# Vital Strike Questions



## Remathilis (Sep 21, 2009)

Ok, got a few questions with vital strike (and its higher-level cousins). In general, the concept is trade your iterative attacks for extra "dice" of damage. However, I want clarification on a few things.

1.) Its an "attack" action, therefore a standard action, correct?

2.) Therefore, I can move my speed and then use it? 

3.) Can I use it in conjunction with extra attacks (haste, cleave, whirlwind attack, or dual-wielding)?

4.) Can I charge and use it?

5.) Can I spring attack and use it?

6.) Can I use it with a missile or thrown weapon?

Thanks


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 21, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ok, got a few questions with vital strike (and its higher-level cousins). In general, the concept is trade your iterative attacks for extra "dice" of damage. However, I want clarification on a few things.
> 
> 1.) Its an "attack" action, therefore a standard action, correct?



Correct.


> 2.) Therefore, I can move my speed and then use it?



Yes.


> 3.) Can I use it in conjunction with extra attacks (haste, cleave, whirlwind attack, or dual-wielding)?



No, because limited to attack action. Extra attacks require full attack.


> 4.) Can I charge and use it?



No, Authors wrote preview without any idea for feat worked. They admitted they goofed the preview and you can't charge (because a full action = Charge).


> 5.) Can I spring attack and use it?



 I believe you can.


> 6.) Can I use it with a missile or thrown weapon?
> 
> Thanks



 No limit on type of attack range (melee, thrown, projectle).


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 21, 2009)

I think you can use the Vital Strike at the end of a Charge:


			
				PF Charge said:
			
		

> Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a
> single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and
> take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.





			
				Vital Strike said:
			
		

> Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make
> one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals
> additional damage.




"...the attack action..." = a single melee attack, which you receive at the end of a charge. Therefore I would say you can use the Vital Strike feats at the end of a charge.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 21, 2009)

Note that some of Starbuck II's responses are incorrect, I think stemming from an incorrect understanding of what an "attack action" is.  Salthorae's response is correct.



Remathilis said:


> Ok, got a few questions with vital strike (and its higher-level cousins). In general, the concept is trade your iterative attacks for extra "dice" of damage. However, I want clarification on a few things.
> 
> 1.) Its an "attack" action, therefore a standard action, correct?



No.  As a standard action, you can make an attack action, but an attack action is a single attack.  So, for example, each attack of three iterative attacks is an "attack action."  This wording is used often enough -- and caused enough confusion in 3.5 -- that it warrants its own heading uder types of actions.



> 2.) Therefore, I can move my speed and then use it?



Yes.



> 3.) Can I use it in conjunction with extra attacks (haste, cleave, whirlwind attack, or dual-wielding)?



No, because it specifically allows a single attack.  To be technical, you can use it in conjustion with _haste_, e.g., but it's irrelevant, because when you use Vital Strike you're giving up the extra attack you'd get from _haste_.



> 4.) Can I charge and use it?



Yes.



> 5.) Can I spring attack and use it?



Yes.



> 6.) Can I use it with a missile or thrown weapon?



Yes.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm not sure what the design intent was, but to me it does not look like you can use it at the end of a charge or as part of Spring Attack. Both a charge and Spring Attack are full round actions that specify a "single attack," not the attack action. And after all, what is a full attack but an action that allows a number of attacks?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure what the design intent was, but to me it does not look like you can use it at the end of a charge or as part of Spring Attack. Both a charge and Spring Attack are full round actions that specify a "single attack," not the attack action. And after all, what is a full attack but an action that allows a number of attacks?



There is no such thing defined as an "attack action."  (As I said, it should be defined, because using "attack action" in the English language sense is confusing for many people who are used to seeing "standard action," "move action," and so on as being defined by the rules.  When they see the words "attack action," they naturally want it to have a rules definition, but it doesn't.)

An attack action is simply "making an attack."


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 22, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> There is no such thing defined as an "attack action." (As I said, it should be defined, because using "attack action" in the English language sense is confusing for many people who are used to seeing "standard action," "move action," and so on as being defined by the rules. When they see the words "attack action," they naturally want it to have a rules definition, but it doesn't.)
> 
> An attack action is simply "making an attack."



 Look, bug the designers not me. They said on the Paizo forums you can't charge and Vital Strike.
I was just letting you know.
It isn't RAW (rules as written) or RAI (rules as intended) according to them.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 22, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Look, bug the designers not me. They said on the Paizo forums you can't charge and Vital Strike.



No need to be so defensive.  A designer statement to that effect is good enough for me.  Do you have a link?  I can't find it, because Paizo's forums suck so hard.  (Seriously, I love you guys, but please get better forum software.)


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 22, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> There is no such thing defined as an "attack action."




Ah, but there is.



			
				The Rules said:
			
		

> Standard Actions
> Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
> 
> Attack
> Making an attack is a standard action.




See also: TABLE: ACTIONS IN COMBAT


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Ah, but there is.



No, there isn't.

By the evidence you've presented, an AoO is a standard action.

Again, as a standard action, you can perform the action of making an attack (i.e., an attack action).  However, it doesn't follow (and is demonstrably not true) that performing the action of making an attack is a standard action.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 22, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> No, there isn't.
> 
> By the evidence you've presented, an AoO is a standard action.




You want to argue with the rules, go ahead. Them's the rules.



> Again, as a standard action, you can perform the action of making an attack (i.e., an attack action).  However, it doesn't follow (and is demonstrably not true) that performing the action of making an attack is a standard action.




Correct. But the "action of making an attack" is a general English phrase, whereas the attack action is a game term. Jumping over a horse is an impressive feat, but it's not a _feat_.

Now, following from you have just said, we realize that a "single attack" is also not a standard action. Vital Strike is not triggered by a "single attack" but by an _attack action_. 

And a good thing, too, otherwise Vital Strike + full attack would be killer.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Correct. But the "action of making an attack" is a general English phrase, whereas the attack action is a game term.



Show me where it is defined.  You cannot.  By contrast, I can show you _exactly_ where "move action," "standard action," "immediate action" and so on are defined.

"Attack action" is not defined.



> Vital Strike is not triggered by a "single attack" but by an _attack action_.



Vital Strike is not triggered by anything other than making an attack (and player choice).  Vital Strike is _limited_ by forcing the attacker to make only a single attack.



> And a good thing, too, otherwise Vital Strike + full attack would be killer.



Uh, no, because Vital Strike forces the user to give up all but a single attack.  Did you read the feat?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 22, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Show me where it is defined.  You cannot.  By contrast, I can show you _exactly_ where "move action," "standard action," "immediate action" and so on are defined.
> 
> "Attack action" is not defined.




I just quoted you where it's defined. It's under Standard Actions. It's called Attack. The actions table has Attack (melee) and Attack (ranged) listed under Standard Actions on the table. Look it up and tell me it's not there.



> Vital Strike is not triggered by anything other than making an attack (and player choice).  Vital Strike is _limited_ by forcing the attacker to make only a single attack.
> 
> Uh, no, because Vital Strike forces the user to give up all but a single attack.  Did you read the feat?




Vital Strike is limited because it requires the _attack action_. The attack action only allows one attack. Nowhere in the feat does it say you are limited in any way. The feat states what Vital Strike does, not what you cannot.

Let's assume for a second that an "attack action" means "an attack," as you claim.

* It's my turn. 
* I make an attack as a standard action.
* I glance at Vital Strike. I read the following:


> When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.



I notice text above that says Vital Strike is a single attack, but that's okay, because I already know that. 
* I add my Vital Strike damage to my attack and roll.
* Now, since I believe an attack is an "attack action," I notice that when I use the attak action, I can make one attack at my highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. I look carefully to see if there is some text that specifies how often I may Vital Strike in a round. I discover there is none. Yay!
* So I perform another Vital Strike action. Now, since I believe an attack is an "attack action," I notice that when I use the attak action, I can make one attack at my highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage....

And so on. Infinite attacks.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I just quoted you where it's defined. It's under Standard Actions. It's called Attack. The actions table has Attack (melee) and Attack (ranged) listed under Standard Actions on the table. Look it up and tell me it's not there.



Of course it's there.  It simply doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

Again, _not all attacks are standard actions_ simply because the standard action table includes the word "attack."  You appear to be presenting the argument that all attacks are standard actions, and as I've tried to point out (by using the example of an AoO), that simply is not true.

To approach it from another angle, you are saying that because "attack" appears under "standard action" then "attack action" is a defined rules term.  If that's the case, then I guess you also believe that there's an "activate a magic item other than a potion or oil action" defined in the rules, too.

There's not.  "Standard action" is defined in the rules.  The things you can do with a standard action aren't "X action" by definition ... they're simply actions you can do as a standard action.

Can you attack as a standard action?  Yes.  Is it a standard action when you attack?  Not necessarily.  Is it an "attack action" when you attack?  Yes.  It's not defined in the rules, so we use the English language, instead.  You're acting, therefore it's an action you're taking, and the action you're taking is an attack, so it's perfectly okay (if confusing to some people) to call it an attack action.  Even if it's an AoO.

BTW, I'm not (at this point) arguing that the Pathfinder designer(s) don't intend to limit Vital Strike to being used only as a standard action.  They very well might, and that's okay with me.  I'm simply arguing that "attack action" isn't a defined rules term, and (regardless of intent) it's sloppy to use it as if it is.  Why not simply say, for instance, "When making an attack as a standard action"?  Simple, clear, unambiguous.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 22, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> No need to be so defensive. A designer statement to that effect is good enough for me. Do you have a link? I can't find it, because Paizo's forums suck so hard. (Seriously, I love you guys, but please get better forum software.)




It was Jason Burman. 
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard.../pathfinderRPG/rules/chargingWithAVitalStrike

He says:


> As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.




Also pg 182 of Pathfinder defines says: 
Standard Actions 
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from 
movement, fall into the realm of standard actions. 
Attack 
Making an attack is a standard action.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 22, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> It was Jason Burman.
> http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard.../pathfinderRPG/rules/chargingWithAVitalStrike
> 
> He says:



As I said, that's good enough for me.  I wish it had been worded better (as I'm sure he does, too, since it otherwise wouldn't have slipped past him for weeks), and it's kind of a shame.  Charging at 6th level and higher is usually such a suboptimal choice, it would have been nice to add some extra damage through Vital Strike.

"When making a single attack on your turn ... " would be perfectly clear, I think.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 22, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> You appear to be presenting the argument that all attacks are standard actions, and as I've tried to point out (by using the example of an AoO), that simply is not true.




No, I am not.



> To approach it from another angle, you are saying that because "attack" appears under "standard action" then "attack action" is a defined rules term.  If that's the case, then I guess you also believe that there's an "activate a magic item other than a potion or oil action" defined in the rules, too.




Sure, why not?



> There's not.  "Standard action" is defined in the rules.  The things you can do with a standard action aren't "X action" by definition ... they're simply actions you can do as a standard action.




It's an action. It's called Attack. I really struggle with coming up what else you would call that action.



> Can you attack as a standard action?  Yes.




Agreed.



> Is it a standard action when you attack?  Not necessarily.




Agreed.



> Is it an "attack action" when you attack?  Yes.




BZZT. Sorry, no.



> You're acting, therefore it's an action you're taking, and the action you're taking is an attack, so it's perfectly okay (if confusing to some people) to call it an attack action.  Even if it's an AoO.




Nope. Actions are defined in the rules. An AoO is actually not an action. It's a free attack. 

Jeff, you are not going to win this one. It was the same in 3.5, it's the same in Pathfinder. Burman clarified Vital Strike, which is the same as the clarification given for Manyshot in 3.5. You are just wrong. You are simply not using the term "action" correctly.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 22, 2009)

Interesting debate here. Thanks. Let me get this all straight though...

1.) Its an "attack" action, therefore a* standard action.* 

2.) Therefore, I* can *move my speed and then use it.

3.) I *CANNOT* use it in conjunction with extra attacks (haste, cleave, whirlwind attack, or dual-wielding)?

4.) I *CANNOT* charge and use it

6.) I *CAN* use it with a missile or thrown weapon

but...

5.) Can I spring attack and use it?

(I guess it depends on if Spring attack is a unique action, or modifies an attack action to allow movement during it.)


----------



## Liquidsabre (Sep 22, 2009)

Spring attack works fine with Vital Strike. It allows you to interrupt your move with a Standard action. This feat chain makes for a great skirmish character, no need for a fancy class or PrC at all.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 22, 2009)

Liquidsabre said:


> Spring attack works fine with Vital Strike. It allows you to interrupt your move with a Standard action. This feat chain makes for a great skirmish character, no need for a fancy class or PrC at all.




Check again. Spring attack also allows a single melee attack, not a Standard Action.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Check again. Spring attack also allows a single melee attack, not a Standard Action.




but is this "single melee attack" an "attack action"? I want to say yes personally, but I'd have allowed it to work with charges too.

My spring-attacking/vital strike rogue idea is dependent on it!

(Which makes me think; is Paizo going to have a "sage advice" like column in their publications/website?


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 22, 2009)

Other than feedback in various errata-themed threads on their message boards (and updating their "official" errata) I don't think so.

BUT they seem to be very active in such threads, so it's not that bad. Better than waiting for the monthly Dragon to come out and hope your question is in there!


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 22, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> but is this "single melee attack" an "attack action"?




No, it is not. Look in the Combat section under Standard Actions, and you will see Attack listed. That's an attack action.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 22, 2009)

I would agree with Pawsplay having seen the link from Paizo staff about this one, RAW and RAI would appear to state that the "single melee attack" is not the same thing as a Single Attack Standard Action, it is something special specified in the feat (Spring Attack) or Special Attack (Charge).

I would also house rule as DM that you could use Vital Strike with either of those things because I don't really see it having that huge of an impact on a game, especially at higher levels. That is, if you are careful about what 3.5 sources you allow into your game (Book of Nine Swords I'm looking at you)...


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> No, it is not. Look in the Combat section under Standard Actions, and you will see Attack listed. That's an attack action.




Ok then, if that is true, what action is a spring attack itself? Is Spring attack (move, attack, move) a standard, attack, or move action? (I know its not full-round, swift, or free). 

I'm beginning to think VS is a poorly worded feat; it seems to jumble too much with the system as is (can I make a VS attack but choose to sunder, thus getting the extra dice to my sunder damage?) Its slowly appearing Paizo wanted the feat to be a method of getting some of your extra damage from iterative attacks but still have a move action, but rather than make it a standard action for one attack, they went with combining it with the act of making an attack (the aforementioned "attack action" in the combat section) and muddy things up with "what else counts as an attack action" Bull.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2009)

This issue has come up before with respect to manyshot and shot on the run. Manyshot may have taken a standard action, but an action in which you make a single attack is a standard action (barring specific alternatives like charge and weapon-like spells). So it was pretty much by designer clarification that manyshot couldn't be used with shot on the run.

They clarified shot on the run by defining the use of the feat as a full-round action. Therefore, one single attack is all you get and no standard actions can be taken in its place.

It's unfortunate that instances of the wording problem remain with spring attack and surrounding the vital strikes.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> I would agree with Pawsplay having seen the link from Paizo staff about this one, RAW and RAI would appear to state that the "single melee attack" is not the same thing as a Single Attack Standard Action, it is something special specified in the feat (Spring Attack) or Special Attack (Charge).
> 
> I would also house rule as DM that you could use Vital Strike with either of those things because I don't really see it having that huge of an impact on a game, especially at higher levels. That is, if you are careful about what 3.5 sources you allow into your game (Book of Nine Swords I'm looking at you)...




With respect to charge, imagine someone with the vital strike feats, mounted combat, spirited charge, wielding a lance and rolling a crit. The extra dice might be minor compared to the multiple damage from the lance charge critical, but something to think about.

That said, I don't think vital strike should be an issue with either spring attack or shot on the run (though with shot on the run being part of a full-round action, one wonders whether vital strike is supposed to be usable with it or not).


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 23, 2009)

billd91 said:


> This issue has come up before with respect to manyshot and shot on the run. Manyshot may have taken a standard action, but an action in which you make a single attack is a standard action (barring specific alternatives like charge and weapon-like spells). So it was pretty much by designer clarification that manyshot couldn't be used with shot on the run.
> 
> They clarified shot on the run by defining the use of the feat as a full-round action. Therefore, one single attack is all you get and no standard actions can be taken in its place.
> 
> It's unfortunate that instances of the wording problem remain with spring attack and surrounding the vital strikes.




Sigh. I figured as much. So no vital strike+spring attack cheese. 

Saves me a couple of feats though for stunning critical though!


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 23, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ok then, if that is true, what action is a spring attack itself? Is Spring attack (move, attack, move) a standard, attack, or move action? (I know its not full-round, swift, or free).




Full round. It appears that this important phrase was omitted from the feat description. The similarly worded Shot on the Run is a full-round action. 



> I'm beginning to think VS is a poorly worded feat; it seems to jumble too much with the system as is (can I make a VS attack but choose to sunder, thus getting the extra dice to my sunder damage?) Its slowly appearing Paizo wanted the feat to be a method of getting some of your extra damage from iterative attacks but still have a move action, but rather than make it a standard action for one attack, they went with combining it with the act of making an attack (the aforementioned "attack action" in the combat section) and muddy things up with "what else counts as an attack action" Bull.




It could have been clearer, yes.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Sep 23, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Sigh. I figured as much. So no vital strike+spring attack cheese.
> 
> Saves me a couple of feats though for stunning critical though!




At least until the use is made clear via an FAQ or clarification. I'm pretty sure it will come out as a useable combination in the near-future. The wording is so poor that its easy to go either way right now. For the most part, everyone that plays picks their own usage for this atm because of this.


----------



## Nearly Infinite (Sep 5, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Sigh. I figured as much. So no vital strike+spring attack cheese.
> 
> Saves me a couple of feats though for stunning critical though!




I found this on another message board:



> "Attack action," refers to the subset of the standard action wherein you  make a single attack.  The intent behind the feat is that it allows you  to move and still do a nice amount of damage (though still not as much  as you would get from a full attack).  James Jacobs (the creative  director) indicated some time ago that the feat was meant to be a  standard action like Cleave, but after a lot of discussion, did decide  that you could make a Vital Strike as a Spring Attack with it (partly  because he had written an NPC that used this tactic in one of their  adventure paths).




I cannot verify if this is what James Jacobs really intended, but if true, then there you go.

[MENTION=15538]pawsplay[/MENTION]> We write a lot of game supplementary material, and in our text we've been assuming "attack action" to include multiple attacks from iterative BAB or natural weaponry.  If this is not the formal language recognized by the general gaming community, and if "attack action" refers specifically to attacks made as a standard action, then what shorthand should we be using to refer to these individual attacks?  Would simply saying "attack" or "in place of an attack" suffice, or do you think that would invite too much confusion on account of its ambiguity?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 5, 2010)

"A single attack" seems to be the preferred unambiguous language in Pathfinder and later 3.5 products. If referring to parts of a full attack or other multiple attack situation, you would say "an attack" or "an attack roll."



> "Attack action," refers to the subset of the standard action wherein you make a single attack.




Note that this means "Attack action" is a type of action, not that it is a component of the standard action.

There is zero ambiguity about the answer I gave above, although it could be made clearer for the benefit of someone not intimidately familiar with the system. If Justin Jacobs intended Spring Attack + Vital Strike, then whoever rewrote Spring Attack broke it. Pathfinder Vital Strike would have worked just fine with 3.5 Spring Attack:



> Spring Attack [General]
> Prerequisites
> Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kaisoku (Sep 6, 2010)

The way I run it (as DM), is that if you are giving up your iterative attacks for the round, you get to have the added vital strike damage.

Charging modifies the movement (double move, but minimum 10ft and straight line) and gives a penalty to AC for a bonus to Attack, but _to me_ it's functionally a modification of the movement you are doing.
Against the Move + Standard Action attack with Vital Strike, it's unhampered movement (can go around a corner) and no modifications to AC/Attack.
There's something lost and gained, so Vital Strike on Charge = Good.

Spring Attack modifies the movement in a normal Move + Standard Action to Attack. Comparing to Move then Standard with Vital Strike, there's even less reason to restrict it.
Two feats, each applying towards different parts of the Move + Standard, so Vital Strike + Spring Attack = Good.

Cleave and Whirlwind and Haste, etc, all hit multiple targets, which is not the intention of the Vital Strike.

So yeah, in my games it's "When you make a single melee attack on your turn". I know this is a house rule, and I don't care. It plays to my sensibilities better.


----------



## Vurt (Sep 7, 2010)

Not terribly surprising, there's a nice long section concerning Vital Strike in the Pathfinder FAQ, which includes designer commentary from James Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn helpfully culled and cited from the Paizo messageboards.


----------



## Void Singer (Sep 13, 2010)

*Attack Action = Standard Action*

The rules are actually pretty clear,  er...  maybe not... 
Let me quote the rules a little-

*1.)Spring attack*- "Benefit:You can move up to your speed and make a
single melee attack...etc. You can move both before and after the attack...etc."
                     "Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack."

I take this to mean that Spring attack is modifying *when* you can attack, not the attack itself.  So using it to attack is a full round action. That is, a move action + standard action (the attack) = full round action.

And

*2.)Vital Strike*- "Benefit: When you use the _attack action_, you can make
one attack at your highest base attack...."

So this one is the problem child. Since  "Attack Action" seems a little vague in the rules one should interpret this to mean-

a.) "Attack action" is synonymous with "Standard Action" and as part of the before mentioned Spring Attack, one is allowed a single attack (a standard action). No prob,

because...

b.) Any other interpretation would lead one to assume multiple "Attack Actions" are possible in a round and therefor Vital Strike could be used on the first attack in a Full Attack round (with multiple follow up attacks not using Vital Strike). I kinda like it but _that_ seems a little outrageous...

So, can one use Vital Strike in combination with other feats like Cleave? 

No, because using cleave is a Standard Action and you only get one per round.

My conclusion is that allowing Spring Attack and Vital Strike to work together is perfectly acceptable and no stretch of the rules in any way.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 13, 2010)

> Since "Attack Action" seems a little vague in the rules one should interpret this to mean-




It is not vague.



> Standard Actions
> Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
> 
> Attack
> Making an attack is a standard action.




The changes made to Spring Attack for Pathfinder made it ineligible to use with virtually any other ability.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 16, 2010)

Vurt said:


> Not terribly surprising, there's a nice long section concerning Vital Strike in the Pathfinder FAQ, which includes designer commentary from James Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn helpfully culled and cited from the Paizo messageboards.



Yep...



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> 3/7/10)  As for Spring Attack, this feat lets you make a single melee attack at any point during a movement; that attack has to be a pure-vanilla attack, basically.* You can't fancy it up with things like Cleave or Vital Strike*, as those are their own standard actions, basically.


----------



## ruemere (Sep 16, 2010)

Still, Spring Attack + Power Attack + Furious Focus[1] with, optionally, Hide in Plain Sight, makes for a nice damage.

[1] Furious Focus (APG) - feat granting ability to ignore penalty from Power Attack on a first attack each round.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 17, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Yep...




Do you suffer from selective reading disorder?



			
				The FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: But in PF#30 Sharx Veskandi(page 42) lists using Vital Strike and Spring Attack as her favorite tactics?
> A: (James Jacobs 3/7/10) Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a micro examination of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool. Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, *LET THAT BE THE LAW*! Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all.




He may not be saying it's RAW right there, but the fact that he thinks it's cool to let them combine and totally thinks you should do so DOES kind of throw a bucket of water on the previous entry stating, "A generous GM might allow you to mix and match these feats and even use them all at the same time... but that's not the intent of the rules."

Considering he's one of the writers OF the rules...



Anyway, I would be totally fine with letting someone Vital Strike on a Spring Attack.  VS is an attack action, SA lets you take an attack action with the move, pretty clear cut.  And dear god is a strict reading of what SA allows dismally weak.  I remember 3E, trying for a fly speed, not because it's a generally handy thing to have, but prmarily for the ability to get Flyby Attack and the freedom to actually do _something_ with my attack...


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 17, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Anyway, I would be totally fine with letting someone Vital Strike on a Spring Attack.  VS is an attack action, SA lets you take an attack action with the move, pretty clear cut.




3.5 Spring Attack allows you to take an attack action. Pathfinder Spring Attack does not; it specifies a single melee attack. Vital Strike would clearly work with 3.5 Spring Attack, but just as clearly, does not work with Pathfinder Spring Attack.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Do you suffer from selective reading disorder?





Pause for a moment.

Remember that Rule #1 of EN World is "Keep it civil".  Remember that you are expected to treat folks with respect at all times, even if you don't like what they say or do.

Now continue your conversation as if that were in the forefront of your mind.

Thanks.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 19, 2010)

Wait, James is saying both things means he thinks they should be able to combine, but he adknowledges that by RAW they don't.

If he really thinks they should why not ask the other designers if they could errata it? I mean, they are his co-workers. They might have reason whjy they haven't errated it.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 1, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Considering he's one of the writers OF the rules...



He should own up to his mistake of letting Sharx Veskandi use the ability in that manner, rather than changing his ruling of the ability. But that is a moot point since they 'fixed' snip snip Spring attack so it does not work with VS.

_*Q: Can one combine the Spring Attack feat with Vital Strike?*
A: (Errata 8/20/10) The spring attack feat has been changed in the 8/20/2010 Errata to be a Full-Round action. This prevents one from using Spring Attack and vital strike together. This also includes any of the Standard action feats like Cleave also._


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 2, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> He should own up to his mistake of letting Sharx Veskandi use the ability in that manner, rather than changing his ruling of the ability. But that is a moot point since they 'fixed' snip snip Spring attack so it does not work with VS.
> 
> _*Q: Can one combine the Spring Attack feat with Vital Strike?*
> A: (Errata 8/20/10) The spring attack feat has been changed in the 8/20/2010 Errata to be a Full-Round action. This prevents one from using Spring Attack and vital strike together. This also includes any of the Standard action feats like Cleave also._




Never did get to use my SA+VS cheese, but its good to know they settled on a final reading of it.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 2, 2011)

Remathilis said:


> Never did get to use my SA+VS cheese, but its good to know they settled on a final reading of it.



Care to describe it? I _am_ curious what kind of combos they felt it was _needed_ to counteract.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 2, 2011)

Having an alternative to full attacking that doesn't completely suck?


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 2, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> Care to describe it? I _am_ curious what kind of combos they felt it was _needed_ to counteract.




My goal was to reconstruct my 20th level rogue in PF so that he could.

1.) Stand 15 feet away from his fighter buddy engaging a foe. 
2.) Dart into a flank, attack once dealing 1d6 (rapier) +2d6 (imp VS) +10d6 (sneak attack) +10 bleed (bleeding atk) damage (+ strength and magic modifiers). 
3.) Dart out 15 feet to avoid reach and AoO. 
4.) Lather, rinse, repeat. 

Granted, its only 2d6 lost. Still, I was looking forward to 13d6 damage per round.  It was a fair trade for those secondary attacks I had that never hit by virtue of my miserable 3/4ths attack bonus.


----------

