PF Vital Strike- What's the point??

[Spuddles]

Why are there so many limitations on vital strike? You can't spring attack with it, charge with it, it doesn't multiply your strength damage. It seems like its only use is if you need to move a handful of squares and not be stuck with only one attack.

You'd think something called "vital strike" would help out rogues, but it seems geared towards things with big weapons. I am pretty underwhelmed with it. I suppose having colossal sized weapons and using Greater Vital Strike would be pretty cool.

[Person_Man]

Pathfinder is essentially a very elaborate homebrew world, where they basically tried to "fix" everything that was broken with 3.5 without changing the basic structure of the game. High damage output was seen as a game breaker. Thus, most things that grants bonus damage was nerfed or written to be weak and situational. But they did a very uneven job at it. So you just have to ignore the crud like Vital Strike, and use other, better Feats.

[Fouredged Sword]

It can help if you get a colossal weapon and have to move and strike, but cannot charge.

Outside that, it is almost useless.

[OverdrivePrime]

I wouldn't call it useless. I just wouldn't invest in the full Vital Strike chain. Vital Strike by itself gives your character another option in melee. If you can't land a full attack, Vital strike can provide the small extra damage boost to drop an enemy.

There are definitely better feats out there, but there are plenty worse as well.

[Burlap]

If I recall, the vital strike feat was to increase the fighters damage output when he couldn't take a full-round action - like at the start of combat (though you're more likely to charge) or after you've defeated one enemy and need to move to the other side of the combat.

edit: ninja'd :smallredface:

[DeltaEmil]

Vital Strike was an attempt to copy D&D 4th edition's standard action attack powers which do multiples of the damage dice (shown as x[W]), but far too cautious to be of any use.

[navar100]

It's a niche feat. If your weapon deals 2d6 damage or better by whatever means and you're only getting one attack anyway, Vital Strike helps. A barbarian may want it, but the player should consider carefully. A fighter could try it out then get rid of it if it becomes underwhelming.

It's not a feat for archers, two-weapon users, weapon & shield users, or monk-types.

[Doorhandle]

It's a niche feat. If your weapon deals 2d6 damage or better by whatever means and you're only getting one attack anyway, Vital Strike helps. A barbarian may want it, but the player should consider carefully. A fighter could try it out then get rid of it if it becomes underwhelming.

It's not a feat for archers, two-weapon users, weapon & shield users, or monk-types.

Kind of ironic that last one because monks could eventually get around 2d8/2d10 to play with, and not all of them end up with flurry. (regrettably, the Tetori would be better severed by grappling, and style masters with more style feats.)

It's best for DRUIDS of all things: wild shape into a giant hippo, snake or shark, and cackle as your damage output is doubles or TRIPLED via that feat.
(quadrupled if you can sneak some Full-B.A.B in there.)

I would agree that Pazio dropped the ball on overall balance, but the fact it has less old game breaking tricks is almost enough to redeem them for me. (and the Bestiaries are completely awesome.)

[Ashtagon]

I would agree that Pazio dropped the ball on overall balance, but the fact it has less old game breaking tricks is almost enough to redeem them for me. (and the Bestiaries are completely awesome.)

I was under the impression that they didn't so much drop the ball as hack into shreds with a chainsaw.

[Spuddles]

I was under the impression that they didn't so much drop the ball as hack into shreds with a chainsaw.

A little hyperbolic.

Their design decisions are extremely frustrating, though, and their whole attitude towards community input kind of stinks.

[Drachasor]

A little hyperbolic.

Their design decisions are extremely frustrating, though, and their whole attitude towards community input kind of stinks.

Agreed. My group has decided to play PF and I keep finding abhorrent design decisions. Hmm, let me categorize the frustrations...

1. Weak/Useless Crap. After the Core, there's a lot of stuff not worth the paper it's printed on.

2. Paperwork everywhere! Weak ability with limited uses just so you have to keep track of them. Lots of rounds/day abilities. And generally a lot more limited use abilities for everyone than existed before, so lots more paperwork.

3. RAW isn't RAW, at least according to their FAQs. They act like what the books explicitly say isn't what is said sometimes. This attitude tends to result in a lot of stuff that's just poorly worded.

4. Class imbalance is good! (At least they think so and have said so). In general they don't really seem to care about balance. What limited amounts they do care is reserved towards making sure new stuff leans towards being crap (see 1).

5. Axes to grind. Some dislike of the monk and other things seems to work into how some of the mechanics work out.

6. Arbitrariness. Wall of Iron is a good example. I get why you'd not want to allow people to make stuff out of it. Why have it repeatedly called iron and then add a line at the end saying it is useless to make anything with? It's as artificial as it is avoidable.

7. They fixed little that was wrong with 3.5. The overall situation is much the same.

8. People talk about backwards compatibility, but it's not really there. Monsters, for instance, take a good bit of work to convert.

9. Holier Than Thou -- pretty much their attitude towards the community. SKR seems to act really immature when people disagree with him on the forums.


Hmm, I feel like the list could be more consolidated. Overall PF just feels like an elaborate homebrew system....bit amateurish.

[grarrrg]

1. Weak/Useless Crap. After the Core, there's a lot of stuff not worth the paper it's printed on.orly worded.

I agree with you on most points, except this one.

Any time anyone expands a game (RPG, CCG, etc...), there are 3 things that 'can' happen:
The expansion maintains the power balance (not stronger/weaker)
The expansion is 'weaker'
The expansion is 'stronger'

Making something equal in power to the previous stuff is quite hard to do, so you're much more likely to wind up with one of the other two.
Given the "power explosion" that was 3.5 after a point, the PF designers may very well have made a conscious decision to play on the safe side of things, which I can't really blame them for.

The other thing is that the more abilities/spells/classes/etc... that you add, the more and more likely it is that someone will find a broken combo and "wreck the game". Another reason (not necessarily a good one, but a reason) for "dropping" the power of things, as it becomes less likely something will "explode".

[Psyren]

I was under the impression that they didn't so much drop the ball as hack into shreds with a chainsaw.

They could fix balance, or make it compatible with 3.5 - not both. They rightfully left balance up to individual tables and moved on. Working as intended.


Agreed. My group has decided to play PF and I keep finding abhorrent design decisions. Hmm, let me categorize the frustrations...

1. Weak/Useless Crap. After the Core, there's a lot of stuff not worth the paper it's printed on.

2. Paperwork everywhere! Weak ability with limited uses just so you have to keep track of them. Lots of rounds/day abilities. And generally a lot more limited use abilities for everyone than existed before, so lots more paperwork.

3. RAW isn't RAW, at least according to their FAQs. They act like what the books explicitly say isn't what is said sometimes. This attitude tends to result in a lot of stuff that's just poorly worded.

4. Class imbalance is good! (At least they think so and have said so). In general they don't really seem to care about balance. What limited amounts they do care is reserved towards making sure new stuff leans towards being crap (see 1).

5. Axes to grind. Some dislike of the monk and other things seems to work into how some of the mechanics work out.

6. Arbitrariness. Wall of Iron is a good example. I get why you'd not want to allow people to make stuff out of it. Why have it repeatedly called iron and then add a line at the end saying it is useless to make anything with? It's as artificial as it is avoidable.

7. They fixed little that was wrong with 3.5. The overall situation is much the same.

8. People talk about backwards compatibility, but it's not really there. Monsters, for instance, take a good bit of work to convert.

9. Holier Than Thou -- pretty much their attitude towards the community. SKR seems to act really immature when people disagree with him on the forums.


Hmm, I feel like the list could be more consolidated. Overall PF just feels like an elaborate homebrew system....bit amateurish.

A lot of these are just nitpicking/bellyaching for it's own sake.

1) Disagree, most of the best archetypes are outside core.
2) It's no harder than tracking x/day uses. It also closes common 3.5 exploits like perma-raged Barbarians and Bards that sing all day between combats.
3) Being able to override Ye Moste Holy RAW is one of the absolute best things about their ruling system, especially since they add the corrections to subsequent printings like a good publisher should.
4) It's less "class imbalance is good" and more "class imbalance is not the abomination you think it is."
5) If they really hated the monk there would be no Qinggong, Zen Archer, Tetori etc.
6) "Because it's magic" is often necessary. "If you somehow get it out of the wall, the iron can't be used for anything" can be reasonably justified in a hundred different ways, and it's necessary to keep the economy where it belongs - in the DM's hands.
7) "Fixing 3.5" was never their goal, because it's impossible to do that and have it still be 3.5. Continuing it was.
8) Plenty of tables have no problem converting whatever they want. If you're having trouble with it, check a forum.
9) Even if you're right about him, SKR is one designer among many. And most of the instances I've seen where the designers get peeved is because of a needlessly hostile or childish post.

[Drachasor]

I would continue this in another thread if you want to discuss it further. I probably shouldn't have mildly derailed this thread as it is.

[Spuddles]

No, Drachasor is very right regarding the amount of mechanical dreck out there- feats that only give you a bonus vs. one eyed vampires on saturdays; 1/day you can gain a +1 competence bonus on will saves from left handed dragons.

It's pretty bad. I guess they wanted to go the WotC "publish tons of splatbook" route, but try to avoid power creep. But there's some pretty decent power creep in spellcasters, of course.

[Seatbelt]

What's the point of the Cleave feats?

[Psyren]

No, Drachasor is very right regarding the amount of mechanical dreck out there- feats that only give you a bonus vs. one eyed vampires on saturdays; 1/day you can gain a +1 competence bonus on will saves from left handed dragons.

There's plenty of good stuff too. The Agile weapon property for instance, which adds Dex to damage for +1. All the toys archery got, like Deadly Aim, Crossbow Mastery, and Clustered Shots. Piranha Strike, Step Up, Style Feats. Anticaster feats like Disruptive and Spellbreaker, coupled with the loss of the Concentration skill. They even made sword and board not completely suck. I see no point in accentuating the negative, especially being unfair about it.

[Snowbluff]

Well, vital strike could be good for builds wit large damage dice... like the barbarian archetype for wielding oversized weapons. IIRC, that archetype doesn't work anyway.

PF is not an improvement over 3.5. I'll just it at that.

3rd edtion had Dex to Damage from feature, as well as the Fierce enhancement. Step up is something you would not need if your Spiked Chain still had reach. 3.5 had mage busting feats well, but I think that's an awful use for a feat in the first place.

[Psyren]

It's an improvement in some ways, and not in others. We can agree to disagree and keep our respective opinions.

Fierce sucks - it costs more than Agile and lowers your AC besides. (It also requires DM approval, but anyway.) Getting reach is as easy as a 1st-level spell. Casters are the most dangerous enemies you can encounter, so spending feats to target them is not a waste.

[Aotrs Commander]

Fortunately, PF is easy enough to nick the really clever ideas (e.g. skill system, new death rules) and retrofit them back to 3.5.

[Psyren]

I do the opposite - nick the good feats/classes/spells from 3.5 and upgrade them to PF.

[Scots Dragon]

What's the point of the Cleave feats?

Great Cleave is basically an 'attack everyone in range' feat.

[Grollub]

Kind of ironic that last one because monks could eventually get around 2d8/2d10 to play with, and not all of them end up with flurry. (regrettably, the Tetori would be better severed by grappling, and style masters with more style feats.)

It's best for DRUIDS of all things: wild shape into a giant hippo, snake or shark, and cackle as your damage output is doubles or TRIPLED via that feat.
(quadrupled if you can sneak some Full-B.A.B in there.)

I would agree that Pazio dropped the ball on overall balance, but the fact it has less old game breaking tricks is almost enough to redeem them for me. (and the Bestiaries are completely awesome.)

Somehow a vital striking hippo running around makes me smile. :smallsmile:

[Spuddles]

Step up is something you would not need if your Spiked Chain still had reach.

The spiked chain actually got reprinted as the "bladed scarf" in Rise of the Runelords. I think that's even more stupid than a spiked chain- whatever the hell a spiked chain is.

[Aotrs Commander]

I do the opposite - nick the good feats/classes/spells from 3.5 and upgrade them to PF.

To be fair to PF, by the time it came along, I was already hip-deep in my own modifications (including my "toss out the MM and start from scratch" campaign world) and I felt that their house rules were not not better than mine (aside from the nickable parts!) and having done a full-world rules conversion once (between AD&D and 3.0), there was no way I was doing that again...!

[ericgrau]

Not all your attacks are single attacks. Not all your attacks are full attacks even if you wish they were. It's helpful about half the time and it's a good chunk of damage that stacks with all other damage. Half of that chunk is still useful. With all the feats you get in PF I'd get it after things that give more damage and before things that give less damage. Then I'd estimate how much special things like tripping add and rank accordingly.

[Snowbluff]

The spiked chain actually got reprinted as the "bladed scarf" in Rise of the Runelords. I think that's even more stupid than a spiked chain- whatever the hell a spiked chain is.

Bladed Scarf lacks the reaching properties the spiked chain.

As for the chain itself... it's a chain with spikes on it. Have you ever seen someone get whipped by a chain? That stuff is painful.

If it makes you feel any better, the Drow invented a version with bladed edges, which I think would work a lot better.

[Psyren]

It's nice on a soulknife - move action to recharge psychic strike, standard to attack and unload it, repeat. Emulate something like a Greatsword that has multiple damage die per swing, and you get to reroll all of them.

[Starbuck_II]

Not all your attacks are single attacks. Not all your attacks are full attacks even if you wish they were. It's helpful about half the time and it's a good chunk of damage that stacks with all other damage. Half of that chunk is still useful. With all the feats you get in PF I'd get it after things that give more damage and before things that give less damage. Then I'd estimate how much special things like tripping add and rank accordingly.

It doubles damage dice not everything.
So 1d6 gives 3 more damage on average (2d6 +Str on a short sword instead of 2d6 + 2xstr on a full attack assuming 6 BAB).
2d6 gives 7 more on average (4d6 +Str on a Greatsword instead of 4d6 + 2x1.5 str on a full attack assuming 6 BAB).

It would be better if was not dependent on weapon: gave BAB as damage on standard attack.

[ericgrau]

I'm in a bit of a rush so please excuse any math errors and feel free to redo:

Assume:
rage
Str 24 (16 base + 2 levels + 2 item + 4 rage)
Level 8 against AC 21 (about average), masterwork weapon, (+14 to hit)
Half single attacks and half full attacks. Whether you like it or not, it's roughly typical.
2d6+9 damage = 16 average


Base:
Single attacks: 70% * 16 = 11.2 DPR
Full attacks: (70%+55%) * 16 = 20 DPR
Average: 15.6 DPR

Charge:
Single attacks: 80% * 16 = 12.8 DPR
Full attacks (no charge): (70%+55%) * 16 = 20 DPR
Average: 16.4 DPR
* But your opponent immediately gets a similar amount of extra damage

Vital Strike:
Single attacks: 70% * 23 = 16.1 DPR
Full attacks: (70%+55%) * 16 = 20 DPR
Average: 18.1 DPR (+2.5 DPR, + 1.7 DPR vs. charging)

Power Attack:
Single attacks: 55% * 25 = 13.75 DPR
Full attacks: (55%+30%) * 25 = 21.25 DPR
Average: 17.5 DPR (+1.9 DPR)

Vital Strike is slightly better than Power Attack.

[Snowbluff]

Well, duh! The only reason why we would ever power attack is if we had a way to reduce the penalties. I think a comparison of Improved Vital versus Furious Focus is in order.

Power Attack should be used to much greater effect on mounted charging as well, since pouncing due to lousy feat writing is possible.

[ericgrau]

That's yet another feat though. So on average you'd have to give each feat half the credit for the increased damage. Feel free to try it. I gtg.

[Snowbluff]

That's yet another feat though. So on average you'd have to give each feat half the credit for the increased damage. Feel free to try it. I gtg.

Hence the comparison to Improved Vital Strike. The feat investment is the same.

Your numbers neglected critical damage as well. That's like 55% of 10% of the hits, but I think it crosses the .6 damage.

[Fruchtkracher]

I'd say the main advantage is the increased hit rate. While your damage is less than that of a full attack, that is only the case if all of those attacks hit.
Which for a vital strike is not necessary. I like it for simply constant and increased damage.

[Psyren]

I'd say the main advantage is the increased hit rate. While your damage is less than that of a full attack, that is only the case if all of those attacks hit.
Which for a vital strike is not necessary. I like it for simply constant and increased damage.

Good point on only needing to hit once. And you also get more mileage out of an effect that lets you bypass concealment on one attack (e.g. True Strike.)

[Perseus]

I'm currently working on a Viking Fighter who will demoralize a ton. Either through class features or dazzling display.

Since I won't be two handing a weapon I figured PA is out.

Vital Strike looks to be a... Err decent way to go. I won't be taking full attacks all the time since I'll want to add to the duration of shaken a lot.

Is there any weapon enhancements that compliment this feat?

[Reverent-One]

Hence the comparison to Improved Vital Strike. The feat investment is the same.

Your numbers neglected critical damage as well. That's like 55% of 10% of the hits, but I think it crosses the .6 damage.

Not quite, because we also have to take into account the crit damage when using Vital Strike (not because of the vital strike damage itself, but still, the average is higher when including crits).

Vital Strike:
Single attacks: 70% * 23 + 7% * 16 (Crit) = 17.2 DPR
Full attacks: (70%+55%) * 16 + (7% + 5.5%) * 16 (Crit) = 22 DPR
Average: 19.6 DPR

Power Attack:
Single attacks: 55% * 25 + 5.5% * 25 = 15.12 DPR
Full attacks: (55%+30%) * 25 + (5.5%+3%) * 25 = 23.37 DPR
Average: 19.2 DPR

Of course, you can use Power Attack on a charge, while you can't with vital strike, so that should be taken into account.

Power Attack W/Charge:
Single attacks: 65% * 25 + 6.5% * 25 = 17.87 DPR
Full attacks: (55%+30%) * 25 + (5.5%+3%) * 25 = 23.37 DPR
Average: 20.6 DPR

So it looks like if all your single attacks are charges, PA wins, if none of them are charges, VS wins. In the more likely event that some are charges and some are not, it'll vary depending on the percentage, but be very close (less than 1 DPR) either way.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The feat would have more of a point if you could use it on a charge, but last time I checked, you can not.

*thinks*

I see the point about full attack being unreliable. The problem comes when things like Haste are common (5 attacks intead of 4) because the advantage is lessened, or when you're crit fishing because you can't multiply the damage.

[Drelua]

The feat would have more of a point if you could use it on a charge, but last time I checked, you can not.

Yeah, that seems to be how Paizo ruins a lot of potentially cool things. I can't think of any examples right now other than Vital Strike, but quite a few times I've read the first half of something from Pathfinder and thought it was really cool, then I read the second half and was disappointed to see that they decided it would be too cool if you could actually use it in most of the situations in which it would be useful, like Vital Strike on a charge. I feel like a lot of Pathfinder stuff would be better if you just dropped most or sometimes all of the caveats. Well, that and the piles of pre-reqs they stack onto otherwise cool feats.

[Snowbluff]

By RAW, you can;t wear Construct Armor and be fused wit h an Eidolon at the same time. :smallfrown:

[ericgrau]

A charge isn't usually enough to drop the foe in PF though, so he gets a nice full attack on you with his own "+2". I think it would be a net loss on the big bruisers, and better (but still not without drawback) for kobolds. So the actual value is somewhere between charging and not charging. Even when 100% of your foes are chargeable.

And while you need improved vital strike at higher levels, by then power attack isn't increasing your damage anymore, it's decreasing it. Even with furious focus it becomes a net loss on full attacks by around level 12-14. You pretty much furious focus only on single attacks, similar to vital strike. And then PA+FF is +13.2 damage (including crits) for 2 feats vs. +14 damage for 2 feats. You can charge to pull ahead, but like before the bonus is far from free.

There's also a risk of overkill which on average removes half the damage of your last hit. At 2.5 rounds to drop a foe on average, that's about DPH/5 lost per round (not DPR/5). With 25 PA DPH vs. 23 VS DPH the difference isn't that significant normally. But it's much more significant on crits and whenever you charge something that isn't a big bruiser (who is a bad idea to charge).

But most of all the damage numbers are so close, why not get both (or all 4) feats?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Yeah, that seems to be how Paizo ruins a lot of potentially cool things. I can't think of any examples right now other than Vital Strike, but quite a few times I've read the first half of something from Pathfinder and thought it was really cool, then I read the second half and was disappointed to see that they decided it would be too cool if you could actually use it in most of the situations in which it would be useful, like Vital Strike on a charge. I feel like a lot of Pathfinder stuff would be better if you just dropped most or sometimes all of the caveats. Well, that and the piles of pre-reqs they stack onto otherwise cool feats.The next other thing that comes to mind is rage-lance-pounce getting removed because getting pounce with a lance wasn't realistic.

[Snowbluff]

But most of all the damage numbers are so close, why not get both (or all 4) feats? I need those feats for mounted combat stuff. :smallyuk:


The next other thing that comes to mind is rage-lance-pounce getting removed because getting pounce with a lance wasn't realistic.

Did they ever fix mounted skirmisher?

[Ravens_cry]

The Vital Strike line can give some pretty intense damage with a way of getting a really big single attack My personal favourite involves a T-Rex animal companion, Animal Growth, and Strong Jaw. Apply two of those to yourself, add Vital Strike, and you will be chucking a lot of dice on your turn.

[navar100]

I'm currently working on a Viking Fighter who will demoralize a ton. Either through class features or dazzling display.

Since I won't be two handing a weapon I figured PA is out.

Vital Strike looks to be a... Err decent way to go. I won't be taking full attacks all the time since I'll want to add to the duration of shaken a lot.

Is there any weapon enhancements that compliment this feat?

Power Attack with a one handed weapon is the same damage a two-handed weapon gets with Power Attack in 3E, considering using the same limited minus to hit in 3E as Pathfinder's Power Attack enforces. Pathfinder Power Attack with a one-handed weapon is not useless; it just looks meh compared to what you could have had with a two-handed weapon.

Analogy: You are given $10 for some arbitrary reason. You are happy. You have $10. Yay! A moment later someone else is given $20 for a different reason. Why should you now feel bummed you got $10?

If you know you will only be getting one attack anyway, Vital Strike can help. You can also benefit from both Vital Strike and Power Attack. There's no synergy to using both, but you get both feat's benefits.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Did they ever fix mounted skirmisher?After reading through the Paizo forums on the topic, it probably doesn't help that mounted combat rules have always been a bit wonky.

It looks like you can indeed full attack charge with it.

[Snowbluff]

After reading through the Paizo forums on the topic, it probably doesn't help that mounted combat rules have always been a bit wonky.

It looks like you can indeed full attack charge with it.

I love how wonky these 3.X mounted rules are. They are kind to those who master them. :smallsmile:

[Sylthia]

By RAW, they don't allow Vital Strike with a charge, which seems odd and limits its potential use a bit. I'd recommend letting players Vital Strike on a charge as a DM, but it may open things up to some cheese I'm not aware of at the moment.

[Spuddles]

Bladed Scarf lacks the reaching properties the spiked chain.

As for the chain itself... it's a chain with spikes on it. Have you ever seen someone get whipped by a chain? That stuff is painful.

If it makes you feel any better, the Drow invented a version with bladed edges, which I think would work a lot better.

Huh, it looks like the nerfed it between Rise of the Runelords (2007) and Inner Sea Guide (2011).

Bummer.

And a spiked chain is going to do sod all to someone in heavy armor. Not compared to a warhammer, anyway.

[RagnaroksChosen]

After reading this thread, got me thinking, what about weapon like spells?

Now I don't think things like inflict or what have you would work. But
Could using Shillelagh, Lead blades, Gravity bow be used to make this feat more awesome. I could see an arcane archer type using this.

Also what about things like Metal oracles Steal scarf.

I would love to throw 2d8 shurikens with Fiery Shuriken.

Are there any other weapon like spells out there or any thing that creates weapons that do more damage then there mundane parts.

Also would something like Flame blade allow you to double the +1 per caster level as that isn't really bonus damage is it?

[Scow2]

Bladed Scarf lacks the reaching properties the spiked chain.

What reaching properties?

[Snowbluff]

Huh, it looks like the nerfed it between Rise of the Runelords (2007) and Inner Sea Guide (2011).

Bummer. :smallsigh:

Melee don't get nice things.


And a spiked chain is going to do sod all to someone in heavy armor. Not compared to a warhammer, anyway.
A long sword doesn't do anything to fullplate without working towards a weakpoint, either.

Not to mention a Spiked Chain weighs twice as much as a warhammer, and swing effects...

What reaching properties?

3.5's Spiked Chain.

[Spuddles]

Both a longsword and a hammer can apply a lot of force to a single point. That is impossible to do with a chain. Lacking rigidity, you can't apply any force with the spiky bits of it. A flail works by accelerating the nasty bit at the end of a length of chain. The chain itself is fairly innocuous.

I suppose the spiked chain is more like a chain flail or something. I dunno, I've always been real unclear on how they do more damage to an opponent and not the wielder :smalltongue:


On topic:
Vital Strike chain on a pet seems like a terrific idea. Combine with power attack and furious focus for maximum KERPLOW.

[Arbane]

I agree with you on most points, except this one.

Any time anyone expands a game (RPG, CCG, etc...), there are 3 things that 'can' happen:
The expansion maintains the power balance (not stronger/weaker)
The expansion is 'weaker'
The expansion is 'stronger'

And since the core rules contain both the wizard and the monk, each new class is BOTH overpowered compared to core AND underpowered. :smallmad:



The next other thing that comes to mind is rage-lance-pounce getting removed because getting pounce with a lance wasn't realistic.

(Insert obligatory sarcastic tirade about 'realism' in the game with flying firebreathing dragons here.)

[Snowbluff]

Both a longsword and a hammer can apply a lot of force to a single point. That is impossible to do with a chain. Lacking rigidity, you can't apply any force with the spiky bits of it. A flail works by accelerating the nasty bit at the end of a length of chain. The chain itself is fairly innocuous.

I suppose the spiked chain is more like a chain flail or something. I dunno, I've always been real unclear on how they do more damage to an opponent and not the wielder :smalltongue:


Well, if you look at the picture in the PHB, the ends of the chain look quite heavy. So flail sounds about right.

It's an exotic weapon, and therefore more dangerous to an untrained user than its intended target. :smalltongue:

[Scow2]

The next other thing that comes to mind is rage-lance-pounce getting removed because getting pounce with a lance wasn't realistic.

Personally, I hate the idea of Pounce working for iterative attacks at all to be obnoxious, considering its original design was to let animals get off a full natural attack chain (Which isn't hard to imagine, because all limbs move independently from each other). But... how can a weapon be in four places at once?

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't know, I guess my biggest problem with Vital strike is that you are limited to only one attack. This seems obvious, but as soon as I am getting multiple attacks, I will probably feel more comfortable taking those multiple attacks. Especially now that Pathfinder makes crit fishing very effective (stun enemies 1d4 rounds on a crit, lolwut), taking those multiple attacks just seems to be a more valuable action.

I guess my thinking goes like this.
- If your accuracy is low you're probably going to want multiple attacks to better ensure that you are able to actually able to hit than enemy. Vital strike isn't for you.
- If your accuracy is high, you're going to benefit from getting more attacks because you're going to be hitting with them often enough.

The other thing is that at mid levels, strength damage quickly outpaces damage that can be dealt from weapon dice. E.G. 8d6 averages 24 ponts. I only need a 26 strength on a two handed weapon to be able to equal that with two hits before any other extra modifiers. It just isn't that great of a deal from what I can see.


Personally, I hate the idea of Pounce working for iterative attacks at all to be obnoxious, considering its original design was to let animals get off a full natural attack chain (Which isn't hard to imagine, because all limbs move independently from each other). But... how can a weapon be in four places at once?Monks with their whole body being a weapon could probably do it.



Hahahaha. Just kidding. They don't get nice things.

[Psyren]

(Insert obligatory sarcastic tirade about 'realism' in the game with flying firebreathing dragons here.)

You're right, dragons exist, so why bother having mundane things like carrying capacity or breathing? Some things don't make sense in the real world, therefore nothing should!

[Reverent-One]

I don't know, I guess my biggest problem with Vital strike is that you are limited to only one attack. This seems obvious, but as soon as I am getting multiple attacks, I will probably feel more comfortable taking those multiple attacks. Especially now that Pathfinder makes crit fishing very effective (stun enemies 1d4 rounds on a crit, lolwut), taking those multiple attacks just seems to be a more valuable action.

I guess my thinking goes like this.
- If your accuracy is low you're probably going to want multiple attacks to better ensure that you are able to actually able to hit than enemy. Vital strike isn't for you.
- If your accuracy is high, you're going to benefit from getting more attacks because you're going to be hitting with them often enough.

The other thing is that at mid levels, strength damage quickly outpaces damage that can be dealt from weapon dice. E.G. 8d6 averages 24 ponts. I only need a 26 strength on a two handed weapon to be able to equal that with two hits before any other extra modifiers. It just isn't that great of a deal from what I can see.

It seems to me it's not supposed to make you choose between making a single attack over a full attack if you have the option to do either, but to provide a boost when you are unable to make a full attack, as does seem to happen with some regularity (at least, in my experience).

[Scow2]

Monks with their whole body being a weapon could probably do it.



Hahahaha. Just kidding. They don't get nice things.

Actually, I'd let them flurry freely on a pounce. What I don't like about Flurry of Blows is the gratuitous -2 penalty. If a cat doesn't suffer a penalty for attacking with two claws, why does a monk suffer a penalty for attacking with what as well be two of its own natural weapons?

[Perseus]

Personally, I hate the idea of Pounce working for iterative attacks at all to be obnoxious, considering its original design was to let animals get off a full natural attack chain (Which isn't hard to imagine, because all limbs move independently from each other). But... how can a weapon be in four places at once?

This is exactly the kind of fluff people have been giving master swordsmen for years.

I strike you so fast that it is like all four hits happen at once. This is fantasy, why can't mundanes start getting good stuff?

[Squirrel_Dude]

This is exactly the kind of fluff people have been giving master swordsmen for years.

I strike you so fast that it is like all four hits happen at once. This is fantasy, why can't mundanes start getting good stuff? As much as I agree with this kind of sentiment, I can understand why people don't like how D&D isn't really medieval fantasy as much as it is medieval superheros. Maybe a better qeustion is why does magic get such good stuff.

[Scow2]

This is exactly the kind of fluff people have been giving master swordsmen for years.

I strike you so fast that it is like all four hits happen at once. This is fantasy, why can't mundanes start getting good stuff?

Because when you look at the things that naturally get Pounce, you see a coordinated tackle-attack that involves a bite at the throat while the two front claws try to latch on from each side while the back claws spring down in a rake, yet this same "ability" given to a guy with a sword or axe suddenly turns him into a Cuisinart of Steel.

[Drachasor]

As much as I agree with this kind of sentiment, I can understand why people don't like how D&D isn't really medieval fantasy as much as it is medieval superheros. Maybe a better qeustion is why does magic get such good stuff.

Because the people that want to pretend D&D is somehow historically accurate dig their feet into the ground whenever non-magical characters get anything really Extraordinary.

I'd say D&D is more like mythic fantasy -- that's more accurate than medieval superheroes, imho.


Because when you look at the things that naturally get Pounce, you see a coordinated tackle-attack that involves a bite at the throat while the two front claws try to latch on from each side while the back claws spring down in a rake, yet this same "ability" given to a guy with a sword or axe suddenly turns him into a Cuisinart of Steel.

Eh, so? Mr. Kitty doesn't get iterative attacks on a full attack in general, because they decided it would be great if natural attacks and weapon attacks used completely different rules for multiple attacks. However, they also decided there'd be common terms used by both, so they purposes have pounce enabling Full Attacks. Then they purposefully allowed warrior-types to get pounce now and then.

Theoretically that Fighter should have more training than a giant cat.

I don't see the problem.

[Perseus]

Because when you look at the things that naturally get Pounce, you see a coordinated tackle-attack that involves a bite at the throat while the two front claws try to latch on from each side while the back claws spring down in a rake, yet this same "ability" given to a guy with a sword or axe suddenly turns him into a Cuisinart of Steel.

You are mixing up the crunch of the ability and what specific creatures do with it.

Yes a lion will do as you say with their full attack because that is all they can do.

A person who gets a full attack has thumbs and is able to use a weapon.

Pounce isn't that you bite kick and scratch all at once, it is that you attack with everything you got all at once.*

Edit: a highly trained fighter has the speed to get off multiple attacks in succession.

Bite, scratch, scratch takes the same time as a highly trained fighter to attack (multiple times) with a weapon. Don't believe so? Look at what each can do as a full attack when standing still. Why does moving suddenly make the natural attacks take less time?

[Scow2]

Because the people that want to pretend D&D is somehow historically accurate dig their feet into the ground whenever non-magical characters get anything really Extraordinary.

I'd say D&D is more like mythic fantasy -- that's more accurate than medieval superheroes, imho. Only when you get to stupidhigh levels.


Eh, so? Mr. Kitty doesn't get iterative attacks on a full attack in general, because they decided it would be great if natural attacks and weapon attacks used completely different rules for multiple attacks. However, they also decided there'd be common terms used by both, so they purposes have pounce enabling Full Attacks. Then they purposefully allowed warrior-types to get pounce now and then.

Theoretically that Fighter should have more training than a giant cat.

I don't see the problem.And the fact they used common terms for both annoys me to no end.



Bite, scratch, scratch takes the same time as a highly trained fighter to attack with a weapon. Don't believe so? Look at what each can do as a full attack when standing still. Why does moving suddenly make the natural attacks take less time?I have a problem with pounce strictly because it uses "Full Attack", instead of "Synchronized attacks"

Moving makes the natural attack sequence take less time because each sequence works in unison with the rest of the body. It usually follows a leap as part of the movement (That is far too small to warrant representing), allowing them to bring all natural weapons to bear in one instance. Otherwise, it's bringing all weapons to bear sequentially in the full-attack option, and if it's moving, it's resorting to a Claw or Bite attack while keeping the rest of its arsenal occupied with balancing itself or moving around, or out of harm's way (There's a drawback of having a natural weapon less than 10" from the most vital organ in the body). A manufactured weapon, unless you are using more than one, MUST be used sequentially for its attacks, not synchronously, which would preclude spending all your time on four individual attacks or more if you spent half your turn moving.

[Drachasor]

Only when you get to stupidhigh levels.

Naw, you can start breaking Olympic Records at level 1, and it just gets crazier from there.


And the fact they used common terms for both annoys me to no end.

Imho, they should have just used the same system for both. That doesn't change the fact that the rules are what they are.

[Perseus]

Only when you get to stupidhigh levels.

And the fact they used common terms for both annoys me to no end.

I have a problem with pounce strictly because it uses "Full Attack", instead of "Synchronized attacks"

Moving makes the natural attack sequence take less time because each sequence works in unison with the rest of the body. It usually follows a leap as part of the movement (That is far too small to warrant representing), allowing them to bring all natural weapons to bear in one instance. Otherwise, it's bringing all weapons to bear sequentially in the full-attack option, and if it's moving, it's resorting to a Claw or Bite attack while keeping the rest of its arsenal occupied with balancing itself or moving around, or out of harm's way (There's a drawback of having a natural weapon less than 10" from the most vital organ in the body). A manufactured weapon, unless you are using more than one, MUST be used sequentially for its attacks, not synchronously, which would preclude spending all your time on four individual attacks or more if you spent half your turn moving.

You are getting your RAI into the RAW.

Your problem seems to be fluff, to bad there isn't something players can do about fluff... *sigh* oh well.

[HylianKnight]

It's an attempt at giving you more combat options. One of the sticky issues with the 3rd edition rule set is that non-magic users are so hugely incentivized to always take full-round- actions at every possible moment. To do otherwise is to gimp yourself on your actual damage output and make yourself much more ineffective, but constantly standing in one spot wailing on enemies is not always possible, in addition to just hindering the potential for dynamic combat scenarios.

Vital Strike is an attempt to give players an option when making standard actions if they 1) want to make that kind of character and/or 2) want to be prepared for all the situations they can't make full attacks.

It doesn't stack with Charging or Spring Attack because it is meant to be a different style of combat, not a straight damage stacker. Also, those 2 are both full attack actions, so making Vital Strike usable in conjunction would further incentive full attacks over standards while their goal is the opposite.

None of which is to say that they succeeded or that the feat chain is particularly powerful or that useful when compared to other feats (especially outside of Core), but that's the reason why it exists.

[Drachasor]

It's an attempt at giving you more combat options. One of the sticky issues with the 3rd edition rule set is that non-magic users are so hugely incentivized to always take full-round- actions at every possible moment. To do otherwise is to gimp yourself on your actual damage output and make yourself much more ineffective, but constantly standing in one spot wailing on enemies is not always possible, in addition to just hindering the potential for dynamic combat scenarios.

Vital Strike is an attempt to give players an option when making standard actions if they 1) want to make that kind of character and/or 2) want to be prepared for all the situations they can't make full attacks.

It doesn't stack with Charging or Spring Attack because it is meant to be a different style of combat, not a straight damage stacker. Also, those 2 are both full attack actions, so making Vital Strike usable in conjunction would further incentive full attacks over standards while their goal is the opposite.

None of which is to say that they succeeded or that the feat chain is particularly powerful or that useful when compared to other feats (especially outside of Core), but that's the reason why it exists.

The really amusing thing is that the feat chain is better for casters than non-casters.

[Certified]

The obvious use for Vital Strike is when you are denied iterative attacks for whatever read. The less obvious but equally, if not more, important, is when dealing with obscene ACs. When dealing with high AC foes each successive attack is increasingly unlikely to hit. What is better a Greater Vital Strike, or two hits and two misses?

Going with the full Vital Strike Chain, including Devastating Strike. along with Power attack and Furious Focus allows the character to take on any degree of armor.

[Souju]

i'm quite fond of Deadly Stroke, personally. It can take a bit to set up (you need an intimidate build and to have actually hit the enemy once in the past round) but i've pulled off consistent damage that only a barbarian with an obsessive amount of special feats and weapons and multi-classing was able to pull off. Plus CON bleed.

[Sylthia]

I can see pounce being refluffed to having the strikes all hit rapidly. Letting martials take it as a feat helps them keep up with casters in viability.

[Drachasor]

The obvious use for Vital Strike is when you are denied iterative attacks for whatever read. The less obvious but equally, if not more, important, is when dealing with obscene ACs. When dealing with high AC foes each successive attack is increasingly unlikely to hit. What is better a Greater Vital Strike, or two hits and two misses?

Going with the full Vital Strike Chain, including Devastating Strike. along with Power attack and Furious Focus allows the character to take on any degree of armor.

Two hits actually sounds better than Greater Vital Strike. And it would really be 3 hits, since Haste doesn't work with Vital Strike.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that Pounce and free movement was pretty much available to any build in 3.5 with supplements, but non-existent in core Pathfinder (which is where Vital Strike was published, IIRC). Killing Pounce was seen as the key to killing Sir Charge-a-lot massive damage combos.

Of course Pounce and free movement has worked its way into the Pathfinder rules in various places. But again, the intent was to try and bring balance to damage output while still making movement in melee combat a viable option, which they created Vital Strike, killed Pounce, nerfed Power Attack, etc. And they sorta kinda succeeded... until they started publishing supplements.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The obvious use for Vital Strike is when you are denied iterative attacks for whatever read. The less obvious but equally, if not more, important, is when dealing with obscene ACs. When dealing with high AC foes each successive attack is increasingly unlikely to hit. What is better a Greater Vital Strike, or two hits and two misses?

Going with the full Vital Strike Chain, including Devastating Strike. along with Power attack and Furious Focus allows the character to take on any degree of armor.The problem with the enemy with a high AC theory is that the highest published (by Paizo) monster AC (ignoring things like Orcus, etc.) is in the 44 to 46 range. I'll pick a creature in that range, the Red Wyrm Ravener with 45 AC, and CR 22.

Let's see how hard it will be for a level 20 fighter to hit that creature on each of his iteratives with the most basic kinds of magic and equipment. He'll have a +1 magic weapon, haste, and enlarge person, a +6 belt of strength. His starting strength will be 16, he put all 5 advancement points into that, and then got the 6 from the belt of strength and the 2 from enlarge person. That's a total of 28 strength.

We'll say that he's using his favorite greatsword, so he has weapon training in it, or the equivalent for his archetype. We won't make him suboptimal and say that he took weapon focus feats. Before BAB his total attack modifier is +16 (+9 strength +5 weapon training +1 magic weapon +1 haste), and his damage modifier is +19 (+13 strength +5 weapon training +1 magic weapon).

Let's see what his odds to hit are.
Attack 1: +36 : 60% odds
Attack 2 (haste): +36: 60% odds
Attack 3: +31: 35% odds
Attack 4: +26: 10% odds
Attack 5: +21: 5% odds

With the mos basic of buffs and equipment the (I hope we agree) poorly equiped and buffed fighter stands a fine chance of hitting an AC outside of his CR. Getting to roll your weapon damage is all well and good, except you don't get to add you strength multiple times, or the effects of magical enhancements (flame, etc.) on your weapon multiple times.

Vital Strike
Attack 1: Vital strike 8d6+19. 60% odds.
Average DPR 28.2
Chance for the attack to miss: 40%

Standard Full Attack
Attack 1: 2d6+19. 60% odds. Average Damage 15.6
Attack 2: 2d6+19. 60% odds. Average Damage 15.6
Attack 3: 2d6+19. 35% odds. Average Damage 9.1
Attack 4: 2d6+19. 10% odds. Average Damage 2.6
Attack 5: 2d6+19. 5% odds. Average Damage 1.3
Average DPR 44.2
Chance for all the attacks to miss: 1.1%

I won't say that Vital Strike doesn't have a role. Maybe if you're going to be a skirmishing, spring attacking kind of character it would have great value to you. I simply don't think that in the vast majority of cases it's worth the feat investment when it would be far more prudent to simply maneuver yourself so that you are able to get a full attack, and take feats that let you take advantage of that.

Letting the other guy charge you, for example. Unless you think they have pounce, they're only going to get one attack, and you'll get 5 on them. Or have the cleric/wizard teleport you if you're squeamish about getting punched in the face.


Sidenote: That is some ****e damage those two characters are doing. Am I bad at drawing up hypothetical characters, or what?

[Psyren]

I can see pounce being refluffed to having the strikes all hit rapidly. Letting martials take it as a feat helps them keep up with casters in viability.

I'm fine with that, but pouncing with a lance is indeed silly. The whole damage bonus on a charge is due to the momentum of the charge itself. To get that same damage on a full attack, you would have to return to your starting location and charge again on every iterative.

[Snowbluff]

I'm fine with that, but pouncing with a lance is indeed silly. The whole damage bonus on a charge is due to the momentum of the charge itself. To get that same damage on a full attack, you would have to return to your starting location and charge again on every iterative.

Would you like someone TWF a pair of lances on a charge, then? :smalltongue:

[Spuddles]

Not getting a full attack if you move is a core mechanics. If they implemented a "manyshot" feature for melee types, it'd basically be a feat tax, like power attack or wild shape. I can see the resistance to implementing it.

But what if you were to implement move+full attack with non-charge builds? If you could lay down full attacks while taking cover behind your shield (and only with a shield), wouldn't that be cool?

I appreciate that Paizo tried to bring the optimization floor up, but in a lot of places they seem to keep the ceiling too low. Or at least provide too much chaff; too many trap options. At least, that's what a bunch of feats & traits feel like to me- trap options, especially on lower tier classes. It doesn't matter too critically what feats are on a cleric or wizard- you can change those spells day to day. But feats are (almost) forever.

I feel that the fighter should have gotten a major class feature besides just feats, instead of filling dead levels with minor abilities. Like Cavalier should have been a fighter archetype. Cavalier with more bonus feats would be AWESOME. As it is, it's just so... meh.

But then, my optimization is much higher than the average player, I think, after spending too long on the internet.


The really amusing thing is that the feat chain is better for casters than non-casters.

Worse even, it's better for a full caster's pet.


I'm fine with that, but pouncing with a lance is indeed silly. The whole damage bonus on a charge is due to the momentum of the charge itself. To get that same damage on a full attack, you would have to return to your starting location and charge again on every iterative.

Two handing a lance always struck me as a little funny, too.



Would you like someone TWF a pair of lances on a charge, then? :smalltongue:

My buddy had a 3.5 dwarf for a one-off with me that dual wielded lances while riding a griffon. With Bloodstorm Blade. It was brutal and awesome.

[Beowulf DW]

I was always given to understand that Vital Strike is for skirmishers (Mobile Fighter comes to mind), or just about anyone else that is counting on only having one attack most rounds (which is to say, just about anyone that has to move more than five feet and doesn't have a pounce-like ability). I suppose it could be useful for a Magus or melee Inquisitor or melee Bard. So, I guess that's anyone with less than full BAB that counts on single attacks with as many sources of damage as possible.

On the broader debate that's sprung up on the purpose of Pathfinder, well, my friends and I appreciate the better skill system, the simplified combat maneuver system, and the fact that we no longer have to own a private library to make a competitive character that isn't a full caster. We're doing a Warriors and Wuxia game using a few innovations from Pathfinder (i.e. the new skill system, the alternate rules for armor) and it's working out pretty nicely so far. Although, our resident Wildheart almost ended up being the best linguist in the group. It's a long story and it involves forgery being folded into linguistics.

[Spuddles]

But you can't skirmish with vital strike- you end up trading one mediocre hit for a monster's full attack. Not really a good deal, if you ask me.

[Scow2]

I was always given to understand that Vital Strike is for skirmishers (Mobile Fighter comes to mind), or just about anyone else that is counting on only having one attack most rounds (which is to say, just about anyone that has to move more than five feet and doesn't have a pounce-like ability). I suppose it could be useful for a Magus or melee Inquisitor or melee Bard. So, I guess that's anyone with less than full BAB that counts on single attacks with as many sources of damage as possible.

On the broader debate that's sprung up on the purpose of Pathfinder, well, my friends and I appreciate the better skill system, the simplified combat maneuver system, and the fact that we no longer have to own a private library to make a competitive character that isn't a full caster. We're doing a Warriors and Wuxia game using a few innovations from Pathfinder (i.e. the new skill system, the alternate rules for armor) and it's working out pretty nicely so far. Although, our resident Wildheart almost ended up being the best linguist in the group. It's a long story and it involves forgery being folded into linguistics.

The problem with that line of thought is that the feat doesn't work with Spring Attack, which is supposed to be THE "Skirmish" feat.

[Beowulf DW]

But you can't skirmish with vital strike- you end up trading one mediocre hit for a monster's full attack. Not really a good deal, if you ask me.

Well, I suppose that skirmishing is the wrong word, really. The other uses I mentioned still apply, though. That is, getting the most out of a single attack.

[Certified]

Well, I suppose that skirmishing is the wrong word, really. The other uses I mentioned still apply, though. That is, getting the most out of a single attack.

Generally speaking I see Vital Strike for the Titian Mauler (Barbarian Archetype), or a Titan Mauler/Fighter as it's just fun to watch those damage dice scale up.

[Certified]

Math snipped for size.




Let's see what his odds to hit are.
Attack 1: +36 : 60% odds
Attack 2 (haste): +36: 60% odds
Attack 3: +31: 35% odds
Attack 4: +26: 10% odds
Attack 5: +21: 5% odds

With the mos basic of buffs and equipment the (I hope we agree) poorly equiped and buffed fighter stands a fine chance of hitting an AC outside of his CR. Getting to roll your weapon damage is all well and good, except you don't get to add you strength multiple times, or the effects of magical enhancements (flame, etc.) on your weapon multiple times.

Vital Strike
Attack 1: Vital strike 8d6+19. 60% odds.
Average DPR 28.2
Chance for the attack to miss: 40%

Standard Full Attack
Attack 1: 2d6+19. 60% odds. Average Damage 15.6
Attack 2: 2d6+19. 60% odds. Average Damage 15.6
Attack 3: 2d6+19. 35% odds. Average Damage 9.1
Attack 4: 2d6+19. 10% odds. Average Damage 2.6
Attack 5: 2d6+19. 5% odds. Average Damage 1.3
Average DPR 44.2
Chance for all the attacks to miss: 1.1%



Alright, I admit, it's hard to argue with math, but it's the internet so I'm going to try to anyway. Can we try this again with an Iron Golem (AC 28, DR 15/Adamantine)?

[Spuddles]

Math snipped for size.



Alright, I admit, it's hard to argue with math, but it's the internet so I'm going to try to anyway. Can we try this again with an Iron Golem (AC 28, DR 15/Adamantine)?

Our fighter has more static to hit than the golem has AC. So vital strike will do full damage, or 8d6+19. With DR, that's an average of 32 damage a turn.

A full attack will hit the first 3 swings, have a 90% chance of hitting on the 4th and an 85% on the fifth.

Damage after DR will be 2d6+4. Total expected damage will be 54.

[Spuddles]

Did my math wrong on the final iterative. Should be 65% to, so expected damage will be like 49. I also didn't include fumbles, which brings expected damage down 5%.

[Elderand]

Our fighter has more static to hit than the golem has AC. So vital strike will do full damage, or 8d6+19. With DR, that's an average of 32 damage a turn.

A full attack will hit the first 3 swings, have a 90% chance of hitting on the 4th and an 85% on the fifth.

Damage after DR will be 2d6+4. Total expected damage will be 54.

It would be more appropriate to compare a vital strike to a charge than to a full attack.

[Spuddles]

It would be more appropriate to compare a vital strike to a charge than to a full attack.

Ah, in that case a charge does 2d6+4 and vital strike does 0 damage.

[Elderand]

Ah, in that case a charge does 2d6+4 and vital strike does 0 damage.

Why would it do 0 damage ?

[Drachasor]

Why would it do 0 damage ?

You can't use Vital Strike on a charge. You could make a move and then use a standard action to attack. But if the target is more than your move speed away you'll won't be able to use Vital Strike that round at all.

[Elderand]

You can't use Vital Strike on a charge. You could make a move and then use a standard action to attack. But if the target is more than your move speed away you'll won't be able to use Vital Strike that round at all.

I didn't say to use vital strike on a chrage, I said to compare vital strike to a charge (obviously when both are whithin range)

[Spuddles]

I didn't say to use vital strike on a chrage, I said to compare vital strike to a charge (obviously when both are whithin range)

A hasted charge has a range of 100ft.
The hasted vital strike has a range of 50ft.

Pretty big difference.

Vital strike as gets you an average of 24 more point of damage on turns where you have to move and attack.

That doesnt really seem to be worth 4 feats. I wonder what we could do with those 4 feats to improve a full attack. Just a +1 to hit and +2 damage on a full attack negates any advantage vital strike had over a single full attack.

[JusticeZero]

Because a vital strike and a charge are not interchangable in application. If you can use one, you can't use the other.

[Perseus]

Which would you guys prefer Vital Strike would work with if you could pick one. Maybe not the most powerful but personal favorite.

Spring Attack

Charging

Full Attack

[Eldonauran]

Which would you guys prefer Vital Strike would work with if you could pick one. Maybe not the most powerful but personal favorite.

Spring Attack

Charging

Full Attack

Spring Attack. So that it fits the skirmisher flavor better.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, if I can't get all of them, I'll probably go with Spring Attack or charge. Probably charge. That way, charging is actually more useful as a way to attack someone than it is as a way to get your head beat in when you don't have pounce.

[Spuddles]

Vital Strike could actually be a fairly decent option for kiting monsters with a lot of natural attacks, as long as they don't get too many attacks of opportunity.

[grarrrg]

Which would you guys prefer Vital Strike would work with if you could pick one. Maybe not the most powerful but personal favorite.

Full Attack

The whole point of Vital Strike is that it gives you a "mini-full attack" for when you can't full attack.

[Certified]

Our fighter has more static to hit than the golem has AC. So vital strike will do full damage, or 8d6+19. With DR, that's an average of 32 damage a turn.

A full attack will hit the first 3 swings, have a 90% chance of hitting on the 4th and an 85% on the fifth.

Damage after DR will be 2d6+4. Total expected damage will be 54.

Mmm... wonder if there is anything with thesame 15/Nasty DR and a higher AC? Iron Golem was my go to. But that kind of rules out my two general concepts. Maybe something with like a 35ish or higher since the Red Dragon was low 45s?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Mmm... wonder if there is anything with thesame 15/Nasty DR and a higher AC? Iron Golem was my go to. But that kind of rules out my two general concepts. Maybe something with like a 35ish or higher since the Red Dragon was low 45s?The Red Wyrm Ravener actually has a DR I forgot to take into account. It actually has a DR 20/Good.

Assuming the exact same buffs on the fighter Vital Strike will do an average of 8 damage to the dragon, and each attack in the full progression will do an average of 0 damage. So in that instance vital strike would actually be more useful.

I mean, the fighter is probably dead either way with such pitiful damage, but at least with vital strike he is able to scratch the Ravener's 337 hit points.

[Certified]

The Red Wyrm Ravener actually has a DR I forgot to take into account. It actually has a DR 20/Good.

Assuming the exact same buffs on the fighter Vital Strike will do an average of 8 damage to the dragon, and each attack in the full progression will do an average of 0 damage. So in that instance vital strike would actually be more useful.

I mean, the fighter is probably dead either way with such pitiful damage, but at least with vital strike he is able to scratch the Ravener's 337 hit points.

Triumph Vital Strike!

Okay, so that's the deal, we need a High AC and DR you can't beat, that's when Vital Strike rocks... just before you die.

[Snowbluff]

Unless you are a class that is not crap. Like Paladin, who ignores the DR before buying a better weapon. :smalltongue:

[Certified]

Unless you are a class that is not crap. Like Paladin, who ignores the DR before buying a better weapon. :smalltongue:

Between the core martial classes there are reasons to play each of them. Each has their own feel. That aside, one might have a good weapon just not the right weapon for the job, say Cold Iron when what you need is Silver.

[Snowbluff]

Between the core martial classes there are reasons to play each of them. Each has their own feel. That aside, one might have a good weapon just not the right weapon for the job, say Cold Iron when what you need is Silver.
Fighter is still a fighter. With the nerfs to the melee feat chains, paladin is just better (TM). :smallyuk:

Paladin always has the right weapon when smiting. Against the target dragon, they would do significantly more damage with a full attack than with vital strike.

What about the other melee classes? Magus can't use it, because Spell Combat is better. Barbarian can pounce, but it's marginally better as shown above. Cavalier.. IDK. Gunslinger has Clustered Shots. What about Samurai?

[Spuddles]

DR/cold iron/silver is broken with a +3 weapon; DR/Adamantine with a +4, and DR/alignment with +5.

I would expect most melee characters to have a +5 weapon by level 20.

[Zotsune]

Fighter is still a fighter. With the nerfs to the melee feat chains, paladin is just better (TM). :smallyuk:

Paladin always has the right weapon when smiting. Against the target dragon, they would do significantly more damage with a full attack than with vital strike.

What about the other melee classes? Magus can't use it, because Spell Combat is better. Barbarian can pounce, but it's marginally better as shown above. Cavalier.. IDK. Gunslinger has Clustered Shots. What about Samurai?

The Samurai has iaijutsu strike (if you take the Sword Saint Archetype) it is similar to VS in that it takes a standard action (at and after level 10) to pull off however it deals an extra 10d6 damage at level 19 and has a chance to cause both the shaken and deafened conditions (depending on will and fort saves respectively). But just imagine a katana dealing 1d8+10d6+challenge damage+str mod+ weapon mod+any feats i.e. power attack, weapon specialization, etc. With a crit range of 18-20x2 (15-20x2 if keen or improved critical).

However after the Sword Saint uses this he is really screwed because it can only be done to once to a person per day (meaning he can use this as many times a day as he wants to as long as it is a different person each time)

[Metahuman1]

DR/cold iron/silver is broken with a +3 weapon; DR/Adamantine with a +4, and DR/alignment with +5.

I would expect most melee characters to have a +5 weapon by level 20.

Wait, Pathfinder actually made it so DR could be gotten around just by increasing that flat +X bonus on your weapon?

It's still nicer for the cleric or the wizard, but that's actually almost a step in the right direction.

[IronFist]

The Samurai has iaijutsu strike (if you take the Sword Saint Archetype) it is similar to VS in that it takes a standard action (at and after level 10) to pull off however it deals an extra 10d6 damage at level 19 and has a chance to cause both the shaken and deafened conditions (depending on will and fort saves respectively). But just imagine a katana dealing 1d8+10d6+challenge damage+str mod+ weapon mod+any feats i.e. power attack, weapon specialization, etc. With a crit range of 18-20x2 (15-20x2 if keen or improved critical).

However after the Sword Saint uses this he is really screwed because it can only be done to once to a person per day (meaning he can use this as many times a day as he wants to as long as it is a different person each time)

I just have to point out that PF's iaijutsu is so much better designed than 3.5 iaijutsu. 3.5 forces iaijutsu masters to use razors and marbles, completely ruining the point - your samurai is actually the worst iaijutsu user ever. The sword saint gets it just right - you draw, you hit, then you fight normally.

[Snowbluff]

The Samurai has iaijutsu strike (if you take the Sword Saint Archetype) it is similar to VS in that it takes a standard action (at and after level 10) to pull off however it deals an extra 10d6 damage at level 19 and has a chance to cause both the shaken and deafened conditions (depending on will and fort saves respectively). But just imagine a katana dealing 1d8+10d6+challenge damage+str mod+ weapon mod+any feats i.e. power attack, weapon specialization, etc. With a crit range of 18-20x2 (15-20x2 if keen or improved critical).

However after the Sword Saint uses this he is really screwed because it can only be done to once to a person per day (meaning he can use this as many times a day as he wants to as long as it is a different person each time) Eh, I think I prefer how it works in 3.5. Considering that a Paladin can do +20 per hit on each hit in a fight, versus the 10d6 (that doesn't multiply), Iaijutsu just sucks.


3.5 forces iaijutsu masters to use razors and marbles, completely ruining the point - your samurai is actually the worst iaijutsu user ever.
You must be new. You'll be needing these. (::)

[IronFist]

You must be new. You'll be needing these. (::)

I have no idea what you mean, but I'm pretty sure you did not understand what I meant as well.

[Psyren]

I just have to point out that PF's iaijutsu is so much better designed than 3.5 iaijutsu. 3.5 forces iaijutsu masters to use razors and marbles, completely ruining the point - your samurai is actually the worst iaijutsu user ever. The sword saint gets it just right - you draw, you hit, then you fight normally.

I'd like it better if they could resheathe and repeat, maybe with a penalty. I'd doubly like it if they could combine it with Vital Strike to simulate a full attack.

Iaijutsu is supposed to be a supremely badass one-hit-stroke, you're-dead-before-you-hit-the-ground kind of thing, but the fact that it's so much worse than a vanilla full-power-attack from any old Barbarian saddens me immensely.

[Snowbluff]

I have no idea what you mean, but I'm pretty sure you did not understand what I meant as well.

The levels required to reach the 10d6 of damage for Sword Saint are high, while the 3.5 Iaijutsu Masters can get it done much more quickly, and they add their charisma to each damage die.

There are a crap ton of options for catching an opponent Flat-Footed in 3.5 that do not involve the balance skill. Gloom Razor, Mercurial Strike, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Blurstrike Weapons. There is quite a substantial list.

The point is that it is perfectly clear that the Samurai who is the worst at Iaijutsu is actually much better mechanically without sacrificing the fluff. What you have here is actually the true master of Iaijutsu, who is so skilled at it he is able to catch his opponents off guard and deal considerable harm in singular strokes.

You also demonstrated a horrible lack of understanding of the content, hence the cracker.

[Psyren]

You also demonstrated a horrible lack of understanding of the content, hence the cracker.

Is that what that was? I've never seen that before.

While I understand (and even agree) that 3.5 Iaijutsu is more capable damage-wise, it's still immensely dissatisfying to have an "Iaijutsu Master" that needs marbles, spells, magic weapons, or "Blade Magic" (as ToB calls it) to actually use their Iaijutsu reliably.

[Snowbluff]

While I understand (and even agree) that 3.5 Iaijutsu is more capable damage-wise, it's still immensely dissatisfying to have an "Iaijutsu Master" that needs marbles, spells, magic weapons, or "Blade Magic" (as ToB calls it) to actually use their Iaijutsu reliably.

While I dislike assuming magic items in my builds, the feats and Blade Magic (which are just martials, which we know all Samurai avoided like the plague) provide reliability. I think that the melee in 3.5/PF are sorely lacking, and complaints against implementing a subsystem like ToB to aid are more for the sake of complaining.

You still can catch opponent before they make their action if you want to simulate the PF version.

[Psyren]

While I dislike assuming magic items in my builds, the feats and Blade Magic (which are just martials, which we know all Samurai avoided like the plague) provide reliability. I think that the melee in 3.5/PF are sorely lacking, and complaints against implementing a subsystem like ToB to aid are more for the sake of complaining.

For the record, I don't mind ToB at all and indeed am looking forward to Errant's upcoming conversion for PF. But Iaijutsu I feel is a simple enough concept that it doesn't need an entire maneuver subsystem to enable. You can have "guy who does a bunch of extra damage if he attacks right after drawing his sword" as part of the regular, much simpler combat system.



You still can catch opponent before they make their action if you want to simulate the PF version.

Certainly, but this is much trickier in practice. The first obstacle is the DM; on average, I'd say more fights involve the enemy surprising or ambushing the party than the other way around, so catching enemies with that natural state of flat-footedness is unlikely. The other problem is that samurai classes in 3.x are typically designed to wear heavy armor (splint mail being the "iconic" samurai outfit) so Dex and therefore initiative are likely to be low.

[Snowbluff]

For the record, I don't mind ToB at all and indeed am looking forward to Errant's upcoming conversion for PF. But Iaijutsu I feel is a simple enough concept that it doesn't need an entire maneuver subsystem to enable. You can have "guy who does a bunch of extra damage if he attacks right after drawing his sword" as part of the regular, much simpler combat system. Well, I think I'll err on the side of personal preference there. I like the Iaijutsu Focus being a skill. It makes for a much more interesting optimization point and leads to an interesting array of techniques for what is a deceptively simple move. In 3.5, Iaijutsu isn't purely about momentum, it's about exploiting a momentary lack of focus. How it's achieved in-universe varies because the people of the game vary. Neraphs' whose natural camouflage allow them to charge unaware foes. Kobolds who take advantage of their small stature to strike from below. Hobgoblins that carefully concentrate on their foes, waiting for the slightest weakness.




Certainly, but this is much trickier in practice. The first obstacle is the DM; on average, I'd say more fights involve the enemy surprising or ambushing the party than the other way around, so catching enemies with that natural state of flat-footedness is unlikely. The other problem is that samurai classes in 3.x are typically designed to wear heavy armor (splint mail being the "iconic" samurai outfit) so Dex and therefore initiative are likely to be low.
Ambushes are a problem. DMs are not always kind. :smallfrown:

Samurai are actually the last people to use Iaijutsu in 3.5. Heavier armor is not really a thing for a person intending to finish a foe in one move. The Iaijutsu Master (Would you consider that a Samurai Class?) is given bonuses for not wearing armor, a stat to initiative, and Weapon Finesse for katana. The Samurai isn't the only class that is able to use Iaijutsu. It's a skill, so other classes can invest in it. Warblades wear Medium Armor, and they get a maneuvers for initiative. Swordsages wear light armor, have Quick to Act, and can use Dex as for damage. Factotum are clad in lighter armors, get Int to initiative, and cast spells. Initiative comes naturally to these characters.

[Segev]

Honestly, Iaijutsu Focus should probably be a feat or class feature that gives a new use to Concentration. I don't like introducing new skills that have funky mechanics all their own that make them "better" than other skills (we already have enough skills that are go-to for any character vs. others that are niche at best, when all cost the same amount). And being about "focus," it definitely falls under Concentration's purview.


Heck, in 3.5? Make it a Diamond Mind maneuver. Or a few.

[IronFist]

The levels required to reach the 10d6 of damage for Sword Saint are high, while the 3.5 Iaijutsu Masters can get it done much more quickly, and they add their charisma to each damage die.

There are a crap ton of options for catching an opponent Flat-Footed in 3.5 that do not involve the balance skill. Gloom Razor, Mercurial Strike, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Blurstrike Weapons. There is quite a substantial list.

The point is that it is perfectly clear that the Samurai who is the worst at Iaijutsu is actually much better mechanically without sacrificing the fluff. What you have here is actually the true master of Iaijutsu, who is so skilled at it he is able to catch his opponents off guard and deal considerable harm in singular strokes. What PF does better than most approaches is that iaijutsu should not be spammable. When the best use of iaijutsu is carrying several weapons, using a gnome razor or finding some way to sheathe your weapon very fast, you're not emulating iaijutsu all that way. Iaijutsu is about one powerful strike - if it doesn't work, you fall back to normal swordplay.

You also demonstrated a horrible lack of understanding of the content, hence the cracker.
First fo all, the rudeness is completely uncalled for. You misunderstood completely what I said. I'm not saying PF's Pathfinder deals more damage. I said it is better designed. Iaijutsu as a martial art has nothing to do with flat-footed targets, it has nothing to do with Charisma, it has nothing to do with ki. Iaijutsu is not even that much about concentration, it's more about reflexes and speed.


Honestly, Iaijutsu Focus should probably be a feat or class feature that gives a new use to Concentration. I don't like introducing new skills that have funky mechanics all their own that make them "better" than other skills (we already have enough skills that are go-to for any character vs. others that are niche at best, when all cost the same amount). And being about "focus," it definitely falls under Concentration's purview.


Heck, in 3.5? Make it a Diamond Mind maneuver. Or a few.
It could be a feat indeed. Don't think it should come anywhere near Concentration, though. "Focus" is just a stupid name someone stuck in there. It's just iaijutsu (or battoujutsu if you want to be retro about it).


Is that what that was? I've never seen that before.

While I understand (and even agree) that 3.5 Iaijutsu is more capable damage-wise, it's still immensely dissatisfying to have an "Iaijutsu Master" that needs marbles, spells, magic weapons, or "Blade Magic" (as ToB calls it) to actually use their Iaijutsu reliably.
Exactly.

[Squirrel_Dude]

DR/cold iron/silver is broken with a +3 weapon; DR/Adamantine with a +4, and DR/alignment with +5.

I would expect most melee characters to have a +5 weapon by level 20.Eh... not necessarily. At high levels most dex based melee combatants will want an agile weapon. Most characters will have access to a +5 weapon because greater magic weapon, but I find that there are quire a few special abilities I want on every melee character.

Ghost Touch, the already mentioned Agile, Frost/Flaming/Shock, Keen if you don't have feats to spare, other random thing you want because of the campaign setting, etc.

I will say that every character at level 20 has access to it through Greater Magic Weapon, which is another reason you shouldn't have +5 enhanced weapon at level 20. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I will say that every character at level 20 has access to it through Greater Magic Weapon, which is another reason you shouldn't have +5 enhanced weapon at level 20. :smalltongue:

That doesn't actually invalidate his statement though. They will have it; it may not be natively +5, but his point stands nevertheless.

[Snowbluff]

First fo all, the rudeness is completely uncalled for. You misunderstood completely what I said. I'm not saying PF's Pathfinder deals more damage. I said it is better designed.


Oh, it's obvious how inferior the design of the PF Iaijutsu is. Lack of integration. No synergy. Specific action action type. The ability as a whole is designed make your already lousy class an inferior melee to the much more capable Magus. From a gameplay perspective, it's not worth the time of day.

Now, what I think you meant to say was "I disagree with the fluff." That would have made sense. I was pointing how it worked in game, rather than it's connection to the actual art. Much of the 'common knowledge' concerning samurai is entirely fictitious, hence the way Iaijutsu works in both PF and 3.5.

[IronFist]

Oh, it's obvious how inferior the design of the PF Iaijutsu is. Lack of integration. No synergy. Specific action action type. The ability as a whole is designed make your already lousy class an inferior melee to the much more capable Magus. From a gameplay perspective, it's not worth the time of day.
Again, you equate "good design" with "power". I don't think this right. A comparison to Magus just drives the point more clearly to me - you're ignoring any restrictions, flavor and emulation and instead only looking at damage dealt. By those standards, no one should even be in melee, ever, specially in Pathfinder.


Now, what I think you meant to say was "I disagree with the fluff." That would have made sense. I was pointing how it worked in game, rather than it's connection to the actual art. Much of the 'common knowledge' concerning samurai is entirely fictitious, hence the way Iaijutsu works in both PF and 3.5.
Iaijutsu has nothing to do with 'common knowledge' of samurai. It's a real martial art, with real schools all around the world. There is no disagreement with fluff here - there is the 3.5 version, which does not match the fluff at all. The mechanics are simply a skill based sneak attack with weird restrictions, emphasizing book diving and anything other than using a katana to deal a single strike then resume fighting (which is what iaijutsu is). And there is the PF version, which does what it was supposed to do.

Damage is actually on par with PF one-hit wonders. A iaijutsu strike is not supposed to be your main form of attack, it's supposed to be yoru first form of attack, so the 3.5 version allowing it to be your main form of attack (by jumping through hoops and being anything but a samurai) only makes it far less powerful than iaijutsu. Lack of integration is a plus on my book - iaijutsu should be something only a specific brand of samurai do. The action used is indeed a problem - it should at least be possible to combine it with Vital Strike - but it's the only problem I have with it as supposed to the load of problems the 3.5 version has.

Oh, there are plenty of other problems with Iaijutsu Focus. Why is it Charisma based, when it's about "focus", which is stablished in core to be Con-based? Why is it even a skill, when it's only use is to provide extra damage? (Well, I know the answer to this, actually - trying to connect with L5R, which uses skill based combat as opposed to d20; it's just a bad decision) Why does the target even need to be flat-footed? Why is the wording so unclear?

[Spuddles]

Eh... not necessarily. At high levels most dex based melee combatants will want an agile weapon. Most characters will have access to a +5 weapon because greater magic weapon, but I find that there are quire a few special abilities I want on every melee character.

Ghost Touch, the already mentioned Agile, Frost/Flaming/Shock, Keen if you don't have feats to spare, other random thing you want because of the campaign setting, etc.

I will say that every character at level 20 has access to it through Greater Magic Weapon, which is another reason you shouldn't have +5 enhanced weapon at level 20. :smalltongue:


That doesn't actually invalidate his statement though. They will have it; it may not be natively +5, but his point stands nevertheless.

I dont think GMW lets you break DR the way actually paying cash does. I could look it up, but Psyren will probably correct me cause he knows his ****.

As far as agile goes, why is a dex based character using vital strike in the first place? It seems best on a big sword and drinking a potion of enlarge or getting giant-shaped or something. As to frost/shock/flaming, those are kinda useless and not worth it, imo, especially if you aren't going to have GMW/+5 weapon lets you break all DR types. The energy damage on a weapon often gets negated via resistances on many high level monsters, and it isn't really that much damage, anyway. If you have all 4 elemental types, that's a total of 4d6, but against most given enemy types of CR20, one quarter to one half of that is going to be negated by energy resistance. On top of that, you're also looking at DR. Many monsters at that level have DR/metal & alignment, too.

[Snowbluff]

Again, you equate "good design" with "power". I don't think this right. A comparison to Magus just drives the point more clearly to me - you're ignoring any restrictions, flavor and emulation and instead only looking at damage dealt. By those standards, no one should even be in melee, ever, specially in Pathfinder. Wow. That's quite a leap. You have a lot to live for! Don't do it!

So do you have any other unsubstantiated assumptions to make? Though, you were right that no one should play melee in PF. The PF rules weren't particularly kind to many of the mundane classes. Which is why I pointed to Magus. Fluff is mutable for this exact reason.


And there is the PF version, which does what it was supposed to do.
Citation needed.



Lack of integration is a plus on my book - iaijutsu should be something only a specific brand of samurai do. The problem here is that for some magical reason, no one can figure out how to get their swords out of their sheathes and attack in one motion. It has eluded the greatest western swordmasters for centuries. Then one of them decided to go all weaboo on them and started using Japanese words to describe himself. That's how the Samurai class was born.


The action used is indeed a problem - it should at least be possible to combine it with Vital Strike - but it's the only problem I have with it as supposed to the load of problems the 3.5 version has. I think it should at least be usable on each person more than once. The flat-footed wording of the 3.5 version serves much the same purpose (strike first!), but also allows for you to do more with it if you want to.


Oh, there are plenty of other problems with Iaijutsu Focus. Why is it Charisma based, when it's about "focus", which is established in core to be Con-based? Charisma is also your level of badassitude. The more badass you are, the better your cut. It's how the game works. Don't bother questioning this. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)


Why is it even a skill, when it's only use is to provide extra damage? (Well, I know the answer to this, actually - trying to connect with L5R, which uses skill based combat as opposed to d20; it's just a bad decision)
Skills? It's a practiced skill. The more effort you put into it, the better you are at it. This means it's something anyone could pick up, but that is difficult to master.

Like most other forms of martial arts in the system, it is available to everyone.

Why is the wording so unclear? It's quite pithy. I don't think I have any issues with it aside from a misplaced word or two. It should essentially work as intended unless you start throwing your swords at people.

[IronFist]

Fluff is mutable for this exact reason.
I'll use your own words here: citation needed.


The problem here is that for some magical reason, no one can figure out how to get their swords out of their sheathes and attack in one motion. It has eluded the greatest western swordmasters for centuries. Then one of them decided to go all weaboo on them and started using Japanese words to describe himself. That's how the Samurai class was born.
:smallsigh:
I give up. You'll have to be insulting and patronizing towards someone else. It's a good thing there is an ignore list.

[Snowbluff]

I'll use your own words here: citation needed.
He would have gotten his answer if he wasn't so quick to hit the 'ignore' button. I'll write what I meant for posterity. The problem with fluff is that it is often in conflict without how the rules work or people use it as a justification to force their own rules and story telling on others.


:smallsigh:
I give up. You'll have to be insulting and patronizing towards someone else. It's a good thing there is an ignore list.
Pfft. For the record he wasn't a box of chocolates either. Still, I could have been nicer. Sorry, Marvel reference. *single tear of manliness*

suck on my sincerity!