Using Vital Strike with spells and other craziness

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, I have long had the position that Vital Strike doesn't work for its intended audiences and is only truly good for the kinds of things I don't think it was intended to be. File this little exploration of RAW into that cabinet.

The text of Vital Strike:
[sblock]Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.[/sblock]

Now...a weapon-like spell is treated as a weapon for the purpose of feats and other effects. So as long as you could deliver it as an attack action...such as holding onto the charge of a melee touch spell and using it on the next round or later*, you could from what I'm reading add its damage dice to it as bonus damage. Seems potentially very nasty, it's like Empower but better.
*Or with a ranged touch spell if the spell has a duration and lets you hurl attacks on subsequent rounds like Call Lightning perhaps...I don't know.


Another thing I noticed is that nowhere does it specify hit point damage. If your "weapon" is a Shivering Touch spell (I know, it's broken on its own, but it's the first example of a melee touch spell that does purely ability damage I could think of), the damage it is dealing (in this example) is 3d6 dexterity damage. RAW, it seems you could Vital Strike that for 6d6, more with the later feats.

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? For what it's worth, I don't think this is a good idea to allow, it just seems to be the RAW. If it were up to me...well, check the linked thread.

 

[DogBackward]

There's a sentence you missed at the end. It says "This bonus only applies to manufactured weapons and natural weapons." Yes, the sentence is invisible, but any DM worth his salt will see it right there, plain as day.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

There's a sentence you missed at the end. It says "This bonus only applies to manufactured weapons and natural weapons." Yes, the sentence is invisible, but any DM worth his salt will see it right there, plain as day.

Being able to fix something with House Rules doesn't mean that it was never broken in the first place.

 

[gamerprinter]

Being able to fix something with House Rules doesn't mean that it was never broken in the first place.

Yeah, but which part of "roll the weapon's damage..." doesn't mean a manufactured weapon. Sure you can attack with non-weapons, like your hands in an unarmed strike, but your hands, technically aren't weapons, not even in the description of unarmed combat.

If you try to imply that weapon means something other than a manufactured weapon, you are reading into the rule something that is not there. So Dogbackward doesn't need to read the invisible rule, as visibly in the rule it plainly states "weapon".

"Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total. "

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Yeah, but which part of "roll the weapon's damage..." doesn't mean a manufactured weapon. Sure you can attack with non-weapons, like your hands in an unarmed strike, but your hands, technically aren't weapons, not even in the description of unarmed combat.

The part where it explicitly states that all effects that affect weapons have the same effect on spells that require attack rolls. It's not an implication , it is the plain written language of the rules whether you like it or not and whether you (rightfully) disregard it in your own campaigns or not.

And, for the record, the devs agree that Vital Strike was never supposed to work that way and that they are going to attempt to fix it. Eventually.

 

[DogBackward]

Being able to fix something with House Rules doesn't mean that it was never broken in the first place.

Well... duh. Solving a problem never means that the problem wasn't there to begin with. But it doesn't really matter, now that the problem's been solved. Especially when it's something as simple as saying "This is obviously not how that's meant to work. Sorry, no cheese for you."

 

[gamerprinter]

It's not an implication , it is the plain written language of the rules whether you like it or not and whether you (rightfully) disregard it in your own campaigns or not.

Whose talking about specific campaigns, I'm not? I'm only discussing the text in the Core rules. One can houserule anything, but we're talking about rules not houserules.

I read Vital Strike rules, and did not see this "explicitly in the rules" part that you're talking about. Maybe it's there, but not what I read.

But, yeah, mute point, since the Devs also says it's not supposed to work like that.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

And, for the record, the devs agree that Vital Strike was never supposed to work that way and that they are going to attempt to fix it. Eventually.

But, yeah, mute point, since the Devs also says it's not supposed to work like that.

Can someone link to them saying this? I tried to search to see if this was discussed before but didn't find anything, perhaps my google-fu was weak.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Pathfinder FAQ - Pathfinder_OGC

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I...got distracted by all the strikethrough text... Man, they did one hell of a hit job on VS + Spring Attack synergy...

So, that FAQ shows JJ saying it was never intended to do that. But that was also over 2 years ago, and he says it will be fixed. I've been told JJ isn't a "rule-maker" and he's basically like PF's version of Sage Advice. So I'm not sure how much weight that information actually carries. The fact that they never got around to fixing it could mean no one else at Paizo thought it needed fixing. Or they just forgot. Who knows?