It really seems that by losing your static bonuses you give up a lot of damage potential.
Although I think vital strike would be better for mobile builds who want to not fall into the 'full attack every round' humdrum.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat after me " vital strike is not now nor was it ever intended to replace a full attack".
Seriously this gets tedius and old and people keep msking this silly comparison. Vital strike let's you do more damage in situations where you can make only a standard action. Out side of an archer my experience is this happens all the time yet when people discuss vital strike its always in a world that all enemies are with 5 feet.
Anyhow sorry about the rant but this is the third vital strike thtead in the last few days. Vital strike let's you have more tactical options and makes the need to move and attack less painfull. Fighters have more than enough feats to choose this.
Scout/thug, PA, FF, Bludgeoner, Sap-feats, Vital Strike -> win.
In fact there are cases where it is very effective.
Druid who wild-shapes into huge hippopotamus, buffs, gets 36d8 damage on a bite.
Druid in stegosaurus form with strongjaw run.. damn ninjas
I thought of playing the huge hippo trick in a game a few years back, but I decided that it might upset the DM, especially if I used it to destroy his monster with DR50 which required a special quest item to overcome. Monks aren't terrible candidates for Vital Strike either. It can certainly improve your "ground and pound" with Improved Grapple.
When these feats are absolutely wonderful is for monsters with big base damage. By advancing a dire shark 6 hit dice (or just swapping feats) you could use Improved Natural Attack (Bite) and Improved Vital Strike to turn 4d10+15 into 24d8+15, which averages 123 instead of 37. If you've only got 2 HD and 1 feat to work with then Vital Strike is better than Improved Natural Attack.
Well, Mojorat just said everything I wanted to say. So, I agree with him.
Pirate Rob and I had a discussion on this at a Con last weekend. We both agreed that it's a solid feat if your GM plays encounters half-way intelligently, and doesn't just throw slog-fest after slog-fest at you.
You'd think that for how highly praised Pounce is, Vital Strike would rate a bit higher in many forumgoer's books. They are fairly similar in point. The difference between them does not account for the much larger disparity in views towards them.
There is a barbarian Rage Power that emulates Spring Attack, but still allows you to get a standard action in. Bestial Leaper, requires Raging Leaper too. I'm playing an elf barbarian in a PBP that is striving for it. Combining the elf favored class bonus with fast movement and "spring attack" will give me 45 speed, so I can move 20 feet, hit (for 2d10+9 or more), and move 25 feet. I hope I can get enlarged to make it 4d8+10 or more.
You'd think that for how highly praised Pounce is, Vital Strike would rate a bit higher in many forumgoer's books. They are fairly similar in point. The difference between them does not account for the much larger disparity in views towards them.
Pounce works and scales exactly with the damage you're doing (because.. well.. it does all the damage you're doing)
Vital strike only adds set dice which do not scale well with your damage" if you're doing decent damage 90% of the time a few extra dice will be irrelevant.
I've seen it in horrendeous use. Large bastard sword, vital strike, enlarge person, true strike, mutagen, barbarian rage and furious finish. That's a lot of damage from a barbarian/alchemist.
Repeat after me " vital strike is not now nor was it ever intended to replace a full attack".
Seriously this gets tedius and old and people keep msking this silly comparison. Vital strike let's you do more damage in situations where you can make only a standard action. Out side of an archer my experience is this happens all the time yet when people discuss vital strike its always in a world that all enemies are with 5 feet.
Anyhow sorry about the rant but this is the third vital strike thtead in the last few days. Vital strike let's you have more tactical options and makes the need to move and attack less painfull. Fighters have more than enough feats to choose this.
No problem with the rant!
I should have made the title less inflammatory because I didn't see vital strike as terrible as everyone seem to say it is.
Well, Mojorat just said everything I wanted to say. So, I agree with him.
Pirate Rob and I had a discussion on this at a Con last weekend. We both agreed that it's a solid feat if your GM plays encounters half-way intelligently, and doesn't just throw slog-fest after slog-fest at you.
You'd think that for how highly praised Pounce is, Vital Strike would rate a bit higher in many forumgoer's books. They are fairly similar in point. The difference between them does not account for the much larger disparity in views towards them.
Same as above for you cheapy I apologize since this gets hammered over more than it should in the forums.
I think the overwhelming opinion against vital strike clouded my judgement for a second. Then again it's just kind of a forum trend like 'monks sux lol', 'why bows>than X-bows?!!11' that show up all the time.
So in order to salvage the thread (maybe) I'll go with some of the posts above.
What are your favorite builds to put vital strike in?
(should this be moved to General?)
It really seems that by losing your static bonuses you give up a lot of damage potential.
Although I think vital strike would be better for mobile builds who want to not fall into the 'full attack every round' humdrum.
I think it may be possible to make a monk build that can do enough damage to one-shot the tarrasque at level 20 by enlarging, stacking in buffs, multiple odd powers (like true strike), and Vital Strike. However, the build I remember was not exactly viable at low level...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what you mean by "good."
It's a decent bump for the non-pounce/-mobile fighter/-two weapon warrior melee types when they have to take a move action and attack. It's also opens up Devastating Strike/Improved Devastating Strike, which can bump up the average damage, as well.
It's not going to be as damaging as a full attack, but with some investment it can reduce the DPR drop-off.
The big problem I have with Vital Strike is not that it is useless, it isn't and in fact is very handy when you cannot full-attack. My problem with it is that the damage depends entirely on the weapon used. It's only really worth it for the feat investment if you dish out a lot of damage or are larger than normal size. On the flip side, for some builds (and especially some monsters) it can be frighteningly good.
If I was re-writing it, I'd make the damage increase fixed at 2d6 or similar. That would make it much more useful for the warriors relying on weapons less impressive than greatswords.
|
Someone has already said rogue, but I'm going to enforce that a bit. A skulking slayer scout build I have can do 2d10+8d8+27 damage in one swing every time he moves 10' at level 8.
Druids, Large Sized Impact Bastard swords, Monks with Improved Nat. Attack+Hands of Stone+Dragon style line+FCT, and pretty much every mobile build that exists, all like vital strike.
Vital Strike is worth it. Even with a dagger build, moving gives a +2.5 average damage from the feat when you move. It is a great feat.
Druids, Large Sized Impact Bastard swords, Monks with Improved Nat. Attack+Hands of Stone+Dragon style line+FCT, and pretty much every mobile build that exists, all like vital strike.
Monks cannot take Improved Natural Attack, it was amended in Pathfinder.
|
|
First, +2.5 is vital strike, +2 is weapon spec. The only difference is the +2 can be full attacked with. Second, how many dagger builds are bothering with vital strike. Honestly, the better vital strike builds use stuff like greatswords or bastard swords or nodachis, where you get more like +5-6 damage on average. It gives an option when you need to move (which will happen). Not everyone can be RAGELANCEPOUNCE barbar. Not huge, but nice. Not working on charge or spring attack is sad, but the latter is a trap anyway.oh...no. That little damage is not worth a feat especially since the feat do not work with charge neither spring attack.
That +2.5 is nothing important at 6th level and at higher levels is totally pointless.
It would be decent if the feat scale with levels, but as it is the feat is terrible.
Monks cannot take Improved Natural Attack, it was amended in Pathfinder.
Forgot to add, this is with a bite attack monk. Hence FCT.
The problem is that for the average melee charakter who has no vital strike focused build you could calculate the average damage vital strike adds per round and you will end up disappointed.
Well I look at it like this...I only have so many feat slots. So what to take comes with questions....like Vital Strike or Furious Focus? Well, FF is useful all the time, and adds more damage, so FF. Vital Strike or Weapon Focus? Well, Weapon Focus adds it's bonus all the time, so WF. And so it goes on. It's not that VS is bad, just that there are better options out there.
Our Cavalier used it today while enlarged and wielding a greatsword for 6d6+ damage...and then Cleaved into another baddy for 6d6+. So it's pretty good if you have to move and then hit a baddy or two.
Cleave is a standard action; Vital Strike is an option you may take as part of an attack action.
as noted, cleave is a standard action, not an attack action.
Vital Strike, like spring attack, does not combine with all sorts of stuff it should.
So, no, the cavalier cannot do that, by the rules.
==Aelryinth
Our GM ruled differently.
The Big Hit thread convinced me that sticking with the RAW that prevents Vital Strike from being combined with charges and spring attacks is a good idea.
I think it may be possible to make a monk build that can do enough damage to one-shot the tarrasque at level 20 by enlarging, stacking in buffs, multiple odd powers (like true strike), and Vital Strike. However, the build I remember was not exactly viable at low level...It really seems that by losing your static bonuses you give up a lot of damage potential.
Although I think vital strike would be better for mobile builds who want to not fall into the 'full attack every round' humdrum.
You mean the Captain Falcon build I kind of theory-crafted one day? Here is a better Captain Falcon explanation in a Google Doc.
If your DM lets you Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, then it's a great feat for a mobile striker. If not, learn to Fly and take the Fly-by Attack feat, which allows you to take a Standard Action (any standard action, your choice!) at any point during your flying movement.
Don't forget that being on a moving mount limits the rider to one attack. Vital Strike is great if you spend a lot of time on a mount.
I guess Vital Strike would be ok for ranged attacks in the surprise round. Heavy Crossbow + Gravity Bow + Vital Strike also might be mildly amusing, especially with Flyby Attack to get back behind cover. I guess Vital Strike with a musket might be a decent “fire and forget” touch attack to open combat.
Monks with greater grapple, get a standard action big punch in there.
If it works with crossbows... y not a cannon?
The question I've got is: How does Vital Strike interact with touch spells and/or the magus' spellstrike ability? Convention would seem to indicate that the spell damage is not multiplied. RAW, however....I'm not sure about...
It wouldn't do anything for a Spellstrike, because you'd be Vital Striking with the weapon, and the spell is an add-on. And you couldn't use it with Spell Combat either, because you don't have a standard action to Vital Strike with.
But if you Spellcombat for a nice 10d6 Shocking Grasp, and miss with all your attacks, making a single Vital Strike for 20d6 next round is a decent option.Vital Strike only allows rolling the weapon damage dice more than once. It does not allow spell damage to be rolled again.
Attack roll spells are weapons for most purposes. If it works with a musket, why not with a touch spell?
You know, rays are considered weapons for the purposes of feats. I wonder if that means you can Vital Strike Enervation? Or, at 12th level, Vital Strike a Scorching Ray, so each ray deals 8d6 damage, for a total of 24d6 damage if all 3 hit?
Hmm, did Vital Strike just become an awesome feat for casters? o.0
[Edit] Hmm, a Magus using Improved Vital Strike on Scorching Ray... I wonder if an Eldritch Knight can reach a BAB of 16 so they can take Greater Vital Strike?
Rays would obviously need some sort of trickery beyond even my rules-fu; you fire them as part of the spellcasting action, they're never "on hand" and available for you to attack with as a Vital Strike standard action.