Vital strike

[LordDeath666]

How would you alter vital strike for 3.5

[Gorum]

I wouldn't. It is a decent trade-off. Sure you lose a lot of damage from iterative attacks' bonuses (Str, enhancement), but it allows you to dish a bit more while still having a move action. I'd just make sure the wording allows its use with feats like Spring Attack.

[Goaty14]

I wouldn't. It is a decent trade-off. Sure you lose a lot of damage from iterative attacks' bonuses (Str, enhancement), but it allows you to dish a bit more while still having a move action. I'd just make sure the wording allows its use with feats like Spring Attack.

^This. PF and 3.5 don't really have differences on BaB. Though I'd probably switch "attack action" part to "When you make a single attack vs an enemy in a round,", which would allow it to be used on a charge (No pounce! ), standard actions, spring attack (since you'd only be hitting once), and some various Fighter and Monk ACFs.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You could use it with no modifications, because Pathfinder and 3.5 both have such a wide range of potential power that you have to look at every build individually regardless of source. That said, Vital Strike is a pretty weak feat, so if you want to boost it a bit (say, also doubling Str and weapon enhancement bonuses), I think you'd be pretty well justified in doing so. Especially given how much easier it is to move-and-full-attack in 3.5.

[Arkhios]

I think there may be some unseen problems with how Cleave works in 3.5 compared to Pathfinder. In Pathfinder Cleave and Vital Strike can't be used together because both are separate Standard Actions, but in 3.5 Cleave triggers once every time you drop a target to 0 hp or lower. On surface level it might not be that big of an issue, but knowing how easily 3.5 can be theorycrafted into broken mess, that might cause something unexpected when combined with some other feat or ability.

[Gorum]

I think there may be some unseen problems with how Cleave works in 3.5 compared to Pathfinder. In Pathfinder Cleave and Vital Strike can't be used together because both are separate Standard Actions, but in 3.5 Cleave triggers once every time you drop a target to 0 hp or lower. On surface level it might not be that big of an issue, but knowing how easily 3.5 can be theorycrafted into broken mess, that might cause something unexpected when combined with some other feat or ability.

I wouldn't be afraid of Rule Lawyering & Munchkinism with an homebrewed houserule. It is in the interest of the player not to abuse it, as it could be taken away.

Furthermore, 3.5's martials, e.g. any class that would benefit from Vital Strike, are ridiculously underpowered, as their best offensive ability, iterative attacks, allow monsters to out-trade the PC by a wide margin. I would like to see a martial god of battle, and cleaving (especially with 3.5's version of the feat) with Vital Strike, or Spring Attacking, or both, don't even register compared to Hold Monster, Confusion, Cloudkill, Fly, Fireball or Haste.

Keep in mind: You trade iterative attacks, with extra Str, Enhancement, Feat, Precision, Power Attack bonuses to increase ONE Monkey Gripped great sword attacks' damage roll from 3d6 (average 10.5) to 6d6 (average 21).

Finally, it don't even scale! This means that a +12 BaB, unless he spends a 2nd feat, he trades 2 attacks for 1 more basic weapon roll.

Let him abuse it.

[Arkhios]

I wouldn't be afraid of Rule Lawyering & Munchkinism with an homebrewed houserule. It is in the interest of the player not to abuse it, as it could be taken away.

Furthermore, 3.5's martials, e.g. any class that would benefit from Vital Strike, are ridiculously underpowered, as their best offensive ability, iterative attacks, allow monsters to out-trade the PC by a wide margin. I would like to see a martial god of battle, and cleaving (especially with 3.5's version of the feat) with Vital Strike, or Spring Attacking, or both, don't even register compared to Hold Monster, Confusion, Cloudkill, Fly, Fireball or Haste.

Keep in mind: You trade iterative attacks, with extra Str, Enhancement, Feat, Precision, Power Attack bonuses to increase ONE Monkey Gripped great sword attacks' damage roll from 3d6 (average 10.5) to 6d6 (average 21).

Finally, it don't even scale! This means that a +12 BaB, unless he spends a 2nd feat, he trades 2 attacks for 1 more basic weapon roll.

Let him abuse it.

I mean, sure, abuse the heck out of it, if you want to. I think it's just better to acknowlegde there might be some, however small, issues with it. 3.5 balance (as if there were any) is already prone to falling apart as is.

As to scaling, if one were to bring Vital Strike into 3.5, as a player you might expect that Improved and Greater Vital Strikes are fair game as well. In that way, it does scale. Although, it costs two more feats to do so, so it might not be that bad, especially considering that martials are underpowered as you said (and as I know from personal experience as well).

[Gorum]

I mean, sure, abuse the heck out of it, if you want to. I think it's just better to acknowlegde there might be some, however small, issues with it. 3.5 balance (as if there were any) is already prone to falling apart as is.

But it's not broken by the classes that would be interested in this feat nor would it be. It would simply make them a wee bit more balanced, in fact, no matter how you break it. +[Weapon Damage] per feat spent AND iterative attack sacrificed is actually a bit weak.

The strong part is that it still allows a move action to be taken.

As to scaling, if one were to bring Vital Strike into 3.5, as a player you might expect that Improved and Greater Vital Strikes are fair game as well. In that way, it does scale. Although, it costs two more feats to do so, so it might not be that bad, especially considering that martials are underpowered as you said (and as I know from personal experience as well).

Re-read your quote, I wrote "unless he spends a 2nd feat", which clearly means the improved versions of Vital Strike would be there and needed to be bought separately.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, sure, abuse the heck out of it, if you want to. I think it's just better to acknowlegde there might be some, however small, issues with it. 3.5 balance (as if there were any) is already prone to falling apart as is.

3.5 is always prone to falling apart when people start digging for combos. That's why I'm somewhat less cautious when it comes to 3.5 homebrew-- the game requires some level of conscious power-level-choice no matter what, so it's really only worth looking for things that are over/underpowered in and of themselves (say, Monk), or that are over/underpowered in really obvious combinations (say, Leap Attack+Power Attack).

[Arkhios]

Re-read your quote, I wrote "unless he spends a 2nd feat", which clearly means the improved versions of Vital Strike would be there and needed to be bought separately.

To be perfectly honest, it doesn't clearly imply the improved versions. There are many other feats that may or may not function with Vital Strike in 3.5 alone, and I could not possibly guess which 2nd feat you mean. I'm not saying you didn't mean the improved versions, but you really can't assume I knew you did.

3.5 is always prone to falling apart when people start digging for combos. That's why I'm somewhat less cautious when it comes to 3.5 homebrew-- the game requires some level of conscious power-level-choice no matter what, so it's really only worth looking for things that are over/underpowered in and of themselves (say, Monk), or that are over/underpowered in really obvious combinations (say, Leap Attack+Power Attack).

Fair enough. That's part of the reason why it was so easy for me to "abandon ship" and move on to the next edition and/or Pathfinder. The system-mastery required was approaching inherently toxic levels. You had to learn every trick to break the game or else you'd basically be having BadWrongFun and just shooting yourself in your foot.