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?
No, because Channel Smite is sucky, too--I would never take it. It's also irrelevant to the issue because Channel Smite could be added to your first attack in a full attack anyway, thus contributing exactly the same amount of damage. Also, don't waste a feat on this garbage unless you're going for Guided Hand.
Anyway, your numbers assumed two things:
1) Your cleric would have a terrible attack bonus--so terrible that they shouldn't be attacking at all
2) Your cleric at 10th level who was intending to get into fights would not have cast Blessing of Fervor for some reason
Let me throw some numbers out there.
I can't account for every possibly variable to hit and damage. However, I can count on a few specific buffs to be active for any serious battle cleric. A level 10 cleric can cast Blessing of Fervor, so they can be fairly certain to have 3 attacks with a full attack (or +2 to hit on Vital Strike). They'll also have Righteous Might, so, assuming Gorum (for the Greatsword), that's 3d6 base weapon damage (this is the most favorable weapon for the cleric to have).
Everything else, I'll deal with in variables.
Note that these numbers are rough because they don't include crits (as the amount of accuracy added to the numbers by including crits is disproportionate to the amount of work adding them would be), but know that crits would make Vital Strike look even worse than these numbers already do, so it's not going to help the cause.
(H + .1)(6d6 + X)
Meanwhile, a full attack (three attacks and the third at -5) will deal:
(3H - .25)(3d6 + X)
Vital Strike is better than a full attack when:
(H + .1)(6d6 + X) > (3H - .25)(3d6 + X)
21H + XH + 2.1 + .1H > 31.5H + 3XH - 2.625 - .25X
4.725 + .35X > 10.5H + 2XH
So, ok, the way you'd use this is to plug in either H or X and then see what the other has to be for it to work.
So, let's say you hit 50% of the time (this is absurd, by the way, and should absolutely not happen with all your buffs). You'd just plug .5 in there for H and get the following:
4.725 + .35X > 5.25 + X
-.525 > .65X
So, uh, you'd need to have a penalty to damage for Vital Strike to be better than a full attack. Ooh, not looking good for Vital Strike.
Let's say the Cleric is power attacking (+6 damage) with 22 Strength after buffs (+9 damage) and Divine Power granting +3 more damage for +18 total. I'd consider that pretty weak for level 10, but it's an ok baseline.
That would give us:
4.725 + 6.3 > 10.5H + 36H
11.025 > 46.5H
.237 > H
So, with +18 static mods, you're only better off with Vital Strike if you miss on a 16. Still not good.
So there, you go--you can test your numbers with that formula. You need an extremely low hit chance to make Vital Strike worth it, and if you have an extremely low hit chance, you need to stop wasting turns attacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll accept your numbers for "buffed full attack vs buffed vital strike" and admit that when when all your bonuses are up it's almost always better to full attack. Of course taking VS doesn't mean you have to use it in every situation and if you have all your buffs feel free to full attack. There are however several situations where it is clearly better than not having it:
A) How often are you unable to make a full attack due to movement/positioning?
B) How often are you Disabled or Staggered?
C) How often do you have to stand up from prone, pick up a disarmed weapon or retrieve a stored potion/item?
D) How often are you in a surprise round?
E) How often do you run in to circumstances where you are not able to get all of your buff spells working?
F) How many times have you not needed the extra damage? If the difference from VS is enough drop the enemy as a standard action than you gain action economy.
In all of these situations you're better off with VS since you can't or don't need to full attack.
On top of that your math doesn't take in to account that VS is a standard action and that you have an additional move action that the full attacker doesn't. That move action can do a lot of things to deal or prevent damage:
A) Channel smite sucks, I'll give that to you. So instead the cleric picks up quick channel and does 5d6 damage to every enemy in range as a move action on top of the VS attack.
B) You can use that move action to position yourself in to a flanking position. That adds +2 (10%) to your hit chance upping your damage and also adds to the damage that the other flanker causes. If you've got a TWF rogue in the party setting him up with a +2 bonus and the ability to full attack with sneak can end encounters.
C) If you are out matched when trading full attacks you can attack and then use the move action to retreat. This is especially good against enemies with a large number of attacks (twf/monks/lots of natural attacks).
D) Use the move action to get close with enemy casters to disrupt their spells (great with disruptive feat).
E) Feint with improved feint to deny Dex bonuses.
F) Move to interrupt a charge lane that targets your caster/archers.
|
To be honest, some of the circumstances you've mentioned have literally never happened to my characters, while the rest are just uncommon. There has almost never been an occasion where I could justify spending a good number of feats on the eventuality that I couldn't do anything more than a standard attack action in a round, and certainly not on a Cleric, who has very few feats to work with compared to any other martial class, especially if they hope to improve their spellcasting ability at all.
Vital Strike is like building a bomb shelter in 1950s America. Yeah, there could be situations where you'd need it, but you're wasting tons of resources to do so.
Some are uncommon. After all if you spend a lot of time disabled you're not going to have a long career. On the other hand being unable to make a full attack every round is pretty common. If you figure that on the first round of combat you need to move in to position to full attack and that each combat encounter generally lasts 5 rounds that's 20% of the time you can't full attack. If you have to move once or twice to change opponents than that percentage goes up. Depending on your DM surprise rounds or combats that don't give you an opportunity to buff can be pretty common too. It's not a must have feat for every table or play style but if you tend to run more mobile combats vs the stand and deliver types it's a good feat.
A) How often are you unable to make a full attack due to movement/positioning?
Cast a spell--you're a cleric, after all. I can just about guarantee that you'll be better served casting a spell in those situations than spending a feat on vital striking.
B) How often are you Disabled or Staggered?
I hope never! Also, cast a spell.
C) How often do you have to stand up from prone, pick up a disarmed weapon or retrieve a stored potion/item?
Very infrequently. Also, cast a spell.
D) How often are you in a surprise round?
Not that often. Also, Spell--this is the perfect opportunity, for example, to cast Blessing of Fervor.
E) How often do you run in to circumstances where you are not able to get all of your buff spells working?
Never because if I have a standard action, I could, uh, just get my buffs working instead of attacking once.
F) How many times have you not needed the extra damage? If the difference from VS is enough drop the enemy as a standard action than you gain action economy.
The chance that 3d6 or less can make a predictable difference (as if the difference is not predictable, you can't actually make the informed decision to save on action economy) for a level 10 character is infinitesimally small.
In all of these situations you're better off with VS since you can't or don't need to full attack.
And you are even better off casting a spell instead.
A) Channel smite sucks, I'll give that to you. So instead the cleric picks up quick channel and does 5d6 damage to every enemy in range as a move action on top of the VS attack.
If there are enough enemies around for channeling to make a meaningful contribution, then I'd rather Quick Channel with my move and Channel again with my standard, than use Vital Strike.
B) You can use that move action to position yourself in to a flanking position. That adds +2 (10%) to your hit chance upping your damage and also adds to the damage that the other flanker causes. If you've got a TWF rogue in the party setting him up with a +2 bonus and the ability to full attack with sneak can end encounters.
If you could have full attacked and couldn't take a 5' step into a flanking position, the only way you could move into a flanking position from such a set up would provoke opportunity attacks. I can't see that being worth it.
C) If you are out matched when trading full attacks you can attack and then use the move action to retreat. This is especially good against enemies with a large number of attacks (twf/monks/lots of natural attacks).
A ranged weapon is your friend in this situation. Or, hey, how about spells! You're a cleric! Also, if you use your move action to get away, you're eating an AoO, which is really not worth losing you full attack for. It would take a truly remarkable multi-attacking enemy to make this a good idea.
D) Use the move action to get close with enemy casters to disrupt their spells (great with disruptive feat).
No, we were talking about level 10 here, so I can guarantee you this is not "great with disruptive." This is a waste of time with or without disruptive because casting defensively is laughably easy by level 10--even with the paltry +4 DC from Disruptive (which clerics can't take anyway because it requires 6 levels of Fighter).
E) Feint with improved feint to deny Dex bonuses.
Feinting is a terrible use of an action, even if you're a Rogue and actually gain a real benefit from denying Dex. As is, the vast majority of enemies in the bestiary lose very little AC to this tactic. It's one of the reasons touch attacks are so highly regarded.
I also highly doubt many clerics will have the Bluff required to even pull this off.
F) Move to interrupt a charge lane that targets your caster/archers.
You're the cleric--you are one of the casters. But anyway, even if you're the one who has to do this, why would a 10th level cleric move into the charge lane, rather than casting a spell like Blade Barrier or something?
On the other hand being unable to make a full attack every round is pretty common. If you figure that on the first round of combat you need to move in to position to full attack and that each combat encounter generally lasts 5 rounds that's 20% of the time you can't full attack.
And for a Cleric, that's the round you're buffing--using spells like Blessing of Fervor, for example.
Cast a spell--you're a cleric, after all. I can just about guarantee that you'll be better served casting a spell in those situations than spending a feat on vital striking.
Resource management. A battle cleric isn't built to have a ton of bonus spells and unless you're running a game that uses the 15 minute adventure day you'll run out of spells pretty quickly. We tend to average at least 4-6 encounters between resting with one being rather tough. Also you're a BATTLE cleric. You want to get in there and swing your sword.
Wally the Wizard wrote:
C) How often do you have to stand up from prone, pick up a disarmed weapon or retrieve a stored potion/item?
Very infrequently. Also, cast a spell..
Apparently my DM favors combat maneuvers much more than yours does.
If there are enough enemies around for channeling to make a meaningful contribution, then I'd rather Quick Channel with my move and Channel again with my standard, than use Vital Strike.
Resource management again. Channels are sparse for a battle cleric.
If you could have full attacked and couldn't take a 5' step into a flanking position, the only way you could move into a flanking position from such a set up would provoke opportunity attacks. I can't see that being worth it.
The enemy you were fighting could have disengaged, you might have defeated that enemy with your VS and be moving to flank on a second enemy, or yes maybe you eat an AOO but if it sets up a a TWF rogue with an extra 5d6 on each attack it may very well be worth it.
A ranged weapon is your friend in this situation. Or, hey, how about spells! You're a cleric! Also, if you use your move action to get away, you're eating an AoO, which is really not worth losing you full attack for. It would take a truly remarkable multi-attacking enemy to make this a good idea.
Clerics get pretty crappy ranged options. Spells we've covered under resource management. The AOO means they get one attack when you move out of the threatened area and then a second attack if they move in and do a standard attack. If they had 3 or more attacks they lose out. Make an acrobatics check and you end up further ahead.
No, we were talking about level 10 here, so I can guarantee you this is not "great with disruptive." This is a waste of time with or without disruptive because casting defensively is laughably easy by level 10--even with the paltry +4 DC from Disruptive (which clerics can't take anyway because it requires 6 levels of Fighter).
You're right a cleric can't take disruptive, my bad. So 10th level is 4th or 5th level spells. A concentration check would be 23 or 25 level respectively. Figure a +6 bonus from stats and the 10 caster levels and you're looking at a 40% fail rate for their highest level spells. Plus If you take step up they can't take the 5 ft step. That's not "laughably easy".
Feinting is a terrible use of an action, even if you're a Rogue and actually gain a real benefit from denying Dex. As is, the vast majority of enemies in the bestiary lose very little AC to this tactic. It's one of the reasons touch attacks are so highly regarded.
I also highly doubt many clerics will have the Bluff required to even pull this off.
Agreed, though I think it could be useful with the right rogue build. I just added this to show there were options.
You're the cleric--you are one of the casters. But anyway, even if you're the one who has to do this, why would a 10th level cleric move into the charge lane, rather than casting a spell like Blade Barrier or something?
You're a battle Cleric. That means you're more meat shield than caster. Also you can't cast blade barrier til next level. Also why waste a limited resource if a simple move will solve the problem?
Wally the Wizard wrote:
On the other hand being unable to make a full attack every round is pretty common. If you figure that on the first round of combat you need to move in to position to full attack and that each combat encounter generally lasts 5 rounds that's 20% of the time you can't full attack.And for a Cleric, that's the round you're buffing--using spells like Blessing of Fervor, for example.
If you use the first round to buff you'll still need to use the second round to close distance so the point stands. You may get lucky and the enemy will come to you instead but this isn't always the case. Also you're a freaking battle cleric of gorum, your god demands that you go to the battle, not wait for it to come to you like some sissy spell slinger!
I think the take away from this is that we play different play styles at our tables, which is the cool part of this game, it can accommodate many styles. If you find that you often have to make standard attacks for whatever reasons than the feat is worth it. If not pass than pass on it.
....
Did this just derail into another hate / numbers thread about Vital strike / Channel smite? Just for us in the cheap seats here I wanna be clear. Cause that seems to come up every time someone talks vital strike.
Arg... rage.... bad.... good... blah... number.... stuff... more numbers.... your numbers are wrong.... I see your numbers and raise you more numbers.... better numbers.... numbers from a different build.... Numbers with a different feat.... numbers from a completely different build.... numbers from this other build with TWF and rogue attacks.... who uses rogues? numbers from a ninja build.... cheesecake....
Cheesecake?
Optimal or not. Perception of trap or not, lets just accept that some people like the feat, and others don't and move on.
Dark_servititude: Back on track. Yes, you can do it. Vital strike is "When you use the attack action....". Channel smite is "when you roll a melee attack... " which you are doing as a part of the attack action. The only other rider is hat Channel smite specifies Melee attack, whereas Vital does not. You can't channel your bow (which I don't like, but that's another conversation). At "basic" vital strike, it would allow you to do (Weapon Dice x 2) + (Smite / Channel damage mitigated by save) + str and stuff. Doing so would cost you your standard and Swift action for the round.
Next up in the thread, an even handed, fair, well thought out and meaningful conversation on if a Pally can use vital strike without falling because it's hitting someone in the ... well... vitals. And that doesn't seem fair and honourable.
Resource management. A battle cleric isn't built to have a ton of bonus spells and unless you're running a game that uses the 15 minute adventure day you'll run out of spells pretty quickly.
By level 10, Clerics are throwing around a ton of spells per day. 22 to be precise, without considering bonus spells. If you're facing 6 encounters per day, you can cast just shy of 4 spells per encounter without running out.
Apparently my DM favors combat maneuvers much more than yours does.Wally the Wizard wrote:
C) How often do you have to stand up from prone, pick up a disarmed weapon or retrieve a stored potion/item?
Very infrequently. Also, cast a spell..
The vast majority of creatures in the bestiary lack the Improved maneuver feats, and so will provoke for doing that stuff--provoking is very bad.
When I GM, I always custom build the enemies, but maneuvers are generally so ineffective, I think most of them fail the value test (they cost more to invest in than they give back)--the exceptions are Grapple and Dirty Trick, but neither of those change Vital Strike's value.
If there are enough enemies around for channeling to make a meaningful contribution, then I'd rather Quick Channel with my move and Channel again with my standard, than use Vital Strike.Resource management again. Channels are sparse for a battle cleric.
Oh, ok--so they can spare two channels, but not three. Got it. <_<
Feats are sparse for battle clerics, too, but I see you don't think much of that limited resource.
The enemy you were fighting could have disengaged, you might have defeated that enemy with your VS and be moving to flank on a second enemy, or yes maybe you eat an AOO but if it sets up a a TWF rogue with an extra 5d6 on each attack it may very well be worth it.
I disagree--if you could move to get in a position to flank with the Rogue, the Rogue could also move to get into a flank with you. And 5d6 averages 17.5, so it's not super worth it anyway.
And if we're talking about optimizing, why are you not helping your fellow player and explaining to them why rogues are lousy in the first place? You should be guiding them to the dozens of options that obsoleted the rogue.
Clerics get pretty crappy ranged options. Spells we've covered under resource management. The AOO means they get one attack when you move out of the threatened area and then a second attack if they move in and do a standard attack. If they had 3 or more attacks they lose out. Make an acrobatics check and you end up further ahead.
If your battle cleric can make an acrobatics check to beat the CMD of a CR 10+ enemy, I'll eat my hat.
And they're not losing out proportionally. If you hit and retreat, you took one swing instead of 3. That's 1/3 your normal output. Then they get an AoO and another standard attack (unless they have one of many abilities to still nail you with a full attack like pounce or a swift teleport or a long reach or a ranged weapon, etc.). They'd need 6 attacks before that equals out proportionally to what you gave up.
Also, not all clerics have poor ranged options. Elves, clerics of Erastil, etc. get bows for example.
Plus If you take step up they can't take the 5 ft step.
How many feats, exactly, does your level 10 Cleric have that he can take Step Up and Vital Strike now?
You're a battle Cleric. That means you're more meat shield than caster. Also you can't cast blade barrier til next level. Also why waste a limited resource if a simple move will solve the problem?
Because the resource is totally superior in every way, if you use it properly it will win the encounter on its own, and I would rather spend my spell slots than my other limited resource (HP) to solve a threat.
I think the take away from this is that we play different play styles at our tables, which is the cool part of this game, it can accommodate many styles. If you find that you often have to make standard attacks for whatever reasons than the feat is worth it. If not pass than pass on it.
No, it's still not worth it if you find yourself having to make standard attacks a lot. That's just the thing--if you have to make standard action attacks constantly, you're actually better off not being a melee fighting type at all.
"Oh, but I want to be one! So, that makes Vital Strike good!"
"No, it makes Vital Strike a consolation prize to make you feel better, because the rules of the game you are playing combined with your GM's handling of NPC behavior neuter the concept you're most interested in."
There is no equilibrium point along the "It is difficult for me to take full-attack actions"/"It is still worth while being melee" continuum.
Melee is good as long as you can take lots of full attack actions. If you can't, it's not worth being melee at all. Vital Strike only makes you suck slightly less if you refuse to give in.
Did this just derail into another hate / numbers thread about Vital strike / Channel smite? Just for us in the cheap seats here I wanna be clear. Cause that seems to come up every time someone talks vital strike...
...Optimal or not. Perception of trap or not, lets just accept that some people like the feat, and others don't and move on.
Hypothetical scenario:
We're walking together down a path in the woods when we come to a fork in the road. You want to go right because that path is bright and sunny and pleasant looking and it kind of looks like a shortcut by your reckoning. There's also a sign pointing down this path offering free fresh-baked pie.
However, I can see just a short distance down the path lies a well hidden bear trap. If you go that way, you'll step in it and you will be crippled.
Do you think I should let you walk the way you want and suffer the consequences of your own actions? Or do you think maybe I should be a decent person and warn you that you're walking into a trap?
By level 10, Clerics are throwing around a ton of spells per day. 22 to be precise, without considering bonus spells. If you're facing 6 encounters per day, you can cast just shy of 4 spells per encounter without running out.
Several of those spells are low level ones that won't contribute much. Others will be out of combat utility spells. You've also got to keep some in reserve for emergency healing or in case you end up with a surprise 7th encounter that day.
The vast majority of creatures in the bestiary lack the Improved maneuver feats, and so will provoke for doing that stuff--provoking is very bad.
When I GM, I always custom build the enemies, but maneuvers are generally so ineffective, I think most of them fail the value test (they cost more to invest in than they give back)--the exceptions are Grapple and Dirty Trick, but neither of those change Vital Strike's value
At this level many enemies are large or bigger and have high strength scores. With those bonuses they have a high chance of success on combat maneuvers even without the feats. Sure they may provoke but for taking that AOO on a trip they would get: you prone, giving them and any other enemies that attack you a +4 on attacks, an AOO when you stand and since you have to spend a move action to stand you can't full attack them next round... sounds like a decent trade off to me.
Oh, ok--so they can spare two channels, but not three. Got it. <_<
Feats are sparse for battle clerics, too, but I see you don't think much of that limited resource.
A cleric with a 12 cha would have 4 channels per day. Enough for 2 quickened. Spending a 3rd in a battle where you've already weakened the enemy enough to mop up with attacks means you can't use a quickened one in a later encounter.
Feats are precious but if you are finding you make standard attacks 25+% or more of the time than getting an extra 10 points of damage on the roll is worth it.
I disagree--if you could move to get in a position to flank with the Rogue, the Rogue could also move to get into a flank with you. And 5d6 averages 17.5, so it's not super worth it anyway.
And if we're talking about optimizing, why are you not helping your fellow player and explaining to them why rogues are lousy in the first place? You should be guiding them to the dozens of options that obsoleted the rogue.
5d6 on each attack. If I give up my move action to set up a flank than on his turn he can take all of his attacks. Assuming twf and blessing of fervor is up that's 5 attacks, 25d6 worth of extra damage if he hits. Hell of a return on my move action.
Optimizing isn't about choosing the highest numbers no matter what, it's about making choices that make your concept work. If someone wants to play a two dagger wielding rogue I'm not going to beat them up until they switch to kukris I'm going to advise them on how to maximize what they do want. It'd be a boring game if we all only played the most optimum build.
If your battle cleric can make an acrobatics check to beat the CMD of a CR 10+ enemy, I'll eat my hat.
And they're not losing out proportionally. If you hit and retreat, you took one swing instead of 3. That's 1/3 your normal output. Then they get an AoO and another standard attack (unless they have one of many abilities to still nail you with a full attack like pounce or a swift teleport or a long reach or a ranged weapon, etc.). They'd need 6 attacks before that equals out proportionally to what you gave up.
Also, not all clerics have poor ranged options. Elves, clerics of Erastil, etc. get bows for example.
Make the check every time? Not a chance. Make it on a good roll, sure. Think of it as a bonus.
It's not 1/3 my normal output, that's the whole point of the VS feat it mitigates the loss of attacks. It's more like 1/2 my output with the extra damage and BoF going towards an increased hit chance (and AC making that AOO less likely to hit) and the point of retreating isn't to keep up on damage it's to stay alive until someone can help. Conventional wisdom is offense outweighs defense, and it's right...except when it's not. Sometimes staying alive is more important than dealing damage.
Elves or erastil clerics make fine archer clerics but horrible melee ones so it's really not an option for a melee focused cleric. If I do need a ranged attack I could pick up a light crossbow and Vital Strike would add 1d8 damage and still leave my move action free for reloading.
How many feats, exactly, does your level 10 Cleric have that he can take Step Up and Vital Strike now?
5-6, enough to pick up power attack, furious focus and 1-2 more feats and of course any cleric with the war domain gets that nifty floating combat feat.
Because the resource is totally superior in every way, if you use it properly it will win the encounter on its own, and I would rather spend my spell slots than my other limited resource (HP) to solve a threat.
If casting a spell is a going to drastically change the course of the battle than that's the move I'll make. If it's not and I can use a resource that's less precious I'll do that instead. And HP is less precious as long as you finish the encounter with at least 1. It's much easier to replenish between encounters than spell slots are.
No, it's still not worth it if you find yourself having to make standard attacks a lot. That's just the thing--if you have to make standard action attacks constantly, you're actually better off not being a melee fighting type at all.
"What?! You're playing a monk?! Sorry, you can't play tonight."
"Hey can you believe this guy, he tried to play a rogue! I told him to leave and not come back until he learned to play AM BARBARIAN"
The point of the game is to have fun and create a memorable story, not roll the biggest numbers. Certain builds will deal more damage than others. That's okay. Vital Strike is a feat that helps people whose concepts or tactics involve using standard attacks on a semi regular basis. Power attack is a horrible feat for a wizard, but that doesn't make it a bad feat, it makes it a good one when used on the right character. I'm done debating at this point, I doubt either of us is going to change our mind and it can only go downhill from here. If you want to respond to any of my points I'll check on the thread later but I probably wont respond. Have a good one.
Here is a post with some numbers on Vital Strike.
One thing to note is that the Feat "Second Chance" will almost always be better than the entire Vital Strike Chain and with "Improved Second Chance"this is nearing 99% of the time.
I agree with mplindustries, the Vital strike line is a trap as it will only be useful if you only have a standard action, and you already hit on a 5 or less, or if your die size is obscene such as the afore mentioned T-Rex.
I would point out that this makes it only mildly useful for Fighters or other Full BaB classes and only if your entire concept is based around being a "One-Hit Wonder".
Even then past levels 8 you will be party dead weight in my opinion. Please see my post for the proof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats are precious but if you are finding you make standard attacks 25+% or more of the time than getting an extra 10 points of damage on the roll is worth it.
Er, no, if your feat only works 25% of the time, I absolutely do not think it's worth it, especially if it only adds 10 damage. Frankly, that sounds like a terrible use of a feat.
Optimizing isn't about choosing the highest numbers no matter what, it's about making choices that make your concept work. If someone wants to play a two dagger wielding rogue I'm not going to beat them up until they switch to kukris I'm going to advise them on how to maximize what they do want. It'd be a boring game if we all only played the most optimum build.
I wouldn't put pressure on a rogue to switch to kukris, I'd put pressure on a rogue to switch to a bard, inquisitor, alchemist, or ranger--or at the very least, a ninja.
"Being a Rogue" is not a concept. Rogue is a class, a purely mechanical construct--there are no abilities that a Rogue gets that cannot be gotten by another, better class.
"What?! You're playing a monk?! Sorry, you can't play tonight."
"Hey can you believe this guy, he tried to play a rogue! I told him to leave and not come back until he learned to play AM BARBARIAN"
How about instead, we ask what the guy wanted out of the monk and then build a character for them that does exactly what they want, but better?
The point of the game is to have fun and create a memorable story, not roll the biggest numbers. Certain builds will deal more damage than others. That's okay. Vital Strike is a feat that helps people whose concepts or tactics involve using standard attacks on a semi regular basis.
You basically just made my point for me. Vital Strike is a feat that helps people who insist on doing something weak and lousy. That does not make Vital Strike a good feat! It is a bad feat that makes bad tactics slightly less bad. It is never the best feat to take unless you're already planning on doing foolish things.
Would I be able to do more damage with a ranged combattant? Sure. But it is decent and it is one of those instance where VS is not, IMO a trap.
Unquestionably, it is a trap and you've fallen into it--the very fact that you recognize that you could deal more damage another way but still defend Vital Strike shows that. If you could do more damage another way, why would you choose this way?
I get it if it's conceptual, but it being conceptual does not make Vital Strike good, it makes Vital Strike a bad feat that makes your bad choices slightly less bad.
And before someone says I'd be able to do better average damage using rapid shot, etc., no, not likely. I'm using two other feats that preclude more than one attack per round (Focused Shot and Bullseye Shot), which contribute +4 to hit and currently +5 to damage)...
Those other feats are also bad for the same reason Vital Strike is. Pathfinder is built on a game chassis that essentially requires combat characters to make full attacks in order to actually contribute.
More attacks will just about always be better than one, even if you add bonuses. Think about it--I know those three feats are adding +4 to hit and 1d10+5 damage, but imagine what you could have done with those feats otherwise.
And as a ranged combatant, you don't even have the excuse of needing your move action to get in position.
His damage will improve immensely on my next level (where I get Deadly Aim for another +6 damage), and by level 15 I'll be looking at +30 to hit and 3d10+26 damage, with crits on 17-20 for another 1d10+26 damage...
My level 7 Paladin Archer was, without smiting, dealing 1d8+11 damage per arrow--and I shot 4 arrows a turn (5 with haste from the Mage).
I'm super impressed by your level 15 character that is so handily outdamaged by a character less than half their level. <_<
I'm playing an archeologist with a heavy repeating crossbow and the vital strike feat looking at one +24 to hit, 2d10+13 attack every round, more or less all day long (27 rounds of archeologist's luck, in 3-round increments) should be enough for most situations.
Would I be able to do more damage with a ranged combattant? Sure. But it is decent and it is one of those instance where VS is not, IMO a trap. And before someone says I'd be able to do better average damage using rapid shot, etc., no, not likely. I'm using two other feats that preclude more than one attack per round (Focused Shot and Bullseye Shot), which contribute +4 to hit and currently +5 to damage)...
His damage will improve immensely on my next level (where I get Deadly Aim for another +6 damage), and by level 15 I'll be looking at +30 to hit and 3d10+26 damage, with crits on 17-20 for another 1d10+26 damage...
As far as I can see Vital strike which requires the Attack action is incompatible with Focused Shot which requires a standard action to activate.
Now you can use Vital Strike + Bull's eye shot, however then you are not adding anything to your attack sequence.
It would most likely be better to use Focused shot + Bull's eye shot.
Vital strike due to being specifically a special kind of standard action called an "Attack action" is incompatible with quite a few things.
I believe all of the above is correct due to my readings of the feats and the Vital Strike clarifications here on the boards, if I am incorrect I apologize.
I still suspect Deadly Aim + Rapid Shot > Bull's eye Shot + Focused Shot.
|
As far as I can see Vital strike which requires the Attack action is incompatible with Focused Shot which requires a standard action to activate.
This is absolutely right. Focused Shot is probably an even worse feat than Vital Strike, unless you've got some sort of crazy single-shot Sniper build with a high INT. Just Vital Strike, it can't be combined with much of anything else since it's its own special standard action, and you have to be a high INT/DEX build to make it worthwhile. But with those stats, nearly any other INT/DEX build will be better.
Vital Strike isn't its own Standard Action. It is a modifier of the Standard Attack Action. Which means anything that uses the Standard Attack Action is Stackable.
|
|
Vital Strike isn't its own Standard Action. It is a modifier of the Standard Attack Action. Which means anything that uses the Standard Attack Action is Stackable.
And there just aren't a whole lot of actions which do that. Focused Shot is out, Spring Attack is out, Cleave is out, etc. You can use basic attack modifiers like Deadly Aim or Power Attack, but there is a dearth of abilities or feats that work in conjunction with Vital Strike. Pretty much the only people capable of truly benefiting from it are mounted characters, creatures with large die single hit attacks like the ol' T-rex, or characters using weapons with weird rules interactions like the Double Crossbow/Musket/Pistol.
Double Crossbow/Musket/Pistol are excellent for it... So are some of the multiple damage die weapons such as the Greatsword if only for the fact that on a Standard Attack you can hit without much loss in power for when you can't charge or 5-Foot step to get in range. Though again it isn't like an immediate feat to pick up. Though a Fighter might be the only one to use it simply for the fact that they have the Feats they can spare for it. It also allows a Fighter to fire their Bow as they approach into charge range and deal additional damage.
So while it might not be a wonderful feat the line is good if you have the feats and want to have a feat that works in those situations.
Such as my current Fighter can't really use the Critical Feats as we are fighting things immune to Crits. He also needs to be flexible on Damage types which means he can't get good mileage out of Weapon Focus and Specialization. Then I usually must move into charge range but must also be able to deal damage from the start of combat.
Situational? Yes. Usable? Yes. Optimized? No.