Just wordering how other GMs decide when to use these monster feats.
Power Attack: Use it by default and stick with it unless the creature fails horribly with its attack rolls. If it does and it is semi-intelligent I will stop using it.
Vital Strike: Only if I cannot full attack and/or don't have a useful spell or ability to use.
I start off with power attack and I only stop if I have too much trouble hitting the target.
I normally trade vital strike out for another feat unless the monster has enough base weapon damage to make it potentially worth it.
|
A big dump monster with power attack, I'll have it always-on. A smart monster would assess the likely AC of the PCs to see if using Power Attack would improve it's likely DPR.
Vital Strike (on a fighting monster, I assume) - when it looks like it might give me more profit than a full attack. This will often be the case for big monsters with a single natural weapon, like a T-Rex, since they don't get iterative attacks anyway.
Basically, my take is that if monsters have these feats to cause mayhem, that's what they'll try to do. If I don't want to hurt the PCs, why did I give the monsters feats to hurt the PCs?
So the decision-making process is more or less the same as that of the players deciding to use PA/VS: will it be useful? Then we'll use it.
|
Trying to hit a Fighter/Paladin/Monk's high AC means I rarely use Power attack, unless I can still hit on a 10+, after the negative modifier.
Since hitting is often an issue vs my PCs, I have started using Vital Strike tree more often. This way I can still whittle down their HP, which leads to them using resources to heal, etc.
|
|
Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.
But I've seen it be consistently useful in the first round of combats, when a full attack usually isn't possible anyway. My friend's Living Monolith uses it in surprise rounds to good effect:
- quickdraw greatsword
- 5ft step forward
- Enlarge self, growing forward; he's now reaching enemies at 20ft from his starting position.
- Vital Strike for 6d6 (+22 or so; he's not relying on VS alone).
+3d6 damage isn't really bad for a single feat, especially if that full attack wasn't going to happen anyway.
Also, Vital Strike, Power Attack and Furious Focus make an obvious and effective combination. Especially if the PCs are trying to sabotage full attacks anyway, you better make that one attack count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.
Yeah, I think the long string of FAQs restricting what it could do really turned people off the feat. At this point it's a pretty safe bet that if you FAQ any question to Paizo about vital strike, the answer is "No, you can't." Heck, Paizo brought back RageLancePounce because the alternative was letting mounted characters vital strike with a lance.
Vital strike is one of my favorite feats to use for monsters and NPC's, because it helps me accomplish my goals during combat.
One of a GM's primary goals during combat is to make the monsters seem as formidable as possible. Note that this is very different from making the monsters actually formidable -- you want the players to be scared of the monsters, but mechanically you don't want the monsters to really have any chance of winning the battle (unless it's a major boss fight).
The reason you want the monsters to seem scary, of course, is that it's fun for the players to be briefly worried about the battle. It makes the battle interesting, and it sweetens the victory the following round when they clobber the monsters to death. The game is always stacked in the PC's favor, so much so that most fights in Pathfinder aren't really that challenging, but as a GM one of your main goals is to provide the illusion of challenge.
Vital Strike fits right into this goal. It's something a monster can use during the first round of battle to do impressive damage on a single attack. This makes a monster seem scary right off the bat, and should make the players worried about what will happen if the monster gets to full attack the following round. It provides the illusion of challenge, which is exactly what a GM wants from most monsters.
As far as Power Attack goes, I wish that stat blocks for monsters with Power Attack just included the feat in the listed attack and damage. Most monsters with Power Attack should use it all the time, and it's really necessary for the monster to do a decent amount of damage. If you notice that a monster has Power Attack, just start using it.
|
I never use either because I don't... hmm... System Mastery is not my main priority and I have problems remembering how things like deadly aim, power attack, and cleave, and vital strike work. So I tend to not use them at all even if they are in a monster's stat block. If possible I replace them with passive feats like weapon focuses, iron will, lightning reflexes, Improved Init, passive things I can just plop onto a stat block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power Attack: Pretty much what the other have said; my monsters use it most of the time.
Vital Strike: Since I redo the feats on most of the monsters I send toward the PCs, I trade out Vital Strike for something better. The only time I leave Vital Strike is for monsters that have a single, big-dice damage attack such as T-Rexes.
Vital Strike isn't so bad on monsters. Nobody really expects them to have it or you to use it since it's such a sub par choice as a PC.
If you whack a PC and roll pretty well it tends to throw them off balance a bit by taking more damage than they initially estimated.
Monsters tend to have better damage dice to take advantage of vital strike anyways. *phoning Vital Strike T-Rex*
Monsters tend to have better damage dice to take advantage of vital strike anyways. *phoning Vital Strike T-Rex*Vital Strike isn't so bad on monsters. Nobody really expects them to have it or you to use it since it's such a sub par choice as a PC.
If you whack a PC and roll pretty well it tends to throw them off balance a bit by taking more damage than they initially estimated.
Indeed. Rather telling that one of the few classes that can really get a lot of mileage out of Vital Strike is the Druid.
Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.Yeah, I think the long string of FAQs restricting what it could do really turned people off the feat. At this point it's a pretty safe bet that if you FAQ any question to Paizo about vital strike, the answer is "No, you can't." Heck, Paizo brought back RageLancePounce because the alternative was letting mounted characters vital strike with a lance.
I don't know where you've been but lancepounce is still nerfed 'because realism'
I don't know where you've been but lancepounce is still nerfed 'because realism'Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.Yeah, I think the long string of FAQs restricting what it could do really turned people off the feat. At this point it's a pretty safe bet that if you FAQ any question to Paizo about vital strike, the answer is "No, you can't." Heck, Paizo brought back RageLancePounce because the alternative was letting mounted characters vital strike with a lance.
I assume you mean the ruling that it doesn't get x2 damage on all hits? Yeah, that ruling's still in place.
However, it used to be that you couldn't pounce at all while mounted, on the grounds that the mount was charging, while the PC was just taking an attack action. Thus, people thinking you could vital strike on a mounted charge, which lead Paizo to reverse that and shift to the current paradigm of both mount and rider taking a charge action.
However, it used to be that you couldn't pounce at all while mounted, on the grounds that the mount was charging, while the PC was just taking an attack action. Thus, people thinking you could vital strike on a mounted charge, which lead Paizo to reverse that and shift to the current paradigm of both mount and rider taking a charge action.
That was definitely a well thought out reversal >_>