Pathfinder Question.

[Ixahinon]

So I'm stuck with the wonderful task of selecting a feat for my Monk again. I know I had a feat selected a month ago, for when I leveled to 9th, but I can't remember it now. So looking through it all again, I fell upon Vital Strike. The problem is, I can't tell if Vital Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vital-strike-combat---final) can be used in a Flurry of Blows, or not. It simply states 'if you use an attack action.' Does this mean Standard action? Does it mean any action that has an attack in it? (Full Attack/Flurry of Blows?)

[Tvtyrant]

I believe an attack action is any action that contains an attack, but I could be wrong.

[Mojo_Rat]

vital strike does not work with flurry of blows. if you look under the kist of standard actions there is one listed as attack. there have been numerous posts on the topic onnthe paizo forums.

[Ixahinon]

vital strike does not work with flurry of blows. if you look under the kist of standard actions there is one listed as attack. there have been numerous posts on the topic onnthe paizo forums.

Nuts. Back to the drawing board...Extra Ki is looking tempting again.

[Salanmander]

Is it just me, or is that a stupendously bad feat? Sacrifice an (admittedly less likely to hit) attack for an extra 3-5 damage? Sure, it makes you marginally more effective if you need to move and then attack, but that hardly seems worth a feat.

[Greenish]

Is it just me, or is that a stupendously bad feat? Sacrifice an (admittedly less likely to hit) attack for an extra 3-5 damage? Sure, it makes you marginally more effective if you need to move and then attack, but that hardly seems worth a feat.Ah, but you can take more feats to (marginally) improve it. PF gave everyone more feats, then took the axe to the feats that were actually good.

[Mojo_Rat]

it's for movie g and hitting. I personally didn't find it bad on my monk. lvl 10 monk with monk robe is vital striking for 4d6. ultimate combat just aced a feat that gives a bonus based on the extra dice but I cannot remember the name.

[MeeposFire]

Vital strike is too expensive for what it does. It should cost at best one feat for the entire line.

[Blisstake]

Is it just me, or is that a stupendously bad feat? Sacrifice an (admittedly less likely to hit) attack for an extra 3-5 damage? Sure, it makes you marginally more effective if you need to move and then attack, but that hardly seems worth a feat.

You aren't intended to sacrifice a full attack with vital strike. It lets you do more damage in the many circumstances you don't get to full attack. Still not a great feat... although there are some fun things you can do with it.

It's also possible the feat was designed to work for monsters better than PCs. I think that's why a lot of the monsters in the Pathfinder Bestiaries usually take it.

[beyond reality]

It's a worthwhile feat for highly mobile characters who are not planning on making full attacks most of the time. Or people who just love to Charge.

It's also not bad for rogues or bards who plan on fighting (in melee or at range) but can generally only count on a single attack hitting, so it's better to do a single stronger attack rather than a full attack.

Still not an amazing feat by any means but not worthless.

EDIT: I could also see it being useful for a druid, combine vital strike with a big powerful form (which wouldn't get tons of attacks any) with a big natural attack. Vital striking in T-rex form would be pretty sweet.

[Prime32]

Vital strike is too expensive for what it does. It should cost at best one feat for the entire line.Agreed. You get it when you can make two attacks, and deal damage a little below two attacks. However, once you reach three attacks it falls below and you have to keep spending feats just to keep it at the strength it was when you started.

Feats shouldn't scale backwards.