Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 5747992" data-attributes="member: 35909">A Wizard 16 does not "run out."  Just doesn't.  And Fireball is an area spell (and a weak one, overall), VS is single target.I'm more concerned with the numbers for full attack vs. Vital Strike.  VS shouldn't be as good as a full attack, but it shouldn't be far behind, either.  By the time you've hit near epic levels and sank 3 feats into the chain...I don't mind if it even slightly surpasses a full attack -- you've invested quite a bit into it -- but I still doubt it does.  I know a lot of PF players didn't like/use Tome of Battle, but for comparison... in that book, there was a level 9 (ie, available at level 17+) maneuver that as a standard action, you dealt normal melee damage + 100.  And this COULD be multiplied on a crit.This was considered a mediocre/average level 9 maneuver compared to the others (which did things like instant death, gobs of ability damage, free Heal spell on an ally when you hit for damage, etc...).  Granted, you could not use it every round, but you could easily use it every other round, attacking normally between each use.  And...PF added "favored class" hp bonuses and raised the HD of anything that was d4 or d6 in 3E, so if anything PF creatures have MORE hit points than in 3.5.  So why was this strike ok, but my 3 feat chain that I guess would cap at +60 at level 20 and not multiply on a crit, not ok?For your ideas...the feats are already an investment.  You could add skill ranks, but I'm not a fan of the int-base you're going for, and in general you're operating under the assumption that Vital Strike does "what it says on the tin."  It doesn't.  It's one of the most poorly named feats ever.  It has nothing to do with striking vitals at all.  It works on ANY enemy, and can be used from 2000 feet away with a bow if you wanted to.  If you want to make it more fitting to the name, go for it.  But the purpose of VS wasn't to be a feat-based sneak attack.  It was to be an acceptable alternative to boringly slugging it out with full attacks every round.I don't see how this would let the Fighter or (especially!  He thrives on full attacks to add SA to and with medium BAB never can even get Greater VS!) Rogue crush enemies, and the damage doesn't start getting really high until high levels, when there are tons of spells that can end an encounter in one round available, at many different spell levels.Qik: Yes, that is the reason Spring Attack and VS can't work together.  Furthermore, I recall it actually being addressed by a designer in the FAQ.  It was funny, because on the one hand you had one guy (James Jacobs, I think) saying he allows Spring Attack + VS in his games, but then you had the "official" response from another designer saying they don't stack.  And by RAW, the latter is true.  Hence, that modification to the feat I made.</blockquote>

Verification