Was basiclly wondering if a paladin/antipaladin or cleric can use vital strike with there channel smite. Wouldn't see why not (not looking at the feats atm assuming that it will work but not 100% sure)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can use the two together. However:
DOOOOOOOON'T!
In all seriousness, those are two of the worst trap feats in Pathfinder. Don't use either of them if you can help it, never mind both.
Why not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are not trap feats, they are just feats only beneficial to certain builds. Vital strike is for a spring attacker, channel smite for evil clerics
Vital Strike doesn't work with Spring Attack. Vital Strike is a trap feat unless you're a T-Rex or something else with a big single natural attack.
Channel Smite is for Evil Clerics that want to waste their channels and do less damage with them while simultaneously blowing a feat.
Don't take Vital Strike unless you're a really big animal (Druids, for example could make it alright). Don't take Channel Smite unless you want Guided Hand.
Seems like people are just PFS in all honesty...but I really wanna know if , a channel smite cleric or what ever that can channel use the vital strike feat with channel smite.
Seems like people are just PFS in all honesty...but I really wanna know if , a channel smite cleric or what ever that can channel use the vital strike feat with channel smite.
Yes, you can, and I said that in my first post.
You just shouldn't bother to use either because they're both bad--also said in my first post.
But WHY.
But WHY.
Because.... go back and read mplindustries posts. You can decide for yourself if you agree with her reasons or not - but she gave you the why already as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike is useful if you are playing mythic because then you can use mythic vital strike that doubles your damage bonuses too not just the base die.
Vital Strike is also useful if your GM gives the entire chain to all characters for free which is actually a pretty decent houserule
I reckon the feats look pretty bad. I'll give my take on it.
Vital strike only works as a standard attack action.
By the time you can get vital strike (at least level 6), not only do you have another attack, but getting another damage die is only a minor boost to damage. Bonuses such as Strength, enhancement, power attack, and buffs are so much larger. This makes getting one more d12 (roughly) when you can't make a full-attack not really worth it. Why not get some other feat to boost your attacks, or a feat that helps you do something else?
Channel Smite is a waste because if you miss you waste a use of channel energy. If your chance of missing is so low that you can risk that, then the CR of that enemy is probably so low that you don't need the damage from channel energy. If you are facing many lower CR enemies, you would prefer to channel energy normally and hit many of them.
Vital Strike:
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
Channel Smite:
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage. If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still expended with no effect.
I don't see why a cleric using Vital strike + Channel smite as being a bad idea. in all honesty it makes you do WAY MORE DAMAGE, then just doing a regular channel smite. and as for the pally/antipally, why wouldn't it be benefical to them, if anything a antipally of Gurom would love this build imo.
|
Channel Smite doesn't prevent you from making more than a single attack in a round, though.
Iterative attacks are always better than Vital Strike (which is why Vital Strike is only good for things like Tyrannosaurs and Druids wildshaped into huge frickin' hippos.) and using Channel Strike on top of that doesn't change anything.
Channel Smite is a waste for Antipaladins because you're burning TWO of your Touch of Corruption (I think that's what it's called?) uses for each hit of Channel Smite, and it doesn't apply negative status effects, in return for a very small amount of extra damage.
Now, I'm building a Cleric of Nethys that's going to take Versatile Channeler and Guided Hand, so if he wants to add a little extra damage, he can pop off a Channel Smite to either hurt Undead or Living targets... but he's by NO MEANS meant to be primarily a damage dealer. It's just a nifty extra toy for him to play with.
Never said my cleric is the main damge dealer, but really is compared to the magus.
Why is it that vital strike for a death channel cleric is bad, all I get is, "it's only for big critters" or "it's a trap".
Example to using both feats:
Alright gonna vital strike and channel smite your b!+*@ ass.
Say the weapons a greatsword 2d6, that makes 4d6. add your str mod say a +2. so far that's 4d6 +2, now the channel smite part is added also which is the regular channel (actaully gonna use the right level reg for it) 5d6. that's another 5d6 and say it's a crit and max damage and is a +1 magic weapon, total would be this GS: 6d6+ str mod (3) + CS 5d6 = 70 (30 negative energy 40 slashing) damage from just channel smiting a guy with vital strike.
So again, why would a cleric NOT wanna get vital strike a crappy BAB not wanna channel smite and get vital strike. It honestly seems like there's more hate to feats, classes (style of class), and no one wants flavor for there character. Yeah my cleric maybe a death cleric, but not the primary healer also. Divine parties make it easier that way.
[Sarcasm]You should never play ANYTHING besides a Barbarian, Archer of some type, or min/maxed high DPR caster...not even a healer since if everyone is smart and playing one of the above they don't need healing, or skills for that matter, and of course having a "face" character is completely pointless when you can just kill any NPC in the way.[/sarcasm]
Yes they work together....use them if you want, to ask why is to incite WAR among the forum and should be avoided :)
I'm not having WAR with people on the forums, I'm just asked if it would work and that got answered. BUT I'm getting advice for trying to to use those feats together. all I'm asking is why, why do you think that vital strike is bad for a battle cleric. Vital strike, I posted the feat, proves that it would be more useful for a single attack. Guess which classes do more attacks. And a druid wildshape vital striker actually seems fun imo, gonna see what I can come up with for the character.
Also like how everyone thinks "Your a cleric don't do that". and I'ma gonna go "ok....why?"
I didn't mean you were having war...but vital strike itself will cause WAR among others
There are those that believe its good because its situational and can be used in a situation where you have to move and thereby lose any iterative attacks
Then there are those that believe you shouldn't take "trap" feats like VS because you should instead work toward playing something that can full attack more often (usually by playing another class)
My comment was not meant to be anywhere remotely near an insult toward you or anyone else Dark Servitude...I was just warning you that asking about vital strike incites arguments that can go on forever (see the vital strike thread to see my point)
I apologize if you saw it as insulting my friend :)
|
|
Because swinging twice is better than Vital Strike in 100% of situations that you have a choice between the two (and with an 8 BAB requirement, you are absolutely giving up an iterative attack) and in situations where you could only use Vital Strike, you're barred from things like Charging or other useful options.
It's not a flavor thing, either. Vital Strike is just straight bad, even at what it's trying to accomplish, and takes a massive feat investment to get to a point where it actually even FEELS like the single huge attack it's supposed to be. And even then, it's still worse than just taking your iteratives.
For an Antipaladin, Channel Smite is awful because it's wasting an awesome class feature (Melee Touch Attacks that do decent damage and can inflict one or more status effects) in return for a very small extra amount of damage. For a standard Paladin, Channel Smite is only useful against Undead (and instead of wasting a useful damaging ability, it burns through your GET OUT OF DAMAGE/DEBUFF FREE CARD, Lay on Hands) and is absolutely not worth taking.
TL;DR 1: Vital Strike is plainly worse than taking two attacks, even with the second attack being at BAB-5. It's only good for moving up to your speed, and then taking a single attack.
TL;DR 2: Channel Smite is terrible for Paladins/Antipaladins.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the conductive property from Ultimate Equipment... Now you don't need channel smite as a pally or antipally... Though Channel Smite is better for Clerics.
CONDUCTIVE PRICE: +1 BONUS
AURA moderate necromancy CL 8th WEIGHT —
A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spelllike
or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged
touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric’s domain
granted power, sorcerer’s bloodline power, oracle’s mystery
revelation, or wizard’s arcane school power). When the
wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type,
he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability
to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent,
which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the
special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special
ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.)
For example, a paladin who strikes an undead opponent with
her conductive greatsword can expend two uses of her lay
on hands ability (a supernatural melee touch attack) to deal
both greatsword damage and damage from one use of lay on
hands. This weapon special ability can only be used once per
round, and only works with magical abilities of the same type
as the weapon (melee or ranged).
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS COST +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spectral hand
This is the conductive property from Ultimate Equipment... Now you don't need channel smite as a pally or antipally... Though Channel Smite is better for Clerics.
CONDUCTIVE PRICE: +1 BONUS
AURA moderate necromancy CL 8th WEIGHT —
A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spelllike
or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged
touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric’s domain
granted power, sorcerer’s bloodline power, oracle’s mystery
revelation, or wizard’s arcane school power). When the
wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type,
he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability
to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent,
which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the
special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special
ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.)
For example, a paladin who strikes an undead opponent with
her conductive greatsword can expend two uses of her lay
on hands ability (a supernatural melee touch attack) to deal
both greatsword damage and damage from one use of lay on
hands. This weapon special ability can only be used once per
round, and only works with magical abilities of the same type
as the weapon (melee or ranged).
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS COST +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spectral hand
I saw that item before, but I wasn't sure about, so it used 2 charges of a ability instead of one to use the [u]channel[/u] ability from it. so say using say touch of evil ability by using 2 points of it right? word that works XD.
|
|
It would use 2 uses of lay on hands or touch of evil... the same it would cost if you used channel smite AND it applies a debuff from Touch of Evil. A cleric can not use this item, they would need Channel Smite or I think there might be another item but I don't know what it is off the top of my hands
EDIT:Uh, not sure I knew what I was talking about. Ignore this post.
well, it's to just use the lvl 1 domain abilities so can just use those for a half cleric channel through conductive weapon (which isn't bad imo) and can save my big channels for more threatening targets lol.
|
|
Channel Smite uses 2 lay on hands or touch of evil whether it hits or not... Conductive only uses 2 lay on hands or touch of evil when you hit.
A cleric can't use conductive with channel energy as it is not normally a touch attack unless you use Channel Smite....
That being said... Based on my reading you can actually use Both at a same time!
Also...!
Does anyone know if you can use Alignment Channel(Evil) as a Paladin to Channel Smite outsiders of the Evil subtype?
wouldn't see why not. it requires the channel class feature.
And channel smite only does 1 use of your channel. not 2.
|
|
That would be the basis behind the PrC about Channel Smite: The Holy Vindicator. If you want to use Channel Smite, you want to be one. One of the Prereqs is to have a feat that modifies your channel in some way (Such as Element channel, or Alignment channel), and it also increases damage dealt for it in some way or another. Plus the PrC gives it to you for free when you reach level 5.
PrC?
Vital Strike is bad for everyone that isn't a T-Rex, not just clerics. It's all over the boards--I apologize, but I don't want to get into another discussion about it. Just trust me, the extra damage it does isn't worth it often enough to be worth taking.
Channel Smite is also bad because it uses up the channel hit or miss, still has a save, and only hits one guy. And channel damage is kind of on the low side anyway. It's a waste.
But then, you talked about adding 2 damage from strength. If you have only a 14 Strength and are one-handing a weapon at a level where you could acquire Vital Strike, I think you should probably stay out of melee in general and stick to casting.
|
I actually like both feats. I often take vital strike for melee characters in fact. There are few absolutes in the game - if you want to take the feat go for it and have fun! FYI I also like taking improved and greater vital strike - they provide signifigant damage boosts
As far as channel smite, it also is a viable feat in certain characters. I have a paladin that uses is to great effect
Again why only druids in T-rex form.....I'm starting to question your open mindedness atm sir.
Now channel smite is a BAD thing? what would you do if a cleric was channeling negative energy on the party?
In all honesty, I'ma ask you this then. How would you build a cleric of urgathoa then.
T-Rex's would probably have a lot of damage dice on their natural attack. The base damage die is the only thing that Vital Strike uses to calculate its added damage. Therefore the T-Rex would probably get more benefit from it.
You could take Selective Channel instead of Channel Smite. You now can avoid your allies and hit your enemies without a roll (and not just one of them). It might be a better choice.
Again why only druids in T-rex form.....I'm starting to question your open mindedness atm sir.
It doesn't add enough damage to matter unless your based damage is very high (T-Rex sized), and making multiple attacks is always better, but animals with only one big natural attack (again, like T-Rexes) can't make multiple attacks anyway.
Now channel smite is a BAD thing? what would you do if a cleric was channeling negative energy on the party?
In all honesty, I'ma ask you this then. How would you build a cleric of urgathoa then.
If I was a negative energy channeler, I'd make sure I had Selective Channel and could avoid my party members when I used it.
And since Channel damage is so crappy, I'd probably take a variant channel with some useful effect. Ale/Wine and Rulership are the best by far and Freedom isn't bad, but I don't know if you can swing Urgathoa for those. Pain or Madness aren't terrible--they might be easier to convince your GM of.
Is it always just "assumed" that someone that takes vital strike is going to go out of their way to use it INSTEAD of full attacking? This is not an argument just an honest question
From this thread and the actual vital strike thread it seems like everyone against VS thinks people that want to take it are going to be using it in place of a full-attack every time.
Is it always just "assumed" that someone that takes vital strike is going to go out of their way to use it INSTEAD of full attacking? This is not an argument just an honest question
From this thread and the actual vital strike thread it seems like everyone against VS thinks people that want to take it are going to be using it in place of a full-attack every time.
In my opinion, if a feat is not used the vast majority of the time, I don't consider it a good feat and I don't recommend taking it.
That leaves two situations with Vital Strike arguments:
1) You're advocating taking a feat you're going to use very infrequently, in which case I think it's a poor choice
or
2) You're actively using it a lot, in which case I will point out the math on why it's always better to make multiple attacks, etc. and it's a bad feat again.
Say the weapons a greatsword 2d6, that makes 4d6. add your str mod say a +2. so far that's 4d6 +2, now the channel smite part is added also which is the regular channel (actaully gonna use the right level reg for it) 5d6. that's another 5d6 and say it's a crit and max damage and is a +1 magic weapon, total would be this GS: 6d6+ str mod (3) + CS 5d6 = 70 (30 negative energy 40 slashing) damage from just channel smiting a guy with vital strike.
Redoing your math:
Normal hit with Vital Strike: 4d6 +2 +1 weaponVital Strike + Channel: 4d6 (14 damage) +3 +1 weapon + 5d6 (average 17 damage) = average 18 slashing + 17 negative energy =35 damage
If they make save: 18 slashing + 8 negative =26 damage
Total Damage is either 35 or 26 depending on save.
Instead Full attack:
2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic + 5d6 (average 17) = 11 average slashing + 17 negative =28
Make save: 11 slashing + 8 negative
Second attack: 2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic= 11 damage average
Total: 39 or 30 if they make save.
So you deal more damage if they failed save and more if they make save.
Let us do pretend land whgere mx damage is important (but you never roll max regularly unless you cheat in a real game):
Normal hit with Vital Strike: 4d6 +2 +1 weapon
Vital Strike + Channel: 4d6 (24 damage) +3 +1 weapon + 5d6 (30 damage) = 28 slashing + 30 negative energy =58 damage
If they make save: 28 slashing + 15 negative =43 damage
Total Damage is either 58 or 43 depending on save.
Instead Full attack:
2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic + 5d6 (average 17) = 16 slashing + 30 negative =46
Make save: 16 slashing + 30 negative
Second attack: 2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic= 16 damage average
Total: 72 or 57 if they make save.
Seems even in Max damage rolling, full attack wins.
1) that depends on the GM and whether or not he actually challenges his players or just drops all of the enemies within a 5 ft step of the greatsword wielder...it's as situational as any other thing in the game
2)IF you're using it a lot it's probably because you cannot get a full attack every round, there are LOTS of ways to mitigate this, as we have seen on the other thread, but that doesn't mean that VS itself is not a bad feat
In the OPs case, I don't think its worth taking simply because he doesn't get feats like a fighter and should probably specialize in something else if he isn't suppose to be the main melee damage dealer, but if he WANTS to use it then he can and if he finds that it isn't that helpful then maybe his GM will let him get a free switch out if its within the same level or so, but giving situations where using VS would be silly are not giving the arguments against it basis.
In the case, as I said in the other thread, VS is a way to get a bit of extra damage in those situations where you have to move to get a hit then full attack on your next turn.
Yes, IF you can FA then you should do it over VS every time (barring the unlikely situation your enemy having some insane AC that makes your iterative attacks miss on everything but a 20)
My GM gives us a challenge, he always finds ways to make fights interesting, my first character was a basic fighter that went with a Greataxe and warhammers. As we played he continually challenged our party and getting FAs sometimes was all but impossible. Did that kill my fun? NO...it forced me to think of something my fighter could do in those situations, I went with overrun feats and had a blast knocking down multiple enemies in a row when the situation called for it.
That was my option to choose and I did so...it was no different than someone taking VS (and the others) if that's the situations they seem to get into a lot.
My final point is that people play differently and GMs all around the world are different too. This means that there is no "perfect build" or "perfect class" or "perfect" anything...a GM is suppose to challenge you, if you aren't challenged in a game it gets boring and you lose interest am I right?
In my current game I'm playing as Assassin. We are currently in a town fighting off an incursion of Templar knights, mostly paladins, fighters, and clerics with great fort saves, so both my poisons and my Death Attack are hard to get to work...was I mad? Not at all, he gave me a challenge now. I can still attempt using poisons on some of them and succeed, I can still DA some of them and succeed, but the chances are lower. Also I still work as an assassin in the city, building reputation with the local guild while simultaneously being required to make sure my party NEVER finds out about it.
These are all aspects of the game that make it fun, just like a GM not shoving every enemy within 5 ft of the melee specialists to let him FA to his heart's content.
I am against telling anyone NOT to do something, give them other options sure, but just flat out telling someone to not do something they want, or to try something they want to try is kind of ruining them learning those things on their own, I'm not a guru at this game by any means, and I'm actually fairly new (played about 8 months now) but I have enjoyed learning what works outside of all the theorycrafting and min/max builds people have, hell I made a monk/swordlord build for FLAVOR, and before I knew it he had an insane AC with no armor, fighting defensively for no penalty, and was a trip/disarm saint. However my GM could easily throw that guy into a situation where all his AC and weapon prowess means nothing, does it make the build itself useless? NO...it just means I have to be prepared
Say the weapons a greatsword 2d6, that makes 4d6. add your str mod say a +2. so far that's 4d6 +2, now the channel smite part is added also which is the regular channel (actaully gonna use the right level reg for it) 5d6. that's another 5d6 and say it's a crit and max damage and is a +1 magic weapon, total would be this GS: 6d6+ str mod (3) + CS 5d6 = 70 (30 negative energy 40 slashing) damage from just channel smiting a guy with vital strike.
Redoing your math:
Normal hit with Vital Strike: 4d6 +2 +1 weapon
Vital Strike + Channel: 4d6 (14 damage) +3 +1 weapon + 5d6 (average 17 damage) = average 18 slashing + 17 negative energy =35 damage
If they make save: 18 slashing + 8 negative =26 damage
Total Damage is either 35 or 26 depending on save.Instead Full attack:
2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic + 5d6 (average 17) = 11 average slashing + 17 negative =28
Make save: 11 slashing + 8 negative
Second attack: 2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic= 11 damage average
Total: 39 or 30 if they make save.So you deal more damage if they failed save and more if they make save.
Let us do pretend land whgere mx damage is important (but you never roll max regularly unless you cheat in a real game):
Normal hit with Vital Strike: 4d6 +2 +1 weapon
Vital Strike + Channel: 4d6 (24 damage) +3 +1 weapon + 5d6 (30 damage) = 28 slashing + 30 negative energy =58 damage
If they make save: 28 slashing + 15 negative =43 damage
Total Damage is either 58 or 43 depending on save.Instead Full attack:
2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic + 5d6 (average 17) = 16 slashing + 30 negative =46
Make save: 16 slashing + 30 negative
Second attack: 2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic= 16 damage average
Total: 72 or 57 if they make save.Seems even in Max damage rolling, full attack wins.
Full attacking with a cleric is like saying he's a monk using flurry of blows and actually hits.
In all honesty, I think my cleric is going to be moving alot and still wont be able to full attack. ALso, the feats I plan to us all the vital strike feats, except greater vital strike, and using the devastating strike feats also.
|
|
Say the weapons a greatsword 2d6, that makes 4d6. add your str mod say a +2. so far that's 4d6 +2, now the channel smite part is added also which is the regular channel (actaully gonna use the right level reg for it) 5d6. that's another 5d6 and say it's a crit and max damage and is a +1 magic weapon, total would be this GS: 6d6+ str mod (3) + CS 5d6 = 70 (30 negative energy 40 slashing) damage from just channel smiting a guy with vital strike.
Redoing your math:
Normal hit with Vital Strike: 4d6 +2 +1 weapon
Vital Strike + Channel: 4d6 (14 damage) +3 +1 weapon + 5d6 (average 17 damage) = average 18 slashing + 17 negative energy =35 damage
If they make save: 18 slashing + 8 negative =26 damage
Total Damage is either 35 or 26 depending on save.Instead Full attack:
2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic + 5d6 (average 17) = 11 average slashing + 17 negative =28
Make save: 11 slashing + 8 negative
Second attack: 2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic= 11 damage average
Total: 39 or 30 if they make save.So you deal more damage if they failed save and more if they make save.
Let us do pretend land whgere mx damage is important (but you never roll max regularly unless you cheat in a real game):
Normal hit with Vital Strike: 4d6 +2 +1 weapon
Vital Strike + Channel: 4d6 (24 damage) +3 +1 weapon + 5d6 (30 damage) = 28 slashing + 30 negative energy =58 damage
If they make save: 28 slashing + 15 negative =43 damage
Total Damage is either 58 or 43 depending on save.Instead Full attack:
2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic + 5d6 (average 17) = 16 slashing + 30 negative =46
Make save: 16 slashing + 30 negative
Second attack: 2d6 + 3 Str + 1 magic= 16 damage average
Total: 72 or 57 if they make save.Seems even in Max damage rolling, full attack wins.
Full attacking with a cleric is like saying he's a monk using flurry of blows and actually hits.
In all honesty, I think my cleric is going to be moving alot and still wont be able to full attack. ALso, the...
Properly buffed, a Cleric very well is a better melee combatant then a fighter is. Divine Power, Righteous Might, Bless, and Blessing of Fervor...Does these options take a while to prepare? An Extend spell on them at 10th level will get you a 2 minutes with each spell. Bust down the down right afterwards. If you can, you could memorize a few as quickened spells. A oracle really shines with these types of things.
Dark Servitude is quite correct. Unless you're suggesting the cleric's attack bonus is three or more higher than the target's AC and always hits, then you probaly need to take off at least 25% of the second attacks (the drop if the *1st* attack is 'auto-hit'). It just gets worse as the chance to hit goes down and the -5 represents a larger portion of the opportunity to hit.
Now everyone run!
Here's why Vital Strike is not good for anyone who's not a T-Rex.
Using your example of a +1 Greatsword with a 14 STR and 5d6 Channel dice:
Normal Hit:
2d6(Base) +3(STR) +1(Weapon) +2d6(VS) +5d6(CS) = 9d6+4 (4d6+4 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 35.5 damage (18 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.Critical Hit:
2(2d6+3+1) +2d6 +5d6 = 11d6+8 (6d6+8 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 46.5 damage (29 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.
2 Normal Hits:
1st attack[2d6 +3 +1 +5d6] +2nd attack[2d6 +3 +1] = 9d6+8 (4d6+8 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 39.5 damage (22 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.1 Critical + 1 Normal Hit:
1st attack[2(2d6 +3 +1) +5d6] +2nd attack[2d6 +3 +1] = 11d6+12 (6d6+12 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 50.5 damage (33 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average. **Note that this total is the same if EITHER attack is a crit**2 Critical Hits:
1st attack[2(2d6 +3 +1) +5d6] +2nd attack[2(2d6 +3 +1)] = 13d6+16 (8d6+16 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 61.5 damage (44 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.Now make it a +1 Flaming Greatsword, and add 7 damage to each of the Full Attack damage totals; or a +1 Unholy Greatsword for +14 damage to each of the Full Attack totals (against good creatures); now start using Power attack for another +12 to +24 damage (against the +6/+12 to the VS totals). Granted, this is assuming that both attacks hit, but I'll take a -5 to hit for a shot at up to +38 damage.
Your numbers ignore several things, mainly the hit chance for a 3/4 BAB attack. Assuming we're at level 10 the average AC of a CR10 monster is 24. Here's the adjusted math:
Hit bonus= 11: 7 (bab)+3 (str) +1 (enhancement) giving him a 40% hit chance without additonal feat/bonuses
Normal Hit:
2d6(Base) +3(STR) +1(Weapon) +2d6(VS) +5d6(CS) = 9d6+4 (4d6+4 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 35.5 damage (18 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.
.4*35.5= 14.2 on average
Critical Hit:
2(2d6+3+1) +2d6 +5d6 = 11d6+8 (6d6+8 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 46.5 damage (29 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.
.4 *46.5=18.6
2 Normal Hits:
1st attack[2d6 +3 +1 +5d6] +2nd attack[2d6 +3 +1] = 9d6+8 (4d6+8 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 39.5 damage (22 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.
.4*28.5 (7d6+4)= 11.4
.15*11 (2d6+4)= 1.64
Total 13 damage (less than VS)
1 Critical + 1 Normal Hit:
1st attack[2(2d6 +3 +1) +5d6] +2nd attack[2d6 +3 +1] = 11d6+12 (6d6+12 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 50.5 damage (33 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average. **Note that this total is the same if EITHER attack is a crit**
.4*35.5 (9d6+4)= 14.2
.15*11 (2d6+4)= 1.64
Damage= 16 (less than VS that crits slightly better than non crit VS)
2 Critical Hits:
1st attack[2(2d6 +3 +1) +5d6] +2nd attack[2(2d6 +3 +1)] = 13d6+16 (8d6+16 slash; 5d6 neg energy) = 61.5 damage (44 slash; 17.5 neg energy) on average.
.4*35.5 (9d6+4)= 14.2
.15*18 (4d6+4)= 2.7
Damage= 17 (less than VS)
As you add damage to each attack the multiple attacks will start to even out and then pull ahead but it will take until later levels that most people wouldn't reach. If you add Power attack and Furious Focus the single attack pulls even further ahead since the to hit penalty on the second attack basically makes it worthless. If you figure that by using a single attack and using your move action to flank you can get a +2 flanking bonus to hit semi regularly the single attack option looks even better. Finally if you are fighting something with DR that you can't beat than the VS looks much better. DR 5/- brings the single attack down by 5 but the full attack down by 10.
Hit bonus= 11: 7 (bab)+3 (str) +1 (enhancement) giving him a 40% hit chance without additonal feat/bonuses
If those are your bonuses at level 10, you don't belong in melee--you are practically wasting your actions by using them on attacks.
|
|
Hit bonus= 11: 7 (bab)+3 (str) +1 (enhancement) giving him a 40% hit chance without additonal feat/bonusesIf those are your bonuses at level 10, you don't belong in melee--you are practically wasting your actions by using them on attacks.
I have to agree with this. A character designed to fight in melee should have +4 to hit at level 1, at least. After 2 level-based ability score increases, magic items and buffs, if you can't reach +11 to hit at level 10, you're pretty much a non-factor.
My Aasimar Cleric of Nethys with Guided Hand will likely have the following at level 10:
7 (BAB) + 5 (Wis) + 1 (Wis headband) + 2 (Enhancement) = +15 to hit, before counting buffs or other feats. And he won't be hitting things nearly as well as the Ranger in the party.
|
I have to agree that Vital Strike is not a trap feat. It is however a build feat. Like two weapon fighting and point blank shot it is a feat that you base your entire combative build on. If you don't it will be a waste. It is also good for fighters with lots of feats to use when they cannot full attack.
I have a wonderful Barbarian/twohanded fighter who makes vital strike very dangerous. Even more so when there is a wizard to cast enlarge person.
I have to agree that Vital Strike is not a trap feat. It is however a build feat. Like two weapon fighting and point blank shot it is a feat that you base your entire combative build on. If you don't it will be a waste. It is also good for fighters with lots of feats to use when they cannot full attack.
I have a wonderful Barbarian/twohanded fighter who makes vital strike very dangerous. Even more so when there is a wizard to cast enlarge person.
I can guarantee you that you would be more dangerous with something other than Vital Strike--and that is why Vital Strike is a trap feat.
Hit bonus= 11: 7 (bab)+3 (str) +1 (enhancement) giving him a 40% hit chance without additonal feat/bonusesIf those are your bonuses at level 10, you don't belong in melee--you are practically wasting your actions by using them on attacks.I have to agree with this. A character designed to fight in melee should have +4 to hit at level 1, at least. After 2 level-based ability score increases, magic items and buffs, if you can't reach +11 to hit at level 10, you're pretty much a non-factor.
My Aasimar Cleric of Nethys with Guided Hand will likely have the following at level 10:
7 (BAB) + 5 (Wis) + 1 (Wis headband) + 2 (Enhancement) = +15 to hit, before counting buffs or other feats. And he won't be hitting things nearly as well as the Ranger in the party.
I was going off the OP's stats for str and enhancement bonuses. I agree that if you were to build itout further you'd have much better stats. The basic numbers should more or less stay the same. The point of was just to show that the numbers he used were incomplete and that it's a much closer comparison than he was portraying.
|
|
Vital strike it about taking advantage of every action. It is good for bards/rangers who use move actions to buff, barbarians with Intimidating glare, Battle clerics with quick channel. Vital Strike addresses the need to move to hit in combat and allows extra actions.
Vital strike is not perfect in every situation. If my barbarian got haste on him he would stop vital striking when next to his opponent and go for the full attack. But vital strike has many, powerful uses (to the Two handed style warrior).
I can guarantee you that you would be more dangerous with something other than Vital Strike--and that is why Vital Strike is a trap feat.
My numbers up thread were pretty rough but they seem to imply that this isn't the case. The thread's about VS and Channel smite so would you care to post a build for a 10th level cleric that uses channel smite and does more damage?