CSI: Magnimar, or: Can you Vital Strike with a (Su) Attack?

[Akkumsah]

I briefly died when a ghost used Vital Strike on her Corrupting Touch on me. Re-checking the rules, I don't see how that can work. Vital Strike specifically calls out weapon damage dice, which Corrupting Touch does not have. Instead, its damage is a bag full of d6, like a damage spell. I think we all agree that a ghost's damage dice do not scale with size, so they are clearly not weapon-like. I believe the same argument is used to prohibit Kineticists from using Vital Strike on their Kinetic Blasts.

On the other hand, the DM said the module specifically recommended using Vital Strike with that enemy. Was that simply a mistake?

Have I died in vain...?

[Akkumsah]

Also, as far as I can tell, the standard action to activate a (Su) ability is not the same as the Attack action, even if the ability does include an attack. So it shouldn't qualify for Vital Strike in the first place.

[Temperans]

You are correct, baring any modifications on the monster used (or some ability like the Heritor's Blade PRC), you cannot use Vital Strike as a part of a Standard Action. There is a whole FAQ about it.

If the module suggested Vital Strike it's for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) It has a weapon that can benefit from Vital Striking (the larger/more the damage dice the better).

2) It has a special ability that allows it to make good use of it, in some way.

[Garretmander]

Temperans wrote:

You are correct, baring any modifications on the monster used (or some ability like the Heritor's Blade PRC), you cannot use Vital Strike as a part of a Standard Action. There is a whole FAQ about it.

If the module suggested Vital Strike it's for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) It has a weapon that can benefit from Vital Striking (the larger/more the damage dice the better).

2) It has a special ability that allows it to make good use of it, in some way.

You're forgetting 3)the writer didn't double check that rules interaction and made a mistake. It happens pretty often in pre-written adventures.

[Temperans]

Garretmander wrote:

Temperans wrote:

You are correct, baring any modifications on the monster used (or some ability like the Heritor's Blade PRC), you cannot use Vital Strike as a part of a Standard Action. There is a whole FAQ about it.

If the module suggested Vital Strike it's for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) It has a weapon that can benefit from Vital Striking (the larger/more the damage dice the better).

2) It has a special ability that allows it to make good use of it, in some way.

You're forgetting 3)the writer didn't double check that rules interaction and made a mistake. It happens pretty often in pre-written adventures.

I gave the book the benefit of the doubt. But you are right it could be a mistake, whether from the writer(s) or the editor(s).

[Ssalarn]

Corrupting Touch is specifically a standard action normally, which is not compatible with Vital Strike. Do you happen to know which module it was?

[Bartram]

Ssalarn wrote:

Corrupting Touch is specifically a standard action normally, which is not compatible with Vital Strike. Do you happen to know which module it was?

Return of the Rune Lords book 3

I had a PC in the game I'm running die to the same thing.

Tiny spoiler for later in the AP:

I used some plot shenanigans from later in the adventure that I shifted to happen at this point instead in order to stop the character from dying. Because yeah... 10d6+vital strike, on top of an AoE stagger at the end of every move action. (And she has no other attack actions)

The tactics do call for her to stop making melee strikes once she gets below a certain HP threshold though, and once that happens she was largely useless against my PCs.

[Ssalarn]

Bartram wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Corrupting Touch is specifically a standard action normally, which is not compatible with Vital Strike. Do you happen to know which module it was?

Return of the Rune Lords book 3

I had a PC in the game I'm running die to the same thing.

** spoiler omitted **

Her Tactics Don't Say That:

Xanesha's tactics never say she uses Vital Strike with her corrupting touch. She has the Vital Strike feat, but she also has Power Attack and Improved Critical (spear) none of which she is capable of using. The reason for this is that she's the ghost of a very memorable boss from Rise of the Runelords and uses her original stat block modified with the ghost template (which is really how ghosts are "supposed" to be made). Absolutely nothing in the tactics says she Vital Strikes with her corrupting touch. This was a misunderstanding on the part of the GM.

[Olwen]

Not that I feel the need to defend myself (although I guess I do), but I never said it was Xanesha's stat block that was. The tactic is listed in the tactics of a Hell's Vengeance NPC.

Return of the runelords:

Maybe it's not legit but, honestly? It's a very nice way to have an effective and memorable NPC. Xanesha being ineffective isn't fun, it's anticlimactic, and it's boring. If you bring back the memorable NPC from that campaign from 10-years ago, you don't want them to be toothless. Given that the point of memorable NPCs is to have over-the-top abilities that aren't part of the normal rules, why not? Have of a ghost's abilities are made up anyway, and that could always be a special corrupting touch just for her that does double damage. Especially when the character are over optimized.

It only cost the group a scroll of breath of life and it sure was a nice entrance into the module. And, anyway, cool/fun/tensed always trumps rules.

[Akkumsah]

I agree that the character is supposed to be overwhelmingly deadly and that, ultimately, an enemy’s stats are what you say they are. ;)

I’m just glad that I shouldn’t take it as a sign of neglected defenses on my part...

[Claxon]

IMO, when it comes to a player character dying "cool" never trumps the rules, especially not to make it happen.

Whats cool (from my perspective) is when the player survives by the skin of their teeth.

Making an attack deal double the damage isn't cool, it's just mechanically twice as effective. But it's no cooler than corrupting touch is generally.

But the double damage part is important, because now such a creature would have a higher CR than what is indicated in the stat block.

[Ssalarn]

Claxon wrote:

IMO, when it comes to a player character dying "cool" never trumps the rules, especially not to make it happen.

Whats cool (from my perspective) is when the player survives by the skin of their teeth.

Making an attack deal double the damage isn't cool, it's just mechanically twice as effective. But it's no cooler than corrupting touch is generally.

But the double damage part is important, because now such a creature would have a higher CR than what is indicated in the stat block.

I think what's relevant here is that the rules question has been answered.

"Can a ghost use Vital Strike with its corrupting touch?" – No, unless it has some special ability that specifically allows it to do so.

If the GM decided to homebrew the encounter and the player is content with that, there's not a lot more to discuss.

[Claxon]

Ssalarn wrote:

Claxon wrote:

IMO, when it comes to a player character dying "cool" never trumps the rules, especially not to make it happen.

Whats cool (from my perspective) is when the player survives by the skin of their teeth.

Making an attack deal double the damage isn't cool, it's just mechanically twice as effective. But it's no cooler than corrupting touch is generally.

But the double damage part is important, because now such a creature would have a higher CR than what is indicated in the stat block.

I think what's relevant here is that the rules question has been answered.

"Can a ghost use Vital Strike with its corrupting touch?" – No, unless it has some special ability that specifically allows it to do so.

If the GM decided to homebrew the encounter and the player is content with that, there's not a lot more to discuss.

That's fair, but since the player came here to inquire it feels as though they weren't exactly content.