, so I welcome any corrections.
Question for the assembled: how much, if at all, does this conversation change if you're capped at level 12 (as in PFS)?
You'll only have three attacks for one level (11 - 12), and that third attack is unlikely to hit much. Taking my 11 Titan Mauler (sub-optimal!) Barbarian / Ranger (further sub-optimal!) as an example:
If buffed with Lead Blades and Enlarge Person, she's doing 4d8 base damage with her Large Bastard Sword.Full Attack: +20/+12/+7 4d8+22, average damage: 26 + 10 + 2 = 38
Hasted: +20/+17/+12/+7 4d8+22, average damage: 26 + 20 + 10 + 2 = 58On a Vital Strike: +20 8d8+22, average damage: 37.7
On an Improved Vital Strike: +20 12d8+22, average damage: 49.4** spoiler omitted **
I almost certainly did that math wrong, and I'm kind of guessing at DPR conventions, so I welcome any corrections.
First, you forgot that Haste gives +1 to hit, so your Hasted DPR is really 66.
What other feats do you have? What are your stats like? Your attack bonus is low--like scary low. What's going on there?
FAs do a lot of damage, so intelligent enemies should be avoiding situations that let you FA. So VS helps if the enemy is effectively dodging your attempts to set up FA.
This is a very common argument against VS, but it doesn't really hold water.
Moving around to avoid receiving Full Attacks also denies your ability to make Full Attacks.
Full Attacks do a lot of damage--so why are the enemies not trying to get them, too? If the PC fighter wants to Full Attack as much as possible, why doesn't the NPC fighter?
If the monsters are afraid of the PCs such that they want to avoid their Full Attacks, why are they fighting them at all?
A T-Rex or some other creature with only one natural attack wants to stay mobile, sure, but something like a Tiger doesn't--they want to use all 5 of their attacks!
And in all seriousness, melee attacks generally only contribute damage to a fight. If they are continually denied the ability to deal that damage, why would anyone want to be melee? Caster and archer output isn't affected by enemy movement, so why would you not just take the path of least resistance here?
And if you want to argue about you liking the concept of melee, then don't complain to me, complain to your GM (or ultimately, the 3rd edition base ruleset) for nerfing your concept.
4d8+22 is avg. of 40 dmg per hit.
8d8+22 is avg. of 58 dmg per hit.
12d8+22 is avg. of 76 dmg per hit.
I'm not even going to try and figure out damage per round based on hit%, AC is too varied to have a single answer, you'd need a whole set of values or a plot of them for various monsters of that CR.
Your build is also about as optimized as a weapon-user can get for VS, but whatever. Even with base weapon damage optimized, the results show that VS is only adding 18 damage, and each hit deals 40, so just hitting a 2nd time is better than using the feat, and saves you a feat (allowing you to deal more damage with the extra choice, possibly). Even with IVS, a 2nd hit is better than using the feat, and now you're 2 in the hole, and IVS isn't even an option till the end of PFS play.
- Is VS better than just doing a regular single attack? Yes.
- Could the feat(s) be better spent elsewhere? Probably.
- Is VS a trap in that it makes you complacent and less inclined to seek out means of full attacking more often? Yes.
- Are there other things you could do as a single attack that aren't compatible w/ VS and better than it? Often yes.
...Is what the "ant-VS" people are saying, basically.
First, you forgot that Haste gives +1 to hit, so your Hasted DPR is really 66.
What other feats do you have? What are your stats like? Your attack bonus is low--like scary low. What's going on there?
I did indeed. Here's the stat block (while raging). As I said up front, she's a multi-classed Titan Mauler Barbarian/Infiltrator Ranger, so min-max is clearly not the goal here.
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 12, Con 26, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +11; CMB +17 (+19 Sundering); CMD 26 (28 vs. Sunder)
Feats Dazing Assault (DC 21), Endurance, Furious Focus, Improved Sunder, Power Attack -3/+6, Pushing Assault, Raging Vitality, Vital Strike
Traits Armor Expert, Suspicious
Weapon is a +1 Furious Adamantine Bastard Sword (L) (EDIT: About to upgrade to +3)
Fire away.
Also, what is the +22 coming from? The more you optimize the damage aside from base weapon, such as from Str, PA feat, weapon enhancement, etc... the worse VS looks. At level 12, PA alone is adding +12 damage to a 2H weapon. A Str +6 mod (which is actually kind of low by 12th level....) is another +9 damage, so I'm already at +21.
Also, what is the +22 coming from? The more you optimize the damage aside from base weapon, such as from Str, PA feat, weapon enhancement, etc... the worse VS looks. At level 12, PA alone is adding +12 damage to a 2H weapon. A Str +6 mod (which is actually kind of low by 12th level....) is another +9 damage, so I'm already at +21.
She's level 11. It's actually +21. Not sure why I had it at 22.
EDIT:
Just hit 11 actually, so some of this isn't decided yet. For example, I could still take IVS instead of Dazing Assault (a dozen Internet posters scream in horror). I'll almost certainly be upgrading the sword to +3 (so +5 while raging) and probably upgrading my +2 Con belt into a +2 Str/Con.
I originally conceived her to be a Vital strike build, with the big handful of 12d8, but all the anti-VS vitriol scared me off. In the end, I took VS anyway because nothing else stood out. Then I got distracted with Spell Sunder. Clearly this was not a meticulously planned-out build.
I don't really have a point. If it's a trap, then I'm trapped. But I'm not too worried that I have doomed her to inadequacy with her one remaining level, which is kind of how everyone here makes it sound.
+1 for the weapon enhancement. Which, while Raging, is actually +3, so you should be +24.
==Aelryinth
|
|
FAs do a lot of damage, so intelligent enemies should be avoiding situations that let you FA. So VS helps if the enemy is effectively dodging your attempts to set up FA.This is a very common argument against VS, but it doesn't really hold water.
Moving around to avoid receiving Full Attacks also denies your ability to make Full Attacks.
Full Attacks do a lot of damage--so why are the enemies not trying to get them, too? If the PC fighter wants to Full Attack as much as possible, why doesn't the NPC fighter?
Because he thinks the PC fighter is better in FA mode than the NPC fighter is in FA mode?
This is a case of "it's bad for me, but worse for you, so I'll do it" tactics.
If the monsters are afraid of the PCs such that they want to avoid their Full Attacks, why are they fighting them at all?
Maybe they're trying to go around the fighter to kill the wizard first. Or whatever. Just because you want to kill the fighter eventually doesn't mean you have to want to do it FA now, especially if that's playing into the PC fighter's hands.
A T-Rex or some other creature with only one natural attack wants to stay mobile, sure, but something like a Tiger doesn't--they want to use all 5 of their attacks!And in all seriousness, melee attacks generally only contribute damage to a fight. If they are continually denied the ability to deal that damage, why would anyone want to be melee? Caster and archer output isn't affected by enemy movement, so why would you not just take the path of least resistance here?
That's true on the featureless plains, but not always in a dungeon or forest, where there's a lot of hard cover; monsters running around corners. I'm not saying archers are bad, but they tend to get unrealistically good in these theoretical situations where there are no obstacles.
And if you want to argue about you liking the concept of melee, then don't complain to me, complain to your GM (or ultimately, the 3rd edition base ruleset) for nerfing your concept.
I never said any of these things.
My point is this: while a FA is preferable, there will be lots of times when you don't get to make a FA. At that point VS helps out. So it's a backup plan; instead of taking feats that work in the ideal scenario, you make the bad-case scenario less bad.
I also don't advocate taking all the VS feats. I think VS-1 is useful, but the marginal gain of the Improved and Greater feats, I'm not convinced of those.
I've heard people say there are better single attack options than Vital Strike.
Like what?
The only thing I can think of that doesn't require as much or more investment than Vital Strike is charging (a fat load of good that's going to do you if you don't have a straight line to the target).
this is silliest thread. it's obvious vital strike is not a trap feat. I have seen some of the most intellectually dishonest arguements in this thread.
What does having pounce at level 11 or 12 or 10 have anything do with a level 6 feat? seriously.
|
this is silliest thread. it's obvious vital strike is not a trap feat. I have seen some of the most intellectually dishonest arguements in this thread.
What does having pounce at level 11 or 12 or 10 have anything do with a level 6 feat? seriously.
+6 or higher BAB means multiple attacks.
What does a level 10 PC with Pounce do with Vital Strike?