Vital Strike


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Does this feat mean you give up all your attacks for one attack that deals more damage?

OR

One of your attacks deals more damage?


It's the first option. It only works with standard-action attacks, and can't be combined with a full-attack action.


It is it's own standard action, and can't be combined with any other standard or full-round actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isn't it's own standard action, but it is the Attack action which is a specific standard action. You could combine multiple effects that all affect the Attack action (ie. combine Vital Strike with Overhand Chop) whereas you couldn't do it in conjunction with Cleave which is a standard Use Feat action. So it's your average, every-day single-hit Attack action which takes a standard to perform; you cannot use it for the first strike of a Full-Attack which is what people used to think you could do until a FAQ cleared it up.


The feat says absolutely NOTHING about sacrificing other attacks, nor does it say it's use in a Standard Action. In fact it specifically notes that you can only do it on ONE attack, implying you WOULD get any remaining attacks!

VITAL STRIKE
You make a single attack that deals significantly more
damage than normal.
When you use the attack action, you can make
one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals
additional damage.

If you look at Whirlwind Attack it clearly notes that it IS a Full Round action and that you Give Up all additional attacks.

WHIRLWIND ATTACK
You can strike out at every foe within reach.
When you use the full-attack action, you can
give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee
attack at your highest base attack bonus against each
opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack
roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit
any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells,
or abilities.

These are direct Cut & Pastes from the latest 6th Printing, so they had 5 reprintings to correct any ambiguity if they thought there was any.

Some of you are reading into this what you want, not what it reads.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Winterwolf: You don't need to take our 1-year-old words for it; the official FAQ states the same thing:

FAQ wrote:

Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?

No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

And since you thought I was reading into it what I want, I'll just mention that my personal view is that Vital Strike is too restrictive, and should work on both spring attacks and charges ;)

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Winterwolf, if you have a question of your own, feel free to make a new thread and ask it there.

This thread was almost a year old. There was no need to resurrect it.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Exactly.

But, read exactly what it says

CRB P136 wrote:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.

Parsing this, I see that you are using the attack action (not the "Full Attack" action), you get ONE attack at your full BaB.

It is very specific as to the section, and the benefit. In other words, case long ago closed. And in case you ask this was cut from the current version of the PDF.


For those who use the FAQ's you should note the following:

What’s the purpose of using the FAQ?
The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.
It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

NOT AN OFFICIAL RULING!
This is pulled from the top of the page on FAQ Rules:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qbfv?The-Rules-FAQ-and-How-to-Use-It

Whoever wrote that FAQ answer had their head on backwards!

Why would someone spend a feat slot to get a feat when using it was worse than not using it?

A 20th level Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian gets 4 Basic attacks for a Full Round action, a 20th level Ranger and Monk get even more. This does not include buffs for spells like Haste, feats like Rapid Shot, or weapon powers like Speed.
WHY... would anyone want to sacrifice all those additional attacks with the bonus damage that could be done with Power Attacks and possible Criticals to do ONE extra D8 to D12 damage on 1 attack ONLY???

Put THAT in a FAQ question and see what they answer!

There are many types of "Attack Actions", including Charges and Op Attacks. You can Nerf the feat for your players if you desire, I prefer to make it a viable feat for mine.
Also a year ago I was not on the forums, good thing I came.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WinterwolfNW wrote:


Whoever wrote that FAQ answer had their head on backwards!

I'm sure all the members of the rules team, who come to a consensus on the FAQ's before posting them, appreciate this type of comment.

WinterwolfNW wrote:


A 20th level Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian gets 4 Basic attacks for a Full Round action, a 20th level Ranger and Monk get even more. This does not include buffs for spells like Haste, feats like Rapid Shot, or weapon powers like Speed.
WHY... would anyone want to sacrifice all those additional attacks with the bonus damage that could be done with Power Attacks and possible Criticals to do ONE extra D8 to D12 damage on 1 attack ONLY???

Put THAT in a FAQ question and see what they answer!

There are many types of "Attack Actions", including Charges and Op Attacks. You can Nerf the feat for your players if you desire, I prefer to make it a viable feat for mine.
Also a year ago I was not on the forums, good thing I came.

How many attacks does a 20th level melee character get when he has to move prior to attacking?

Granted, that doesn't make it a good feat, but the relative value of a feat does not determine how it actually works. There are quite a few feats I consider completely worthless in relative value. Vital Strike is a situation feat.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

The Vital Strike feat chain isn't meant to be a replacement for a full attack. It's a consolation prize when you can only make one attack anyway. Often a martial type might have to move between foes, and not everyone is a pouncing barbarian or archer that can full attack all the time. When you have to move you can use Vital Strike to get some extra damage. Or when you're staggered. Or during the suprise round if you start next to your foe. Basically whenever you can't full attack. That's it. That's what it's for.


What about in combination with an arcane archer? Might be a tad more useful there?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Winterwolf, you seem very aggressive with your opinion, but I'll chime in anyway.

As GM, you are free to change the rules as you see fit, to make the game enjoyable for you and your players. However, as this is the Rules Forum, it is important to make clear what the actual rules are and what are house rules.

Vital Strike is clearly an attack action, which is a Standard Action, which means you only get one attack.

Why would this be useful? Most often, for the times you move and attack or attack and move. Or if are fighting a high AC monster and think you might only hit with your highest to-hit value, and not your second.

Vital Strike is not meant to replace a full round attack. It is to be used when only a single attack is viable for the situation.

Those are the rules and they are clear. If you would like to change the feat for your game, go nuts. I change stuff all the time in my games.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
WinterwolfNW wrote:

It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

NOT AN OFFICIAL RULING!
This is pulled from the top of the page on FAQ Rules:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qbfv?The-Rules-FAQ-and-How-to-Use-It
Whoever wrote that FAQ answer had their head on backwards!

Hope that helps.

If you're going to quote a sentence, quote the whole thing.

It matters in this case.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Also, really consider what Vital Strike is giving you.

Its prerequisite is a BAB of +6.

What else normally happens when characters reach a BAB of +6?

They get an iterative attack.

Same for Improved Vital Strike at +11, and Greater at +16.

If you allowed Vital Strike as part of a full attack, it would be stupidly overpowered. And its Improved and Greater versions even more so.

I know my 11th level Fighter, who Vital Strikes for 11d6, would drool at the opportunity. Until the BBEG did the same.

Every two-weapon character would take it, every Druid's Animal Companion, heck really any melee type.

Nobody would ever take Weapon Specialization again.

Shadow Lodge

Winterwolf wrote:
WHY... would anyone want to sacrifice all those additional attacks with the bonus damage that could be done with Power Attacks and possible Criticals to do ONE extra D8 to D12 damage on 1 attack ONLY???

The enemy is 20 feet away and something keeps you from charging, or you don't want the AC penalty. Its free damage. It specifically says it works when you use the Attack Action. Not when Charging/Full Attacking/Spring Attacking/Imbuing Arrows/Whirlwind Attacking/Etc. Just when using your Standard Action to make a Standard Attack.


Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

The interpretation from the guys who made the game is that an "attack action" is a type of standard action, specifically the kind you use to hit or shoot someone with a weapon.

attack action =/= attack

All attack actions are attacks. Not all attacks are attack actions.


WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

Give the weapon Impact (treats weapon as one size category larger) + Enlarge, and then you have a weapon treated as Huge. That's where Vital Strike shines. See how effective you can be versus a hasted TWF going up against opponents with high DR. Good synergy with mounted lance as well, since the rider is not considered charging. It's a niche feat, and it takes some doing to bring it up to snuff, but it definitely has its uses.


thebigragu wrote:
WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

Give the weapon Impact (treats weapon as one size category larger) + Enlarge, and then you have a weapon treated as Huge. That's where Vital Strike shines. See how effective you can be versus a hasted TWF going up against opponents with high DR. Good synergy with mounted lance as well, since the rider is not considered charging. It's a niche feat, and it takes some doing to bring it up to snuff, but it definitely has its uses.

It works with a Lance on a charging horse? Really? Holy smurf!

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Kwauss wrote:
It works with a Lance on a charging horse? Really? Holy smurf!

Yeah, you want to give someone a bad day, have a Cavalier perform a Greater Vital Strike, Devastating Strike lance charge when he's got his Supreme Charge ability.

Do note though, the bonus damage die from the Vital Strike chain are not multiplied by the Supreme and Spirited Charge effects (though bonus damage from Devastating Strike is) since they are considered bonus damage dice. Still a ton of damage though, especially if you've got effects causing your weapon to deal damage as though it were a larger size category.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

There is a difference between an attack action, which is under the heading of "Standard Actions," (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 182) and an attack when you use a full-attack action, which is under the header of "Full-Round Actions" (Core Rulebook 187). It can be a little confusing because and attack action has one attack, while a full-attack action has multiple attacks and things in the game can trigger on attacks or attack actions or rules can hinge on using an attack action or when making an attack. While the distinction is there in the text, it can be very easy to gloss over it because of the similarity of words and terms the rules use.

If we had it to do over, I think we could have made a better distinction between the two, but it was like that way in the 3.5 ruleset as well, so a bit of momentum took hold and now the problem my be too systemic for a reasonable and complete fix.

To answer the original question, you can gain the benefits of Vital Strike when you take the attack action, that is a standard action where you make one attack. You cannot use it when you take a full-attack action where your make multiple attacks.

Shadow Lodge

WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

Aye, a sword-n-board with a longsword isn't very good with Vital Strike. But an enlarged fighter with a large-sized impact bastard sword is doing somewhere around 4d8 base damage. That is 8d8 Vital Striking.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


To answer the original question, you can gain the benefits of Vital Strike when you take the attack action, that is a standard action where you make one attack. You cannot use it when you take a full-attack action where your make multiple attacks.

And it is also imcompatible with full round actions like spring attack and standar actions like cleave.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is it compatible with felling smash? The wording seems to imply it is.


Seems ambiguous.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

There is a difference between an attack action, which is under the heading of "Standard Actions," (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 182) and an attack when you use a full-attack action, which is under the header of "Full-Round Actions" (Core Rulebook 187). It can be a little confusing because and attack action has one attack, while a full-attack action has multiple attacks and things in the game can trigger on attacks or attack actions or rules can hinge on using an attack action or when making an attack. While the distinction is there in the text, it can be very easy to gloss over it because of the similarity of words and terms the rules use.

If we had it to do over, I think we could have made a better distinction between the two, but it was like that way in the 3.5 ruleset as well, so a bit of momentum took hold and now the problem my be too systemic for a reasonable and complete fix.

To answer the original question, you can gain the benefits of Vital Strike when you take the attack action, that is a standard action where you make one attack. You cannot use it when you take a full-attack action where your make multiple attacks.

But can Vital Strike be used on a charging mount? For that matter, can I use any combination of move/standard actions if on a chraging mount, or do I become limiting to charging as well?

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:
Is it compatible with felling smash? The wording seems to imply it is.

Yes. It can be used with Felling Smash, as you can use both with an attack action, as long as that attack action also conforms to the other requirements of Felling Smash.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
But can Vital Strike be used on a charging mount? For that matter, can I use any combination of move/standard actions if on a chraging mount, or do I become limiting to charging as well?

Vital Strike cannot be used with a charge. "A charge is a special full-round action" (Core Rulebook 198) where you make an attack roll (not an attack action, which is a standard action).

You can move and then make an attack action (as a standard action) and use vital strike.

Making a single attack as a standard action, Vital Strike yes.

Make any kind of attack as part of a full-round action, Vital Strike no.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

But, it's the mount that's charging.

Not the rider.

Right?


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Davick wrote:
But can Vital Strike be used on a charging mount? For that matter, can I use any combination of move/standard actions if on a chraging mount, or do I become limiting to charging as well?

Vital Strike cannot be used with a charge. "A charge is a special full-round action" (Core Rulebook 198) where you make an attack roll (not an attack action, which is a standard action).

You can move and then make an attack action (as a standard action) and use vital strike.

Making a single attack as a standard action, Vital Strike yes.

Make any kind of attack as part of a full-round action, Vital Strike no.

Thanks Stephen! However, he's talking about a literalist interpretation of charging on a mount where the rider is not considered to be taking the charge action so maybe is taking an attack action. It's based off Sean's FAQ on pounce with mounted lance (Sean ruled that the rider does not count as charging for the purposes of pouncing).


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Davick wrote:
But can Vital Strike be used on a charging mount? For that matter, can I use any combination of move/standard actions if on a chraging mount, or do I become limiting to charging as well?

Vital Strike cannot be used with a charge. "A charge is a special full-round action" (Core Rulebook 198) where you make an attack roll (not an attack action, which is a standard action).

You can move and then make an attack action (as a standard action) and use vital strike.

Making a single attack as a standard action, Vital Strike yes.

Make any kind of attack as part of a full-round action, Vital Strike no.

I'm still confused as to what the actions available to a character on a charging mount are.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

But, it's the mount that's charging.

Not the rider.

Right?

I see what you are saying. That is unclear. You take the penalties and benefit of the charge It is also an attack (not necessarily an attack action, though I admit it is unclear) in my own game I would rule that when you charge on a mount it is treated like your charge (as it is in all other ways), but I will have to discuss it with Jason and see what was the intent since it seems unclear to me as written.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

But, it's the mount that's charging.

Not the rider.

Right?

I see what you are saying. That is unclear. You take the penalties and benefit of the charge It is also an attack (not necessarily an attack action, though I admit it is unclear) in my own game I would rule that when you charge on a mount it is treated like your charge (as it is in all other ways), but I will have to discuss it with Jason and see what was the intent since it seems unclear to me as written.

Thanks Stephen!


OK, here's an interesting one: what about using vital strike with the single attack from fleet charge (the mythic path ability) which is a swift action. I doubt this works because the action used is a swift action, and therefore not a standard action attack, but it begs the question because...well...because mythic! However, the wording of the ability suggests a move and standard action made in the time space of a swift action. It would be interesting to see what a designer says about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For anyone not up to date, the confusion comes from this post (in regards to Rage Lance Pounce):

"Sean K Reynolds, Dec 12, 2012, 12:06 PM wrote:


...
Using that interpretation, the barbarian can make a full attack any time any character charges, not just when the barbarian charges. My paladin buddy just charged? That's "a" charge, I get to make a full attack! My enemy just charged me? That's "a" charge, I get to make a full attack!

Or you could realize that the Greater Beast Totem ability is just summarizing the pounce UMR, and the pounce UMR says says "Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."

Also, the mounted combat rules say If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack.

GBT gives you pounce.
Pounce allows YOU to make a full attack when YOU make a charge.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
The mounted combat rules specifically say that you only get ONE attack if your mount charges.
GBT does NOT say "when the barbarian is mounted and the MOUNT makes a charge, SHE may make a full attack."

Therefore, GBT-rage-mount-pounce does not work.

That leaves normal mounted combat in the lurch. Based on that reasoning, and assuming you ignore the inconsistency with all the mounted combat feats whose wording is "when you are mounted and charging," that means the PC is not charging when the mount is charging. That means the PC can taker a standard action, including the Attack Action with Vital Strike tagged on, as well as a move action during a mounted charge.

There have been many FAQ requests on this topic, none of which have been responded to.

<edit> And Yay! Thank you for looking into it! </edit>

Designer

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Thanks Stephen! However, he's talking about a literalist interpretation of charging on a mount where the rider is not considered to be taking the charge action so maybe is taking an attack action. It's based off Sean's FAQ on pounce with mounted lance (Sean ruled that the rider does not count as charging for the purposes of pouncing).

Could you point me to that FAQ? I'm having a hard time finding the one you are talking about. It's not in the Bestiary pounce section.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh my god is it really happening? You have no idea how long I've been waiting for this one to be cleared up.

*fingers crossed*


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Thanks Stephen! However, he's talking about a literalist interpretation of charging on a mount where the rider is not considered to be taking the charge action so maybe is taking an attack action. It's based off Sean's FAQ on pounce with mounted lance (Sean ruled that the rider does not count as charging for the purposes of pouncing).
Could you point me to that FAQ? I'm having a hard time finding the one you are talking about. It's not in the Bestiary pounce section.

I don't think it ever made the FAQ, correct me if I'm wrong but I tink it was this forum post: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n8d2&page=8?What-is-ragelancepounce#358


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Thanks Stephen! However, he's talking about a literalist interpretation of charging on a mount where the rider is not considered to be taking the charge action so maybe is taking an attack action. It's based off Sean's FAQ on pounce with mounted lance (Sean ruled that the rider does not count as charging for the purposes of pouncing).
Could you point me to that FAQ? I'm having a hard time finding the one you are talking about. It's not in the Bestiary pounce section.

Yes, the others are correct, it is that post. Sorry, I sometimes blur between official forum clarifications and FAQs when I'm rememberizing all the latest rulings for PFS!

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shimesen wrote:
OK, here's an interesting one: what about using vital strike with the single attack from fleet charge (the mythic path ability) which is a swift action. I doubt this works because the action used is a swift action, and therefore not a standard action attack, but it begs the question because...well...because mythic! However, the wording of the ability suggests a move and standard action made in the time space of a swift action. It would be interesting to see what a designer says about it.

This is an interesting one, because you make an attack, not an attack action (I know...I know). I thought I could look at Spring Attack for guidance, but the problem with that feat (that to be honest I never noticed before) is that it does not have an action implicitly associated with it.

Anyhow, now I have a short list of questions to talk about tomorrow and my girlfriend is bugging me to stop working tonight. And I try to listen to her. I will get back to you tomorrow on these things. Till then, have a great night.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
OK, here's an interesting one: what about using vital strike with the single attack from fleet charge (the mythic path ability) which is a swift action. I doubt this works because the action used is a swift action, and therefore not a standard action attack, but it begs the question because...well...because mythic! However, the wording of the ability suggests a move and standard action made in the time space of a swift action. It would be interesting to see what a designer says about it.

This is an interesting one, because you make an attack, not an attack action (I know...I know). I thought I could look at Spring Attack for guidance, but the problem with that feat (that to be honest I never noticed before) is that it does not have an action implicitly associated with it.

Anyhow, now I have a short list of questions to talk about tomorrow and my girlfriend is bugging me to stop working tonight. And I try to listen to her. I will get back to you tomorrow on these things. Till then, have a great night.

Have a great night, Stephen! Vital Strikes will be waiting for ya in the morning.


Great to felling smash plus vital strike, I thought It woudl be ruled the other way :)

I recommend stephen to not post about mount charge + vital strike, not until he have everything crystal clear, otherwise it could be a forum stampede XD


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
OK, here's an interesting one: what about using vital strike with the single attack from fleet charge (the mythic path ability) which is a swift action. I doubt this works because the action used is a swift action, and therefore not a standard action attack, but it begs the question because...well...because mythic! However, the wording of the ability suggests a move and standard action made in the time space of a swift action. It would be interesting to see what a designer says about it.

This is an interesting one, because you make an attack, not an attack action (I know...I know). I thought I could look at Spring Attack for guidance, but the problem with that feat (that to be honest I never noticed before) is that it does not have an action implicitly associated with it.

Anyhow, now I have a short list of questions to talk about tomorrow and my girlfriend is bugging me to stop working tonight. And I try to listen to her. I will get back to you tomorrow on these things. Till then, have a great night.

It makes me giddy just knowing I may have unlocked some hidden potential for a mythic vital striking madman! I can't wait to see what you and Jason come up with!

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Great to felling smash plus vital strike, I thought It woudl be ruled the other way :)

I recommend stephen to not post about mount charge + vital strike, not until he have everything crystal clear, otherwise it could be a forum stampede XD

Oh, I agree. I would rather get a right answer that clears up all these nagging questions. I try not to post off the cuff and have to back track.

"Yes, darling. Sorry. I'll be right there."

Off to watch some Walking Dead with the lady. Talk to you tomorrow, everyone.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Off to watch some Walking Dead with the lady.

So that's what the kids are calling it these days...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

VS isn't for everyone. There are some builds that can crack out damage with Vital Strike. Siege Mage is a perfect example of where VS is amazing. A Heavy Catapult goes from 6d6 to 12d6 with Vital Strike. Large (and larger) sized characters and monks are also good choices when thinking about taking vital strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing beats Ravingdork's hippo Druid though...

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Hmm.

THIS critter is only large-sized, but does the same damage as the hippo, which is huge.

I wonder if that makes a difference?

1 to 50 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Vital Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.