So my GM came up with a Cavalier that apparently does 36d6 damage in a single charge...
Here's how it breaks down.
Take a lance that does 1d8 dmg. Time by two, when mounted and charging, giving you 2d8. With the feat, Spirited Charge, it becomes 3d8. Using the weapon enchantment Impact, the damage dice goes from base 1d8 to 2d6. Add the belt of Thunderous Charging, thus increasing the lance to a huge size weapon when charging, will deal 3d6 dmg. WHen charging with this weapon, it would become a 9d6 piercing damage attack. When you have the feat Greater Vital Strike, it states- You make a single attack roll, as a single attack action, and roll the damage dice for the weapon 4 times. 9x4 is 36...
The charge rules state, when you charge, you get a single attack action, at the end of the charge.Vital Strike is considered an attack action.
Could is be safely assumed that Vital Strike can be used at the end of a charge, as that single attack action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, you can't actually use Vital Strike as part of a charge because Vital Strike requires a standard action to use.
I see..... Interesting.
Let me ask this then.
With Greater vital strike, and a large enough character, could a player do 12d8 damage?
PC Barbarian has an item to grow to a large character at will. He has the belt of thunderous charging, thus adding an additional size, thus making him a huge size, correct? 1d10 would go to 2d8, then 3d8. Add greater vital strike, making it 12d8.
Is this applicable?
That belt doesn't change the weapon damage unless you charge. As Matrix Dragon pointed out, the FAQ is very clear that Vital Strike cannot be used on a Charge. They are incompatible.
Any ability that requires you to Charge to use the ability will never be applicable to a Vital Strike since you cannot do both actions (Charge and Vital Strike) at the same time.
The Vital Strike chain is a trap. It takes a standard action so no charge as was pointed out by others. You could move and use Vital but its just easier to get pounce or to move forward attack once and then Full attack the next round.
The issue with Vital Strike is the bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, bonus dice from criticals and other damage bonuses are not added multiple times. Its just the base damage of the weapon. Your much better off just using Full Attack and making sure you can pounce or quickly get to someone so you can Full Attack on the second round.
Spending 3 feats so you can deal 4X weapon damage once a round is not worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only time that Vital Strike might be worth it is if a Druid Wild Shapes into a huge creature w/ one big attack. And then only if you really like the idea of one big attack.
I'd rather change that druid into something w/ pounce myself and have those 4 feats for something more useful.
The OP appears to be using multiple iyems that increase weapon size. I don't know the wording on the brlt or impact enchantment. But it is unlikely they stack.
|
Enlarge + Impact or Lead Blades or Thunderous Charging would be fine. As Mojorat pointed out most of the items which increase size of a weapon are worded like this: "deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are." They only stack with Enlarge because it increases the actual size of the weapon.
So my GM came up with a Cavalier that apparently does 36d6 damage in a single charge...
Here's how it breaks down.
Take a lance that does 1d8 dmg. Time by two, when mounted and charging, giving you 2d8. With the feat, Spirited Charge, it becomes 3d8. Using the weapon enchantment Impact, the damage dice goes from base 1d8 to 2d6. Add the belt of Thunderous Charging, thus increasing the lance to a huge size weapon when charging, will deal 3d6 dmg. WHen charging with this weapon, it would become a 9d6 piercing damage attack. When you have the feat Greater Vital Strike, it states- You make a single attack roll, as a single attack action, and roll the damage dice for the weapon 4 times. 9x4 is 36...
The charge rules state, when you charge, you get a single attack action, at the end of the charge.Vital Strike is considered an attack action.
Could is be safely assumed that Vital Strike can be used at the end of a charge, as that single attack action?
Let's just hope they don't encounter a foe who is, say, on the other side of a trap door. Or a ladder. Or across a narrow ledge.
Cavaliers, any non-small sized mounted characters actually, just seem too unwieldy to play in any campaign I've ever been a part of... and, in my experience, all too often smack of min/maxing at the cost of story. I mean really, who brings their horse with them down into a dungeon?
The only time I've ever seen it work was with a Summoner who took a level of Dragoon and used his Eidolon as a mount. In confined environments he fought beside him with a spear forcing multiple AoO's against foes who tried to close with him, or he'd hold back entirely and cast spells... btu when open terrain presented itself, he'd mount up to devastating effect. Now that was a character...
12th level 2 hand fighter in our SeSk seems happy with his VS chain. Don't often get chance for a FA in practise
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely off-topic, but in response to Lincoln: I once had a player's wizard dress up like one of the human bad guys, order a troop of enemy hobgoblins to line up for inspection (with a successful bluff check), walk to the end of the line... and lightning bolt them.
|
|
Can you use Vital Strike with a charge if the charge is taken as a standard action, such as in the surprise round?Still no, Vital Strike requires a separate attack action, which is a standard action and you just used your standard on the Charge action.
When writing the Vital Strike feat in the first place there were two choices: make Vital Strike a special standard action (rather than an attack action), so you wouldn't have to re-define 'attack action' from its 3.5 meaning 'any weapon-like attack, including each separate attack in a full attack' to its PF meaning 'use a standard action to make a weapon-like attack', OR say that Vital Strike can only be used during a standard action when taking the 'attack action', so that you could use other things that can only be used when taking the attack action, such as Sunder or Fighting Defensively.
So either Vital Strike is a special standard action and it can't be used to sunder or fight defensively or whatever, OR it can be used with other things than can be used with an attack in a standard action, such as a partial charge.
Which is it?
1) Cannot combine Thunderous Charge + Impact since they are both based on Lead Blades.
FAQ
2) Charging cannot be combined with Vital Strike (however, see 2a).
FAQ
2a) There is a debate on whether or not you are using a charge action when charging. If you are not using a charge action while charging then Vital Strike might be an option.
Thread on this topic
3) Assuming the following:
You are Large size (enlarge person) and your mount is huge
You have Lead Blades or it's equivalent
You are using a Lance
You have the feats Spirited Charge
You have Greater Vital Strike (assumes you can use Vital Strike with a mounted charge)
Then:
1d8->2d6(Enlarge)->3d6(Lead Blades) = 3d6+modifiers
Spirited Charge gives you an extra 6d6+(modifiers*2)
Greater Vital Strike gives you an extra 9d6.
Total damage: 18d6+(modifiers*3)
Without the Vital Strike chain you have: 9d6+(modifiers*3)
Note regarding the modifiers, they will easily trump most of this.
While issuing a Challenge my level 9 Halfling cavalier riding a boar can dish out approximately 100pts of damage on an average charge hit. By level 16 he will be handing out 192 damage on a challenge (144 without) using the criteria in #3 (modified for a halfling).
Level 16 damage (enlarged with lead blades): 7(avg Lance damage) +5(magic) +10(2handed str) +15(2handed power attack) +11(boar strength with +2belt and animal growth) +16(challenge) = 64*3 (spirited charge) = 192avg damage (144 without challenge)
Gr. Vital Strike would only add 21pts of damage to that. Not really worth it. A Human with Gr. Vital Strike would only add 31.5damage.
- Gauss
You the thing I find all these iffy cases to get extra dice unnecessary. We had a game with a hslfling cavalier on his intelligent flying wolf ( basically magic items and potions)
He basically turned anything he charged into a fine red mist. At the time we joked about a lance that could do passwall as it would have removed his only obstacle (both litterally and figuratively
Really what it comes down to is lance charging characters given the chance to do their thing don't need to use grey area ruled or argue for vital strike or use multiple size increase items.
When writing the Vital Strike feat in the first place there were two choices: make Vital Strike a special standard action (rather than an attack action), so you wouldn't have to re-define 'attack action' from its 3.5 meaning 'any weapon-like attack, including each separate attack in a full attack' to its PF meaning 'use a standard action to make a weapon-like attack', OR say that Vital Strike can only be used during a standard action when taking the 'attack action', so that you could use other things that can only be used when taking the attack action, such as Sunder or Fighting Defensively.
So either Vital Strike is a special standard action and it can't be used to sunder or fight defensively or whatever, OR it can be used with other things than can be used with an attack in a standard action, such as a partial charge.
Which is it?
Even when you charge using a standard action, you are still not using an 'attack' standard action; you're using a 'charge' standard action. Thus even when you're charging as a standard action, you still do not meet the requirement of Vital Strike ("When you use the attack action...").
Or that would be my assumption why it's FAQ'ed as such.
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."
These are very interesting... I am a level 8 Elf Ranger, have a +3 Composite longbow, and frost enchantment, and, with gravity bow, I deal in a full attack 12d6+28 using Many shot, rapid shot and, since I am level 8, a second regular attack. Am I missing any attacks? Anywho, last night I went, hunted down a lvl 12 Green Dragon, killed it in two rounds by myself. Feels good. GM got furious. Gave me 100k gold and various magic items.
GeraintElberion, I am guessing his breakdown works like this:
1d8->2d6(Gravity Bow)+1d6(frost)
Damage bonuses: +3enhancement +1Point Blank Shot and probably +3 in Strength.
I figure he is not including Deadly Aim since that would be a +6 at level 8.
Total damage per arrow: 2d6+1d6(frost)+7
4 arrows makes that 8d6+4d6(frost)+28 = 12d6+28
- Gauss
Yeah, I think Gauss has it... stats are as follows.
Level 8 Elf Ranger.
STR-16
DEX-24 (was 18 base, +2 elf racial bonus, plus two points from lvl 4 and 8, and a magic item.)
CON-14(Plus 2 additional from same magic item as above making it a 16)
Wis-14
CHa- sad little 12.
I used a wetstone on all my arrows, adding plus one to damage.
+3 composite longbow, and 3 str bonus, giving me 7 damage ontop of my weapon dmg, right?
Cast gravity bow, 1d8 goes to 2d6, add frost, I now have 3d6. Many shot, Rapid shot, and then my regular attack for three attacks and 4 arrows.
The strength and whatnot adds to each arrow, right? So... am I missing anything?
I have a +19 to hit, +20 if they are within point blank. I sometimes feel as though I'm cheating with this build....
Small point, but the whetstone does say sharpen a blade and I could argue that an arrowhead is not really a blade. It is also not supposed to stack with magical weapons and since your bow is magic, I would not allow it and think it is skimming the line of the rules. It is only one point, but still, I do not think you should add it.
Small point, but the whetstone does say sharpen a blade and I could argue that an arrowhead is not really a blade. It is also not supposed to stack with magical weapons and since your bow is magic, I would not allow it and think it is skimming the line of the rules. It is only one point, but still, I do not think you should add it.
Yeah, I am quite sure you can't use the whetstone on your arrows.
I think your attack bonuses are off.
Attack bonus: 8(BAB)+6(Dex)+3(Bow)+1(Weapon Focus)-2(Rapid) = 16/16/11 (17/17/12 with PBS)
Here is why you are overpowered:
1) Your starting ability scores are way too powerful. Assuming your Intelligence is a 10 they are equivalent to a 44 point build when 'average' is either a 15 or 20 point build (depending on who you talk to).
Before racial modifiers a 20 point build archer would have stats along the lines of: 14str, 16dex, 12con, 10int, 14wis, 8cha.
I am curious how you generated your starting scores.
2) You have spent too much gold on buffing up your attack. Over half of your WBL (56%) is spent on your bow. Generally you should not be spending more than 25% on your weapon and the game is built around that.
A +2 bow would be reasonable.
You have also spent more than 25% of your gold on your belt but that would not change your dexterity.
Out of 33,000gp you have spent 18,600gp on the bow and 10,000gp on your belt. That leaves a measly 4,400gp for defenses.
Now, with that said, I am guessing your GM has given you more than WBL. I have nothing concrete to base this on but based on your stats and the fact that he threw a CR 12 dragon against you I am guessing you are a high powered campaign.
3) Archer builds are nasty to begin with. They can easily overshadow everyone and everything else.
Using the 20point build above (and assuming +2 from level and +2 from belt) the attack bonus would be: 8(BAB)+1(Weapon Focus)+5(Dex)+2(Bow)-2(Rapid) = 14/14/9 (15/15/9 with PBS)
Against an equal CR creature (AC21) that is still a 30% miss rate for the first two shots compared to your 20% miss rate.
Damage would be: 1d8+2(str)+2(bow) = 1d8+4
Note: Regarding the whetstone I think the term 'blade' is vague enough to allow for piercing weapons BUT the moment your arrow is fired from your bow the magic supersedes the whetstone's effect. You get nothing from a whetstone due to that.
Summary: Archers are nasty enough but your archer is even worse because your GM has allowed your stats to be ridiculously high and allowed you to put most of your wealth into one thing.
- Gauss
|
Hey, thanks for throwing the stats up.
I've got to agree with Gauss: that build is super-powered because of crazy stats and serious wealth, rather than rules exploits.
That said, archers are pretty badass when they can make full attacks.
It's neat to have these characters who can smash out the damage in certain situations as it adds to the tactical element of the game.
Take any of these high damage builds, make them a half-giant. Powerful Build will allow them to wield any weapon as a size larger. I can imagine a level 16 enlarged half-giant fighter wielding a great axe doing 20d6 with Greater Vital Strike, and 30d6 on a crit, stack on Thundering and/or an energy burst and you'll be in business...
EDIT: and an enlarged half-giant ranger with a gravity bow, wielding a large holy longbow... doing 6d6 damage per arrow to evil enemies. You can recoup the nat -2 dex half-giants have pretty easily.
Enlarge person does nothing to projectiles.
Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size.
So my GM came up with a Cavalier that apparently does 36d6 damage in a single charge...
Here's how it breaks down.
Take a lance that does 1d8 dmg. Time by two, when mounted and charging, giving you 2d8. With the feat, Spirited Charge, it becomes 3d8. Using the weapon enchantment Impact, the damage dice goes from base 1d8 to 2d6. Add the belt of Thunderous Charging, thus increasing the lance to a huge size weapon when charging, will deal 3d6 dmg. WHen charging with this weapon, it would become a 9d6 piercing damage attack. When you have the feat Greater Vital Strike, it states- You make a single attack roll, as a single attack action, and roll the damage dice for the weapon 4 times. 9x4 is 36...
The charge rules state, when you charge, you get a single attack action, at the end of the charge.Vital Strike is considered an attack action.
Could is be safely assumed that Vital Strike can be used at the end of a charge, as that single attack action?
A noted previously, Vital Strike requires the attack action, not a charge.
Also, the lance increase in damage is a doubling, so it should be applied last after determining the base damage die, and the Vital Strike dice are not doubled.
So.... now I'm upset lol. I have acquired serious wealth, and worked very very hard for it over the months my group has been playing. Dragon's treasure, that blasted silver mine, income from my businesses in town I created.... it has all been by the book. My stats are super high because my DM gave up base stats of like... 18, 16, 16, 14, 12, 12 I think they were. We have been given some magical items here and there, and I have payed the correct price for every enhancement on my bow(currently +3 and frost enchant.) Everything has been by the book.
Now that I have serious wealth, I was wanting to buy new gear, and everything was fine with my DM until I mentioned Celestial Armor. He went crazy, said it was actually a +9 armor because of the dex bonus over chainmail, and was going to charge me for every enchancement bonus, etc, but because I'm only level 8, I can't have a +9 armor until what... level 18 or something I think? The RAW states it is a +3 chainmail, that is lighter, more fine, etc, but doesn't say anything at all about being such a high enhancement bonus.
Am I being a little cry baby, or is he suddenly being a bit unfair, since he has made me go absolutely by the book, until he suddenly doesn't want me to have something?
Note- I currently have a +2 Mithral chain shirt, so I think with the Celestial armor I actually only gain one more dex modifier for AC, and the fly spell, right?
Celestial Armor is not a +9 enhancement bonus. It is a +3 enhancement bonus with some special abilities tossed in. Namely, the dex limit is unique.
Personally, as a GM, I hate Celestial Armor since it completely breaks the normal way armor works.
As for serious wealth, your wealth is not 'by the book'. By the book you would have 33,000gp at level 8. If you are considering Celestial Armor in addition to a +3 bow and +2dex/+2con belt then your wealth is very high indeed.
Those three items combined total 51,000gp. That is halfway between level 9 and level 10 WBL. Assuming you have purchased other items because they would be reasonable to have before Celestial Armor (such as a Ring of Protection, Efficient Quiver, etc.) then you would be very close to level 10 WBL.
In short, you are almost 2 levels ahead on how much equipment you should have and you are way over on your stats. It is no wonder you are breaking the game.
I do not think you will get any sympathy from people regarding your GM finally saying no to something that will break his game further although, frankly, its like dowsing the candle after it burned the house down.
- Gauss
I'm surprised this still comes up. There have been many threads on using Vital Strike while on a charging mount. You can absolutely do this. The mount is charging, not you. You take the standard action and gain all the benefits and drawbacks of the charge while riding a charging mount, but it is only mount that actually charging. It's right there in the rulebook. James Jacobs confirmed this on his hundred mile thread about two years ago.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. 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. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Mounted-Combat
Ssalarn has done a good job arguing this point and referencing where devs have already weighed in: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p96k&page=3?How-does-Vital-Strike-work-wit h-Spirited-Charge#110 He summarizes the discussion as follows in a later thread:
You can Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount, and the devs had it made it clear that any feat that references a mounted charge means "when you are on the back of a charging mount...." shortened to "when charging on a mount" to conserve word count.
That's what I get from not reading the original.
If [b]you]/b] are charging, you cannot use Vital Strike.
If you're on the back of a mount that is charging, you can.
It appears to me that a mounted character whose mount charges is charging. It states they gain the bonus from the charge, as well, as the AC penalty, and it then states that you deal double damage with a lance "while charging" on horseback; while that could be taken to describe a special rule about lances ("when you attack with a lance during a charge, it is as though you were yourself charging") that seems awfully tortured.
If you can cite the Justic Jacobs post, that would lend some weight to the second argument, but I think I would still say that a mounted character who attacks as part of a charge is charging.
There are other threads on whether or not riders on a charging mount are also charging. Lets not turn this into another one.
- Gauss
If you can cite the Justic Jacobs post, that would lend some weight to the second argument, but I think I would still say that a mounted character who attacks as part of a charge is charging.
Here is where James Jacobs says it most simply: you get a standard action when riding a charging mount.
James, does a mounted charge require that both mount and rider spend their full-round actions to charge? Or only the mount needs to spend his full-round action to charge, while the rider still has a move action and a standard action to use?
For example, could a rider spur a mount as a move action and attack as a standard action during a mounted charge?
Mounted combat, charges, and all related topics are great nominees for rules forum questions so folks can FAQ them.
(In my games, no, if your mount charges, you only get a standard action because that's how charge works.)
Don't forget the Narrow Frame feat that an animal companion can take at level 1. It makes being medium sized with a large mount playable even in dungeons. Not great but definitely playable.
If you can cite the Justic Jacobs post, that would lend some weight to the second argument, but I think I would still say that a mounted character who attacks as part of a charge is charging.Here is where James Jacobs says it most simply: you get a standard action when riding a charging mount.
James, does a mounted charge require that both mount and rider spend their full-round actions to charge? Or only the mount needs to spend his full-round action to charge, while the rider still has a move action and a standard action to use?
For example, could a rider spur a mount as a move action and attack as a standard action during a mounted charge?
Mounted combat, charges, and all related topics are great nominees for rules forum questions so folks can FAQ them.
(In my games, no, if your mount charges, you only get a standard action because that's how charge works.)
That says he can only gets a standard action, not that he gets any standard action. The charge section under mounted combat still indicates to me that a character who attacks during a mounted charge is charging. Is that what you are also saying?
Mucronis, this is why I am almost draconian when it comes to WBL. It is so easy to make overly powerful characters (within the rules) why make it harder on myself (the GM) to balance things out by over-equipping the players. :)
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That says he can only gets a standard action, not that he gets any standard action. The charge section under mounted combat still indicates to me that a character who attacks during a mounted charge is charging. Is that what you are also saying?
Not any standard action??? So, just certain kinds? Which certain kinds? There's rule support for what I claim. Where's your rule support? There's also dev support. Where's your dev support?
Vital Strike requires a standard action. According to James Jacobs, you get to take a standard action while on a charging mount, "because that's how charge works." Can you blame me for feeling certain?
But to be fair, JJ admits that mounted combat is a difficult system. He'd just as likely refer someone to the forums, where the issues still aren't entirely resolved, than give an official ruling. The JJ quote above is just how he plays his games, so that's at least his interpretation of the rules. It is encouraging but not cannon. For me, however, it's very persuasive, and I'll follow his lead.
*edited for tone
In the end the Wealth By Level table and much of the gamemastering section are general guidelines not hard, fast rules. Even as you read you will see words like "assumes", "expected", and "might" as opposed to combat rules or spell rules where it lays out specific rules. I always keep track of the wealth by level loosely in my games and there are different ways to bring it under control that are both fair to the players and the campaign.
I find that when characters pick up magic item craft feats, that they tend to go beyond the numbers on the chart but I do not feel right to penalize them because they use their feats, just like I would not penalize a fighter for using his combat feats. In the end it is up to the DM to allow an item or not. For example, I played in a game where the DM said that there was no such thing as a Ring of Evasion because he did not think it was right that an item could replace such an important and limited class feature. I could have argued with him on that, but it is his game and his world, so I am fine with that.
I personally do not have an issue with Celestial Armor. I can always limit it by saying that it is a specific armor so it cannot be adjusted and the player will discover that it is not as great at higher levels where you will want more AC. I could also decide what level it falls under and just have him add to it from there. In that case I would probably say that 9000gp of the 22,400gp price tag is for the +3 and the additional 13,400gp is for the Fly and the other benefits like the dexterity limitation. Again, it falls under the DM's prerogative to decide how it will be adjudicated and as long as that is consistent, there should not be any issues with it.
Vital Strike requires a standard action. According to James Jacobs, you get to take a standard action while on a charging mount, "because that's how charge works." Can you blame me for feeling certain?
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you're using James Jacobs as a rules guide and rules "developer", you're already digging yourself into a hole...
Vital Strike requires a standard action. According to James Jacobs, you get to take a standard action while on a charging mount, "because that's how charge works." Can you blame me for feeling certain?Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you're using James Jacobs as a rules guide and rules "developer", you're already digging yourself into a hole...
Fair enough. I actually sort of addressed that a minute ago in an edit that took too long to write. ;)
|
One thing to consider too, is that rolling your damage 4 times does not include other multipliers.
A Vital Strike and set Spear would do Spear Damage, Spear Damage from the Set for Charge, and Spear Damage for Vital Strike.
So even if you could charge and do Vital Strike, you would not multiply 9d6 x 4.
You do your 3d6 Lance, 3d6 Lance for charging, 3d6 Lance for Charging with Spirited Charge, and then an additional 9d6 for Greater Vital Strike, for a total of 18d6.
But since you cannot charge and vital strike in the same round, this is a moot point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But since you cannot charge and vital strike in the same round, this is a moot point.
Luckily, my mount is charging, not me. I'll just take my standard action.
That says he can only gets a standard action, not that he gets any standard action. The charge section under mounted combat still indicates to me that a character who attacks during a mounted charge is charging. Is that what you are also saying?Not any standard action??? So, just certain kinds? Which certain kinds? There's rule support for what I claim. Where's your rule support? There's also dev support. Where's your dev support?
I just quoted it:
(In my games, no, if your mount charges, you only get a standard action because that's how charge works.)
Emphasis mine. He is stating only a restriction, not giving you permission to take any standard action. And the mounted charge section states that if you make an attack, you gain the bonuses and penalties of charging, and it strongly implies (via the lance section) that you are charging.