So the takeaway from this thread is that a situationally dependent feat ins't as optimized as other situationally dependent attack options, depending on your playstyle, houserules and allowed source material.
-Skeld
No, the takeaway is that happily accepting a consolation prize is worse than trying to win and sometimes losing.
Kindly note that charge lanes can basically ignore terrain if you can fly. It's the normal workaround for bad terrain in the way.
==Aelryinth
|
A horse with Dragon Style? I dunno, I think many GMs might balk about animal companions using style feats. It strikes me as looking for trouble.
Cleave is indeed a serious alternative, and it helps that it's available so much earlier. It overlaps somewhat with the cases where VS is good: multiple enemies that don't come from entirely the same direction. Cleave is better if enemies come in small groups, VS if they come as single enemies from different directions.
There's something to be said for VS and Cleave both; they don't completely overlap. But the earlier availability of Cleave is a massive advantage, especially with retraining as an option.
---
@Atarlost: I don't agree that taking VS necessarily means taking IVS and GVS. Turning 2d6 to 4d6 is more of a gain than 4d6 to 6d6; so I might only take VS but not IVS. You don't have to do it, so "this will cost you 4 feats" is not a correct argument against VS itself.
My god, these people just keep going.
Can we just keep it at "Choose for yourself?"
I have seen many situations where the fighter was forced to attack with *one* attack, and couldn't charge. Right then and there, in that exact situation, he would love to trade one of his other feats for Vital Strike, so that he can be amazing.
Of course, if full attack was an option, I have yet to see him use VS instead. He ain't *that* thickheaded.
Also: every time I read this, I think to myself how fortunate I am to have players that actually care about their characters more than about the number-crunching and DPR-measuring.
Thank you!!
|
I'll pop in and probably disappear from this thread:
foreword: I've read it all, and I like vital strike (in melee)
one thing bothered me : it's the "furious focus" is better then vital strike.
hmmm.. my answer :
Vital strike is even better with furious focus !
I agree that charging or cleaving can make your day too, but
charging requires straight line, no difficult terrain.
5ft step also requires a non-difficult terrain.
even when full attack/cleave is possible, it's not always the best option (really high AC / DR )
so best feat ever : no
trap : neither.
one thing bothered me : it's the "furious focus" is better then vital strike.
hmmm.. my answer :
Vital strike is even better with furious focus !
Yeah, I don't know why anyone with Power Attack would wait to level 6 before getting furious focus. I would get it at level 1 if I have two feats to spend and one of them is power attack.
Also: every time I read this, I think to myself how fortunate I am to have players that actually care about their characters more than about the number-crunching and DPR-measuring.
Thank you!!
Yes, because wanting your character to be mechanically effective is definitely a sign of not caring at all. The only way to be True Roleplayer is to pick feats at random with no consideration for how the effect your character's ability to fulfill their role.
Not that it matters now, but the Mobile Fighter Archetype gets pounce.. As per the talk, I would take a defensive feat over vital strike if there were no other offensive feats open at my level.. I always take Iron will with fighters.. Improved Int and Toughness would also be taken over vital strike for me.. Possibly Dodge..
|
|
No, the takeaway is that happily accepting a consolation prize is worse than trying to win and sometimes losing.So the takeaway from this thread is that a situationally dependent feat ins't as optimized as other situationally dependent attack options, depending on your playstyle, houserules and allowed source material.
-Skeld
So deviating from a narrow set of optimized choices is akin to losing?
-Skeld
|
|
Yes, because wanting your character to be mechanically effective is definitely a sign of not caring at all. The only way to be True Roleplayer is to pick feats at random with no consideration for how the effect your character's ability to fulfill their role.Also: every time I read this, I think to myself how fortunate I am to have players that actually care about their characters more than about the number-crunching and DPR-measuring.
Thank you!!
Or you can pick feats that thematically fit the character you're playing.
There's no middle ground in this thread because it's not a discussion, it's an argument.
-Skeld
Or you can pick feats that thematically fit the character you're playing.
There's no middle ground in this thread because it's not a discussion, it's an argument.
-Skeld
+1
I think many of the people posting here are the types of people who find it hard to leave anything on the table when it comes to building their character. If it comes to picking a flavorful trait or picking Reactionary, they'll take Reactionary 110% of the time. That's okay. If it comes to having 20 Strength or a non-negative Charisma modifier, they'll dump Charisma every time. That's also okay.
I think many of the other people posting here are the type of people that come up with a concept and then try to make the most of that concept. In my case, I wanted to make a Giant Slayer. I probably didn't make the best Giant Slayer I could make, because she doesn't have Pounce or ride a mount or any of the other mechanically superior options. That's okay, too.
I don't really think anyone disagrees with any of the above.
So is anyone here saying that you can't build a character that is effective in combat if they have Vital Strike as one of their Feats?
And is anyone saying that in a situation where you can only make a single attack against a single enemy, Vital Strike wouldn't make that attack better?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I routinely play casters, and as such I have gamed with several, nay, LOTS of fighters with the PA/VS feat lines, and let me tell you I was thrilled. TOO many times to count I have been swarmed or overwhelmed by some foe who slipped past or flanked the main front line, and when I call for help and my BSF or Barb 2h choppy guy rolls up on the offender and hits them once with a huge enormous swing and cleaves them in twain thus freeing me up to actually cast, I kinda am glad he has VS.
Altho to be fair, one too may times we have had a giggle fit over someone misunderstanding "IVS" for "IBS" and we, in our 40 year old juvenile manner giggle because he might have diarrhea.
So I guess it balances out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what's the 'flavor' of vital strike? It seems purely mechanical to me. Clue me in here.
I'm not claiming flavor for Vital Strike. I don't know how someone could. Absolutely admit it was for the gimmick of the large weapon dice, and maybe that's what I was going for originally ("she can do ridiculous 12d8 damage with one mighty swing...").
Also, those numbers weren't meant to prove that a Vital Strike could be as good as a full attack. I don't think anyone here is arguing that they would use Vital Strike when a full attack was an option. But...
If you're not already optimizing with cookie cutter 2H fighter build #3 or mounted barbarian build #7, the difference in damage isn't quite so stark.
If your GM doesn't just park his NPCs in front of you like a pinata and your hastily assembled PFS group is clogging all the charge lanes, you may have to suck it up and move + attack
And in those cases, which are not so rare, Vital Strike serves a purpose. It does exactly what it says: a small bump to damage on standard attacks. No more, no less.
|
|
I had hoped to find some middle ground between the optimize-yes and optimize-don't-care factions in this thread, but it looks more like another fruitless argument filled with hyperbole.
It's too bad, because there's is some good information in here, but it's hidden under useless commentary like "trap," "worthless," "mechanically ineffective," and so on.
It's an unfortunate clash of playstyles. However you play, have fun.
-Skeld
No, the takeaway is that happily accepting a consolation prize is worse than trying to win and sometimes losing.So the takeaway from this thread is that a situationally dependent feat ins't as optimized as other situationally dependent attack options, depending on your playstyle, houserules and allowed source material.
-Skeld
So deviating from a narrow set of optimized choices is akin to losing?
-Skeld
No, in my metaphor, a melee character not getting a full attack is losing. Vital Strike is a consolation prize for when you lose.
I am opposed to planning to lose.
Or you can pick feats that thematically fit the character you're playing.
I fully support this suggestion. Vital Strike, being a totally flavorless feat that just serves as a consolation prize for when you can't full attack, will not thematically fit any character anymore than a bland feat like Weapon Focus does (actually Weapon Focus is more flavorful since it at least suggests dedication to a weapon) so I don't see how this comment is relevant.
There's no middle ground in this thread because it's not a discussion, it's an argument.
Compromise means everyone loses.
So is anyone here saying that you can't build a character that is effective in combat if they have Vital Strike as one of their Feats?
No, I am saying that any character with Vital Strike would be more effective overall if they had a different feat instead (unless they're something odd like a T-Rex or a Druid focusing on single attack forms who didn't feel like dipping Monk to qualify for Feral Combat Training).
I had hoped to find some middle ground between the optimize-yes and optimize-don't-care factions in this thread, but it looks more like another fruitless argument filled with hyperbole.
There is no middle ground to be found between "Yes" and "I don't care" no matter the topic.
|
|
Or you can pick feats that thematically fit the character you're playing.I fully support this suggestion. Vital Strike, being a totally flavorless feat that just serves as a consolation prize for when you can't full attack, will not thematically fit any character anymore than a bland feat like Weapon Focus does (actually Weapon Focus is more flavorful since it at least suggests dedication to a weapon) so I don't see how this comment is relevant.
Go back and look at the context of of original statement. I was addressing someone who said something along the lines of you might as well pick feats at random. My comment didn't have anything to do with with VS specifically, but picking feats in general. As for a character's theme, DPR optimized is as good a character them as any (and as valid as playstyle as any other). You are right about VS being flavorless (and not very well named either).
There's no middle ground in this thread because it's not a discussion, it's an argument.Compromise means everyone loses.
Ha, good one. That's the most cynical definition of "compromise" I've seen yet.
-Skeld
|
|
Also: every time I read this, I think to myself how fortunate I am to have players that actually care about their characters more than about the number-crunching and DPR-measuring.
Thank you!!
That is a broad sweeping statement that holds no water.
Some RP focused players like to have their numbers meet their concept.
This whole self crippling idea as the only route to good roleplay is false.
Incredibly false.
I think many of the people posting here are the types of people who find it hard to leave anything on the table when it comes to building their character. If it comes to picking a flavorful trait or picking Reactionary, they'll take Reactionary 110% of the time. That's okay. If it comes to having 20 Strength or a non-negative Charisma modifier, they'll dump Charisma every time. That's also okay.Redward, you did post a very non-standard character.. a barbarian that didn't focus on STR. And that's fine.. but understand that it is far from the norm. And you went fairly extreme in stats as well.. dumping CHA down to 7 to let you afford an insane CON score.
So not starting with a 20 STR is 'not focusing'? I guess all my 18 Str melee characters have been doing it wrong then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike fits my Crusader of Gorum Cleric surprisingly well. As he is described of moving into combat and swinging his Greatsword to strike his Foe to take them down As fast as possible.
That said it will be taken AFTER Power Attack & Furious Focus(?).
It also fits that he is trained on a Battlefield which means always being ready to bounce to a new foe.
That said is he optimized? No. Is he Functional? Yes. Heck, he is more potent than our Fighter. That said his spells are only Support. He never has needed his foe to save against a spell.
& now I will wait to be called a fool for using Vital Strike on a 3/4 B.A.B. Character.
& now I will wait to be called a fool for using Vital Strike on a 3/4 B.A.B. Character.
Your BAB is irrelevant to how foolish a choice Vital Strike is. It is equally bad for everyone.
:P
While enlarged and raging with gear at 11th level he has a 22STR.. which means before rage and enlarge he has a 16STR with gear.
Not that it really changes anything, but I must have had one or the other unclicked when I exported her stat block. While raging and enlarged:
Str 24, Dex 10, Con 26, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7Normally:
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7
FWIW.
Disclaimer: From a mechanical standpoint, I agree that vital strike is a "Trap" feat.
However while reading this discussion, I did come up with one idea for a character who would take it for "flavor" reasons.
An Iaijutsu master.
A character focused on one perfect attack.
I could see a human fighter build of this concept ending up with.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Katana)
Weapon Focus (Katana)
Weapon Specialization (Katana)
Greater Weapon Focus (Katana)
Greater Weapon Specialization (Katana)
Power Attack
Improved Unarmed Strike.
Tiger Style
Tiger Claws
Tiger Pounce
Improved Critical (Katana)
Iron Will
Greater Iron Will
Quick Draw
Improved Initiative
Combat Expertise
Second Chance
Penetrating Strike
Greater Penetrating Strike
Vital Strike
Greater Vital Strike
Improved Vital Strike
Just an idea, and while I like the flavor, I agree it might not be viable, and is in no way optimized.
In all honesty, my players may see this as an NPC at some point.
Other than Tiger Style line might not be usable with a Katana based on GM Ruling. It is Viable.
@mplindustries: I can get the Cleric to where he is striking as if using a Huge or Gargantuan Greatsword. Still a bad move?
Never underestimate what happens when you give me 3PP Content.
With PFRPG only I can get him up to Huge. Impact Greatsword+Righteous Might or Enlarged Person if I take a different Domain.
NOTE: Righteous Might/Enlarge Person increases the Base Weapon Size. Impact then increases that.
Humm...
Just realized that Second Chance cannot be used with vital strike.
Gonna run some numbers and see how it turns out. Will report back.
Edit: Also no need for IUS and the Tiger line if going for the one attack master.
Edit2: Did some quick math and Vital Strike is only better if you are hitting on a 4 or less in most cases, and even then the usual DPR gain is very small.
In all honesty due to the flexibility granted by Second chance I feel it is the better feat, however I still have to run the numbers for the other feats in the vital strike chain.
Edit3: My math looks like Vital strike/Improved Vital Strike/Greater Vital Strike is only a better choice if you are already hitting on a 4-5 already. Average is about a 4.2 over 20 levels.
Otherwise you get more DPR out of Second Chance.
*Sigh* Darn...
Last Edit: Also the concept is only really viable up until about levels 6-7 past that the "One Attack Master" just does not do enough DPR.
An Unarmed monk will out DPR you at level 8...
An Armed monk at level 7.
It gets worse, and I personally would feel terrible about doing 30ish DPR at level 11.
I would expect a party to ditch me if I did that as a fighter.
Looks like my Iuijutsu master will be using Second Chance....
I thought I had found a small niche for Vital Strike. *Shrug* My apologies.
|
|
In general I would agree that VS is not the best feat. But it does have situational uses (like fighting an opponent with spring attack so you never get to full attack him). How often those situations come up for you as a player can make it a trap for one person, but a decent choice for another. There are lots of situational feats available in pathfinder which are useless 90% of the time but awesome every once in a while. If you have lots of bonus feats (ie fighter) then it can be nice to have them, if you don't then you should probably steer clear.
For those who like running numbers, I found an instance where VS does actually boost dpr: Lets say you have bab of 6 and are fighting an opponent with DR and a high AC such that your second attack would only hit on a roll of 19 or 20, you will get slightly higher dpr from vital striking than from full attacking.
Covent, do you mind sharing some of those numbers as well as the method you used to come to them? Few people are going to just take you at your word.
In general I would agree that VS is not the best feat. But it does have situational uses (like fighting an opponent with spring attack so you never get to full attack him). How often those situations come up for you as a player can make it a trap for one person, but a decent choice for another. There are lots of situational feats available in pathfinder which are useless 90% of the time but awesome every once in a while. If you have lots of bonus feats (ie fighter) then it can be nice to have them, if you don't then you should probably steer clear.
For those who like running numbers, I found an instance where VS does actually boost dpr: Lets say you have bab of 6 and are fighting an opponent with DR and a high AC such that your second attack would only hit on a roll of 19 or 20, you will get slightly higher dpr from vital striking than from full attacking.
A feat that is only good 10% of the time is not a good feat.
A feat that's only good if you only land your second attack on a 19+ is really not a good feat.
Covent, do you mind sharing some of those numbers as well as the method you used to come to them? Few people are going to just take you at your word.
No problem,
At work right now but will put up a spreadsheet after via a google docs link.
To explain my methodology, I simply built the feat tree out to level 20, built stats for a fighter with 15 point buy, and subbed it into my already built fighter build (in my dps sheet) for gear.
I will put this all up in about 3-3.5 hours after work.
"That man can chop a tree in half with a single stroke."
> Flavor
Feats to support it?
Vital strike
Power attack
"That man can chop a tree in half with a single stroke."
> FlavorFeats to support it?
Vital strike
Power attack
Second Chance offers better single target DPR unless you are attacking very low AC targets. It is incompatible with Vital strike.
I will post the promised spreadsheet soon.
Sorry still at work in Japan.
Sunder only really applies for attended objects. I don't see how one would make use of it against a tree.
(What is the tree's CMD pray tell? It doesn't have one.)
, Adamantine Weapon, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Furious Focus.