It says in the Weapon Focus feat discription that you can choose Unarmed Strike for this feat. It also says in the Unarmed Strike section under Armed Unarmed Strike that natural attacks are considered Unarmed Strikes. However in the druid priview the druid had Weapon Focus(Claw) for a feat. I found nowhere in the book that showed rules for natural attacks being able to be chosen for Weapon Focus except for Unarmed Strike. While I know it could be argued that claws are different than bites and what not and should not be covered by the same feat I found no where in the book that said these were seperate for choosing this feat.
It says in the Weapon Focus feat discription that you can choose Unarmed Strike for this feat. It also says in the Unarmed Strike section under Armed Unarmed Strike that natural attacks are considered Unarmed Strikes. However in the druid priview the druid had Weapon Focus(Claw) for a feat. I found nowhere in the book that showed rules for natural attacks being able to be chosen for Weapon Focus except for Unarmed Strike. While I know it could be argued that claws are different than bites and what not and should not be covered by the same feat I found no where in the book that said these were seperate for choosing this feat.
A claw is a type of natural weapon. A natural weapon is a weapon. A claw is a type of weapon. Weapon focus lets you select one type of weapon. You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made using the selected weapon.
|
Think of it this way. Claws, bites, unarmed strikes are all part of the Natural Attacks group. Just like certain swords are all "Blades" or the Handaxe and Greataxe are both "Axes", etc.
Weapon Focus is very specific in what you get, you pick a specific *type* of weapon. You cannot pick a group.
So yes, you would pick "Claw", "Unarmed Strike", etc.
A claw is a type of natural weapon. A natural weapon is a weapon. A claw is a type of weapon. Weapon focus lets you select one type of weapon. You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made using the selected weapon.
However Natural Atacks are Unarmed Strikes and if you have a feat that gives you +1 to Unarmed Strikes you should get +1 to your Natural Attacks since they are a type of Unarmed Strike. What you say makes sence in a real world way but mechanicaly I think it is terible because it would really cut down on what forms you could use effectively.
Think of it this way. Claws, bites, unarmed strikes are all part of the Natural Attacks group. Just like certain swords are all "Blades" or the Handaxe and Greataxe are both "Axes", etc.
Weapon Focus is very specific in what you get, you pick a specific *type* of weapon. You cannot pick a group.
So yes, you would pick "Claw", "Unarmed Strike", etc.
Yes I have already thought of this argument as well. Now if only in every form I could turn into I could use my Feat. But then I couldn't. My wolf doesn't get a claw attack so I will be a cat. Natuaral Atacks are not like weapon groups IMO because even though the fighter doesn't get to use a Great Sword with his Long Sword Weapon Focus feat he can use his Long Sword all day long in every attack he can do. I think Mechanicaly it doesn't make sence and also I have found nothing in the rules that suports that Natural Attacks are a weapon group. Trust me I looked.
Yes I have already thought of this argument as well. Now if only in every form I could turn into I could use my Feat. But then I couldn't. My wolf doesn't get a claw attack so I will be a cat. Natuaral Atacks are not like weapon groups IMO because even though the fighter doesn't get to use a Great Sword with his Long Sword Weapon Focus feat he can use his Long Sword all day long in every attack he can do. I think Mechanicaly it doesn't make sence and also I have found nothing in the rules that suports that Natural Attacks are a weapon group. Trust me I looked.Think of it this way. Claws, bites, unarmed strikes are all part of the Natural Attacks group. Just like certain swords are all "Blades" or the Handaxe and Greataxe are both "Axes", etc.
Weapon Focus is very specific in what you get, you pick a specific *type* of weapon. You cannot pick a group.
So yes, you would pick "Claw", "Unarmed Strike", etc.
Um...let me help then. Pathfinder RPG, page 56, talking about fighters Weapons Training ability and groups. Natural Weapons are a group there. Unarmed Strike is listed seperately from the others it mentions.
Furthermore, while we have to wait until the bestiary comes out, since the game is based on 3.5, look at the feat Improved Natural Attack from the MM. It specifies a specific natural weapon (claws, bite, tail, wings, whatever you have) to get the increase.
Considering the difference in the real world betwen, oh say a mountain lion using claws and a bear using claws, or a wolf biting vs a bird biting, seems fair to me to split it up, since even related weapons don't get to share weapon focus, why should un-related natural attacks?
Thank you for pointing out the fighter weapon groups section. I didn't see that which is exactly why I posted in the forums in the first place. Yes I know, as I stated in my first post, about the real world implications I was making. I was talking mechanicaly only and I already said why in a privious post. It seems no one agrees with me though. It really makes weapon focus a sub par feat for a druid who wants to use lots of different forms.
Thank you for pointing out the fighter weapon groups section. I didn't see that which is exactly why I posted in the forums in the first place. Yes I know, as I stated in my first post, about the real world implications I was making. I was talking mechanicaly only and I already said why in a privious post. It seems no one agrees with me though. It really makes weapon focus a sub par feat for a druid who wants to use lots of different forms.
I gathered as much, but thats also why I want to point this out...
there are what, 3 really common animal attacks. In order they are Claw, Bite, Slam. Almost all animals have a claw attack, so its good bang for your buck. Next up is Bite, which again, most animals have, so good bang for your buck there to...plus, theres overlap between clawing animals and biting animals, many do both. Slam is the least common, but its there (if memory serves), and is shared by elementals and plants as well.
so, for the variety of attack forms they get, and other neat abilities, to get the +1 to attack universally, it only takes what, 3 feats pretty much. And considering the str bonus they get by shifting, I'm not really sure its needed.
I gathered as much, but thats also why I want to point this out...there are what, 3 really common animal attacks. In order they are Claw, Bite, Slam. Almost all animals have a claw attack, so its good bang for your buck. Next up is Bite, which again, most animals have, so good bang for your buck there to...plus, theres overlap between clawing animals and biting animals, many do both. Slam is the least common, but its there (if memory serves), and is shared by elementals and plants as well.
so, for the variety of attack forms they get, and other neat abilities, to get the +1 to attack universally, it only takes what, 3 feats pretty much. And considering the str bonus they get by shifting, I'm not really sure its needed.
Only 3 feats....that is a lot. But C'est la vie. I think it is needed with a 3/4 BAB. Though in 3.5 I would say it wasn't needed because the amount of str you got more than made up for it. I guess I should be happy that claws are now primary attacks. I am looking forward to the PF beastiary to get more details on this.