Vital Strike Questions

[pawsplay]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.