Precise Strike + Impact Weapons (+Lead Blades)


Rules Questions


So I have a player who is trying to get a Monster Hunter-esque character, built around using a Large Greatsword to the biggest effect possible, to do single attacks doing ridiculous amounts of damage.

So, he's a Tiefling with 'Fiendish Heritage' #16 to get over not being able to wield such a weapon (as it would become 3-handed).

PF25 wrote:
"You have oversized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty"

So I agreed that that combination would work, as for a feat I thought there wasn't much benefit, but it made his character more unique. So after that his weapon deals 3d6 damage; not particularly game breaking to be honest.

He's taken Ranger, as the survival elements of the character match Monster Hunter quite nicely, and the 'Two Handed Weapon' abilities from the APG. It also let him cast the spell 'Lead Blade'; now his sword does 4d6 damage.

He finally earned enough money (lv8) to commission a Large Impact Greatsword

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
"An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger"

At level 8, even doing 6d6+modifier damage isn't particularly massive, but he enjoys rolling a handful of dice, so I rolled with it (excuse the pun!).

So now he's asking me if the Vital Strike feat chain would combine with it.

Core Rulebook wrote:
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."

It would appear that, as the Impact weapon is technically a weapon ability, that wouldn't work, but the player argues that the ability doesn't work like 'flaming' does, so shouldn't be included in that. While I would agree that, technically, Lead Blades isn't a 'damage bonus' per se, I'm slightly concerned that the player rolling 12d6+modifier could break most encounters. Obviously it's my call at the end of the day, but I just want to ask a few things:

a) does his combination of feats/abilities so far seem legal?
b) would Vital Strike allow any of these abilities to combine?
c) would it be game breaking if I allowed Vital Strike to work as my player thinks it should?


Impact and Lead Blades don't stack. Theres an FAQ about it some place.

I'm also of the opinion that you shouldn't allow players to cherry pick things from the tiefling/aasimar list of abilities, which he has obviously done. It's likely too late to take it from them, but for future reference I wouldn't let them just choose.


In FAQ for Ultimate Equipment.

Quote:

Weapon Special Ability, Impact: Does this stack with the lead blades spell?

No. The weapon special ability and the spell are similar effects; note that impact lists lead blades as a construction requirement.

Also, Vital Strike is generally sub-par compared to a full-attack (and always remember to enforce that it is it's own standard action and can't be combined with pretty much anything else). In general, a person using vital strike every round will do less damage than the same individual using a full attack whenever they don't move, due to the damage bonus from enhancement, strength, power attack, etc only applying once on a vital strike and 2 or more times on a full attack.

Also you ask about precise strike, but that isn't mentioned earlier in your post. Did you mean Vital Strike or did you forget to mention something about Precise Strike?


precise strike would not be increased or multiplied by vital strike so thats just 1 extra d6. Personally at least in my home games I've ruled that impact ability and lead blades do not stack, effectively being the same type of ability.

Just my point of view.

Asta
PSY


Apologies for confusing Precise Strike & Vital Strike; their similar namings confused me! *turns red with embarrassment* I shall edit accordingly.


As it happens, I do agree that players shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick things from Fiendish Heritage, but it seems like that's the only legal way to wield a Large Greatsword; is there another way? If not, would just a houseruled feat to allow a player to use Large weapons without penalty be balanced, or could that be abused too much?


I do not believe you can use that ability to legally wield a large greatsword. That ability removes the penalty for wielding oversized weapons (specifically, the -2 penalty to attacking with an improperly sized weapon per size category), not the sizing issue associated with being able to wield a large two-handed weapon.


If he really wanted to go nuts he could opt for a 3D8 huge Bastard Sword and then get impact on that for 4D8. I would also say that while lead blade and impact wont stack with each other they both leave a weapon counting as a step larger, in effect changing the base damage of the weapon... So they will syngerize very well with the Vital Strike chain for 8D8 +modifiers in a standard attack.


fretgod99 wrote:
I do not believe you can use that ability to legally wield a large greatsword. That ability removes the penalty for wielding oversized weapons (specifically, the -2 penalty to attacking with an improperly sized weapon per size category), not the sizing issue associated with being able to wield a large two-handed weapon.

Technically this may be accurate. I'm not sure. I don't have the book to actually read the ability so I also don't have any context for it either.

Alternatively, the Titan Mauler barbarian archetype was supposed to allow you to wield progressively larger weapons, but due to rules snafu it doesn't work that way. The writer of the archetype has proposed a straightforward correction on the message boards here and clarifies how he intended the archetype to funciton. So as written it doesn't accomplish what your player wants, but the archetype is supposed to.


fretgod99 wrote:
I do not believe you can use that ability to legally wield a large greatsword. That ability removes the penalty for wielding oversized weapons (specifically, the -2 penalty to attacking with an improperly sized weapon per size category), not the sizing issue associated with being able to wield a large two-handed weapon.

This is correct, he CANT wield the Large Great Sword at all. So no starting out at a 3d6. He can wield a Large Long Sword in two hands without penalty though.


LeSpriter wrote:
As it happens, I do agree that players shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick things from Fiendish Heritage, but it seems like that's the only legal way to wield a Large Greatsword; is there another way? If not, would just a houseruled feat to allow a player to use Large weapons without penalty be balanced, or could that be abused too much?

Well, it's up to you whether it's balanced, but here's the breakdown:

A d6 averages 3.5, so upping his weapons by a size category adds an average of 3.5 points of damage per round (2d6 = 7 points, 3d6 = 10.5 points, etc.).

To compare, if he spent that same standard action to cast Bull's Strength instead of Lead Blades, that nets him a guaranteed +3 points of damage on each hit, plus +2 to hit on top of that. (With those numbers, I go for the Strength boost every time, but my dice hate me...)

Someone already mentioned the Vital Strike/two attacks trade off: the reason two attacks is better is that your static bonuses are usually more than the average of your weapon dice. If you have terrible static bonuses, then Vital Strike becomes a more viable option.

The only time I've seen Vital Strike work better than a full attack was a Barbarian build with the Furious Finish rage power (end your rage to do max damage on your weapon dice). But that was also a build specifically designed to use Vital Strike, and if he didn't drop the bad guy on the Furious Finish hit, he was in a crap-load of trouble.


Gwen Smith wrote:
To compare, if he spent that same standard action to cast Bull's Strength instead of Lead Blades, that nets him a guaranteed +3 points of damage on each hit, plus +2 to hit on top of that. (With those numbers, I go for the Strength boost every time, but my dice hate me...)

Just to remind here, Bull's Strength provides an enhancement bonus to strength, which the character will undoubtedly pick up in the form of a belt at some point. So while yes, a casting of Bull Strength does net your more than casting Lead Blades does on a naked character, they stack together. Pointing out that Bull's Strength is better than casting Lead Blades isn't very meaningful since the charater is likely to have both an Impact Weapon and a Belt of Strength. And remember, the character wasn't casting either, he was obtaining items the replicated the effects.

You wouldn't let someone stack Bull's Strength with the belt would you? So you also don't stack Lead Blades with Impact.


Tell him to grab exotic weapon prof bastard sword and use a large bastard sword instead.
He'll get off an impact L. bastard sword 3D8 damage. Vital strike that boy all the way up and BAM!

Scarab Sages

Major_Blackhart wrote:

Tell him to grab exotic weapon prof bastard sword and use a large bastard sword instead.

He'll get off an impact L. bastard sword 3D8 damage. Vital strike that boy all the way up and BAM!

Eventually pick up Righteous (or equivalent) enchantment on your armor.


Claxon wrote:
...the Titan Mauler barbarian archetype was supposed to allow you to wield progressively larger weapons, but due to rules snafu it doesn't work that way. The writer of the archetype has proposed a straightforward correction on the message boards here and clarifies how he intended the archetype to funciton. So as written it doesn't accomplish what your player wants, but the archetype is supposed to.

With a small amount of research, I found this:

Jason Nelson wrote:

... I'd probably leave the Jotungrip ability as is, since that ability is really more about using a regular TH weapon in one hand than using overly large weapons. However, the Massive Weapons ability is the one I'd probably change, to read like this:

Massive Weapons (Ex): At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. At 3rd level, she can wield melee or thrown weapons sized for creatures one size category larger than her own size, with a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Such weapons are always considered two-handed weapons.

For every 3 levels beyond 3rd, a titan mauler may choose to increase the size of weapons she can effectively wield by one additional size category, with an additional -2 cumulative penalty to attack rolls. Alternatively, she may choose to reduce her attack roll penalty when using oversized weapons by 1. This choice must be made every 3 levels when the ability is gained and cannot be changed. This ability replaces trap sense.

I appreciate everyone's help, but this has pretty much solved what I was after; my player wanted to wield ridiculously large weapons, so although this Titan Mauler edit isn't official, it's the closest thing to what my player is after, and as long as my players are happy that makes me a happy GM. I mean, if casters can stop time and bring people back from the dead why can't martials fight with big swords?!


Vital Strike simply multiplies the weapon damage dice and adds it all together; the extra damage dice is precision-based, so it's not multiplied (unless you're using Mythic Rules).

Impact/Lead Blades alters the damage dice amount.

They aren't even really correlated.

The other guys are correct though, if larger damage dice is what he wants, Large Bastard Sword at 2D8 (with no penalty from it being sized one larger than him) scales at a better level than a Greatsword; 3D8 is easier to max out, and deals more damage than 3D6. GVS makes that 12D8.

You tack on an Enlarge Person (which stacks with Impact/Lead Blades), and he's rolling in 16D8 on a GVS. Unfortunately, that's only 1/round, unless he gets an ability that grants him multiple Standard Actions, which you aren't (unless, once again, you're using Mythic Rules).

In short, if he was going to do this, he would be better off using Mythic Rules, since Mythic Rules treat Vital Strike builds so much better than regular games. However, maximizing his Strength and using Power Attack every round would keep him in-line, though he wouldn't beat any static martial.

Oh, and to answer your "Time Stop V.S. Big Swords" argument...It's because Paizo is of the firm belief that Martials cannot have nice things.

That is all.


Claxon wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
To compare, if he spent that same standard action to cast Bull's Strength instead of Lead Blades, that nets him a guaranteed +3 points of damage on each hit, plus +2 to hit on top of that. (With those numbers, I go for the Strength boost every time, but my dice hate me...)

Just to remind here, Bull's Strength provides an enhancement bonus to strength, which the character will undoubtedly pick up in the form of a belt at some point. So while yes, a casting of Bull Strength does net your more than casting Lead Blades does on a naked character, they stack together. Pointing out that Bull's Strength is better than casting Lead Blades isn't very meaningful since the charater is likely to have both an Impact Weapon and a Belt of Strength. And remember, the character wasn't casting either, he was obtaining items the replicated the effects.

You wouldn't let someone stack Bull's Strength with the belt would you? So you also don't stack Lead Blades with Impact.

Sorry--I thought the Lead Blades and Impact weapon was resolved a while back. I was responding to the general "is it imbalanced to allow the tiefling to use large weapons" question.


Slacker2010 wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
I do not believe you can use that ability to legally wield a large greatsword. That ability removes the penalty for wielding oversized weapons (specifically, the -2 penalty to attacking with an improperly sized weapon per size category), not the sizing issue associated with being able to wield a large two-handed weapon.
This is correct, he CANT wield the Large Great Sword at all. So no starting out at a 3d6. He can wield a Large Long Sword in two hands without penalty though.

It seems like he could use a large sized greatsword since it follows the same language as the Redcap's Heavy Weapons ability which allows them to use two-handed medium weapons despite being small sized.


Letting your martial character have this will in no way harm break you game. I would go so far as to allow vital strike to apply to any single attack action. Cleave, spring attack, lunge, whatever. I would not allow it on a charge or AoO. Extra attacks from cleave would also not get it. This make vital strike better but still not great.

Vital strike is great for monsters with a big attack and druids that turn into them.


Gwen Smith wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
To compare, if he spent that same standard action to cast Bull's Strength instead of Lead Blades, that nets him a guaranteed +3 points of damage on each hit, plus +2 to hit on top of that. (With those numbers, I go for the Strength boost every time, but my dice hate me...)

Just to remind here, Bull's Strength provides an enhancement bonus to strength, which the character will undoubtedly pick up in the form of a belt at some point. So while yes, a casting of Bull Strength does net your more than casting Lead Blades does on a naked character, they stack together. Pointing out that Bull's Strength is better than casting Lead Blades isn't very meaningful since the charater is likely to have both an Impact Weapon and a Belt of Strength. And remember, the character wasn't casting either, he was obtaining items the replicated the effects.

You wouldn't let someone stack Bull's Strength with the belt would you? So you also don't stack Lead Blades with Impact.

Sorry--I thought the Lead Blades and Impact weapon was resolved a while back. I was responding to the general "is it imbalanced to allow the tiefling to use large weapons" question.

My bad as well, I thought you were arguing for something that you weren't.


I think Dread Knight made a good point.

If "can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty," allows a Redcap to wield a Medium scythe (two handed weapon), then "You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty," should allow a Tiefling to use a Large great sword (two handed weapon).

I look at Lead Blades and Impact as overlapping effects. Both say "as if one size category larger." So first Lead Blades checks your size, and moves it up one category. Then Impact checks your size, which is the same, and moves it up one category. Both effect reference your actual size, which hasn't changed. But either would work with an effect that actually changed your size.

As far as using Vital Strike, that's kinda tricky. But I think I agree with your player that Impact works differently than Flaming. Impact increases the base damage of the weapon, it doesn't add extra damage. Since it is the base damage changed, it would double.

So his character would wield a Large great sword (3d6), plus Impact or Lead Blades (3d8) or [4d6]*, plus Vital Strike (6d8) or [8d6]*.

Or possibly Large great sword (3d6), Enlarged (3d8) or [4d6]*, plus Impact or Lead Blades (6d6)or [6d6]*, plus Vital Strike (12d6) or [12d6]*.

*NOTE
The only place I see that has 3d6 increase to 4d6 is Improved Natural Attack. Since this is a weapon, I used the weapon chart to go 2d6-3d6-3d8 since d6 turns to d8. Similarly, the INA table has 3d8 go to 4d8, but that isn't on the weapon table, so I moved 3d8 to 6d6 as each d8 changes to 2d6. Either way, the average results are practically the same.


Samasboy1 wrote:

I think Dread Knight made a good point.

If "can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty," allows a Redcap to wield a Medium scythe (two handed weapon), then "You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty," should allow a Tiefling to use a Large great sword (two handed weapon).

Yeah that's interesting. Whelp, disregard then. Redcaps are stated out with medium scythes. So *shrug*.

Sczarni

Samasboy1 wrote:

*NOTE

The only place I see that has 3d6 increase to 4d6 is Improved Natural Attack. Since this is a weapon, I used the weapon chart to go 2d6-3d6-3d8 since d6 turns to d8. Similarly, the INA table has 3d8 go to 4d8, but that isn't on the weapon table, so I moved 3d8 to 6d6 as each d8 changes to 2d6. Either way, the average results are practically the same.

271 FAQ hits so far. Have you added your voice?


Samasboy1 wrote:

I think Dread Knight made a good point.

If "can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty," allows a Redcap to wield a Medium scythe (two handed weapon), then "You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty," should allow a Tiefling to use a Large great sword (two handed weapon).

I look at Lead Blades and Impact as overlapping effects. Both say "as if one size category larger." So first Lead Blades checks your size, and moves it up one category. Then Impact checks your size, which is the same, and moves it up one category. Both effect reference your actual size, which hasn't changed. But either would work with an effect that actually changed your size.

As far as using Vital Strike, that's kinda tricky. But I think I agree with your player that Impact works differently than Flaming. Impact increases the base damage of the weapon, it doesn't add extra damage. Since it is the base damage changed, it would double.

So his character would wield a Large great sword (3d6), plus Impact or Lead Blades (3d8) or [4d6]*, plus Vital Strike (6d8) or [8d6]*.

Or possibly Large great sword (3d6), Enlarged (3d8) or [4d6]*, plus Impact or Lead Blades (6d6)or [6d6]*, plus Vital Strike (12d6) or [12d6]*.

*NOTE
The only place I see that has 3d6 increase to 4d6 is Improved Natural Attack. Since this is a weapon, I used the weapon chart to go 2d6-3d6-3d8 since d6 turns to d8. Similarly, the INA table has 3d8 go to 4d8, but that isn't on the weapon table, so I moved 3d8 to 6d6 as each d8 changes to 2d6. Either way, the average results are practically the same.

Being a Tiefling he would have the Outsider type instead of Humanoid, wouldnt that prohibit Enlarge Person? But the B. Sword trick could still get a larger dice pool. If playing a Cleric or Warpriest though you could eventually get Righteous Might or a magic item there of and that spell doesnt care about creature type.

So most optimized dice pool I can see would be:

Huge B. Sword: 3D8, righteous might: 4D8, Impact: 6D8, Vital Strike: 12D8.


Nefreet Yup.

Torbyne there are ways to gain a size category other than Enlarge Person, and I said "possibly" to cover any circumstance in which he could do so.

Dice pool doesn't look any bigger to me.....

Large Bastard sword (2d8), plus Impact or Lead Blades (3d8), plus Vital Strike (6d8)

Large Bastard sword (2d8), plus Impact or Lead Blades (3d8), Enlarged (6d6) or [4d8]*, plus Vital Strike (12d6) or [8d8]*

In fact, if you follow the INA progression, your dice pool is significantly smaller, though the difference in average damage is small.

Torbyne wrote:
Huge B. Sword: 3D8, righteous might: 4D8, Impact: 6D8, Vital Strike: 12D8.

This looks like the problem. You are start with Medium using a Large weapon, then Large using a Huge weapon with Righteous Might, then Large with an effectively Gargantuan weapon wit Lead Blades, plus Vital Strike

So I don't see started with a Huge weapon, before adding the size increase.


Samasboy1 wrote:

Nefreet Yup.

Torbyne there are ways to gain a size category other than Enlarge Person, and I said "possibly" to cover any circumstance in which he could do so.

Dice pool doesn't look any bigger to me.....

Large Bastard sword (2d8), plus Impact or Lead Blades (3d8), plus Vital Strike (6d8)

Large Bastard sword (2d8), plus Impact or Lead Blades (3d8), Enlarged (6d6) or [4d8]*, plus Vital Strike (12d6) or [8d8]*

In fact, if you follow the INA progression, your dice pool is significantly smaller, though the difference in average damage is small.

Torbyne wrote:
Huge B. Sword: 3D8, righteous might: 4D8, Impact: 6D8, Vital Strike: 12D8.

This looks like the problem. You are start with Medium using a Large weapon, then Large using a Huge weapon with Righteous Might, then Large with an effectively Gargantuan weapon wit Lead Blades, plus Vital Strike

So I don't see started with a Huge weapon, before adding the size increase.

Following the idea that a medium creature can wield large bastard sword as a two handed weapon, someone who can wield a large bastard sword as a one handed weapon could use a huge one as a two hander. It's an assumption but I feel it would fly at most all tables. Then comes size increase and impact.


Okay, I see your point.

Bastard sword is a one handed weapon. So since you can use a Large Bastard sword one handed, you could use a Huge Bastard sword two handed.....

Hmm......

That could fly. You would be taking a -2 to hit, but I could see that working.


Hmmm...this same logic could be applied to lances since they can be wielded one handed while mounted right? As a thought experiment, imagine the triple weapon damage multiplier with Spirited Charge. Throw in an Inquisitor of Gorum with Improved Shared Spells for giggles as well. Gorum Inquisitors can cast Lead Blades and with Deific Obedience can stack on an additional 2d6 damage while charging a Lawful creature.

[( 3d6 Huge Lance + Lead Blades + Righteous Might) x3 Spirited Charge] + 4d6 Greater Bane + 2d6 Chaotic Charge + Judgements/Buffs/Str/Power Attack/Enchanted Weapon

And then there's the extra damage coming from the huge or gargantuan mount's charge that's sharing your buffs and judgements with Improved Shared and Chivalry Inquisition.

Extremely limited situation where this set up is possible, but interesting as a theoretical exercise for a single hit damage.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Precise Strike + Impact Weapons (+Lead Blades) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.