Vital Strike Questions

[Nearly Infinite]

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]

"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.

Benefit
When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack.

Special
A fighter may select Spring Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

 

[Kaisoku]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

Yep...

Do you suffer from selective reading disorder?

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]

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.