Improved Weapon Attack


Skills & Feats


Damage dealing for higher level fighter types is suggested to be a little low and eclipsed by spellcasters. Perhaps a simple feat (requiring Good BAB progression or something like that) could change this.

Improved Natural Attack from the MM advances the die used for a monster's damage rolls. Why not make a similar feat for weapons.

Example: selecting "Improved Weapon Attack" for the longsword would upgrade it from 1d8 to 2d6 damage. Obviously a prerequistie would be needed to restrict it to a medium or higher level character (perhaps BAB +7).

Just a thought.

What do you think?

Scarab Sages

I think a single fighter attack SHOULD be eclipsed by the rare and expendable major class feature of the wizard.

Hm. I guess that didn't really answer your question the way you wanted.

Anyway, sounds like an alright feat. But honestly by the time that happens the actual weapon damage is the smallest component of damage done by a fighter. I'm not sure upping the weapon damage would have a big effect (the average damage from a d8 is 4.5, while from 2d6 it's 7... sure, a big percentage jump in weapon damage, but probably mostly lost in the myriad bonuses that get added on after that).

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I proposed this in another thread about removing iterative attacks:

Skeld wrote:

Fighter Ability: Stand & Fight

When executing a Full-Round Attack, a 1st level Fighter adds an additional 1d6 to all attacks made as part of that attack action. This bonus damage increases to 2d6 at level 6, 3d6 at level 11, to a maximum of 4d6 at level 16. Bonus damage is physical damage of the same type as the weapon used to deliver it (slashing for a longsword, piercing for an arrow, etc.) and is affected by Damage Reduction as normal. Should a Fighter score a critical hit, this bonus damage is not multiplied.
This bonus damage applies to ranged attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
This bonus damage does not apply to attacks made to deal nonlethal damage.


A fairly good concept except for the fact that backwards compatibility means iterative attacks are here to stay. But it looked cool. Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
A fairly good concept except for the fact that backwards compatibility means iterative attacks are here to stay.

You are correct. I think backwards compatibility dictates that iterative attacks won't go away. However, lisa did mention in another thread that they were still looking for suggestions on some subjects, including iterative attacks. This is still an important topic to discuss.

-Skeld


Yeah, adding more weapon damage, especially with Improved Vital Strike available to combo with, is just not a good idea. A good reason for Imp Nat Attack is because it adds damage to weapons that can not be enchanted. If a fighter wants an extra d6 of damage, the fighter should get a flaming sword. Fighters already have damage bonuses in the form of weapon training and weapon specialization.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
awp832 wrote:
If a fighter wants an extra d6 of damage, the fighter should get a flaming sword...

...which runs entirely counter to the another 3e/3.5e criticism: higher-level PC's are nothing more than collections of magical items.

Adding bonus damage as a class feature removes the arguement that a Fighter "has to have the +5 Glorious Wonder Sword of Extra Damage" to be effective.

-Skeld

Dark Archive

awp832 wrote:
Yeah, adding more weapon damage, especially with Improved Vital Strike available to combo with, is just not a good idea. A good reason for Imp Nat Attack is because it adds damage to weapons that can not be enchanted. If a fighter wants an extra d6 of damage, the fighter should get a flaming sword. Fighters already have damage bonuses in the form of weapon training and weapon specialization.

Your argument falls flat on several levels. First, Monks can take Imp. Natural Strike for their unarmed strike, stacking with the increased unarmed strike damage from the monk class. Second, Jason is adding a item to allow the monk to enchant their unarmed strikes. Even if you don't like that, they could still do it under 3.5 with Amulet of Mighty Fists. And lastly, Imp Vital Strike stacks with the furry of blows, allowing the monk to make three attacks with each at 12d8 damage+damage mod.

And thats still no better than a TWFing rouge using sneak attack with the full attack. (60d6 [210 average damage {Not even counting weapon damage!}] vs. 36d8 damage [168 average damage])

In turn both of them have spend three feats at level 20 to do comparable damage to a wizard simply using a single save or die spell (20 caster level * 10 damage/caster level=200 damage) so their not even overpowered.

Allowing an Imp weapon attack feat isn't going to break the game in any way. Just give a small powerup to martial types.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Not to mention, Vital Strike and IVS are actually pretty crap feats for a fighter (great for a monk, though) precisely because so little of his damage comes from the dX of his weapon. It's simply not worth trading iterative attacks to get an extra 1d8 or 2d6 on one hit. I ran the numbers in several situations, and even an enlarged fighter loses average damage per round using VS and IVS. With a feat like this added in, it might pull it up into a bonus, but I'm not sure.


BM wrote:

Your argument falls flat on several levels. First, Monks can take Imp. Natural Strike for their unarmed strike, stacking with the increased unarmed strike damage from the monk class. Second, Jason is adding a item to allow the monk to enchant their unarmed strikes. Even if you don't like that, they could still do it under 3.5 with Amulet of Mighty Fists. And lastly, Imp Vital Strike stacks with the furry of blows, allowing the monk to make three attacks with each at 12d8 damage+damage mod.

And thats still no better than a TWFing rouge using sneak attack with the full attack. (60d6 [210 average damage {Not even counting weapon damage!}] vs. 36d8 damage [168 average damage])

Firstly, I am aware that Monks can take Improved Natural attack for their unarmed strike, increasing damage dice. But, while it is true that monks can "enchant" their fists with amulet of mighty fists (or even with a Greater Magic Weapon/ Greater Magic Fang spell) what they can not do is add extra *dice* through enchantment. Monks can not have +1 vicious holy shocking unarmed strikes for +5d6 extra damage as fighters can do with their swords. Sure you can put that stuff on a Kama, but then you arent getting any use out of Improved Natural attack, are you?

Second, Monks can not get improved vital strike unless they multiclass into fighter or something with full BAB, the base attack requirement is too high. They *can* get the first feat, vital strike, however.

As for your TWF rogue; first of all, I didn't make that call, and I think sneak attack damage is too high, especially when considering TWF, but that's not what's on trial here. Anyway, even so, the rogue does not have full BAB, so by 20th level a fighter's attacks should be *TEN* (twelve, if the fighter is not TWF) higher than the rogues (or the monks, for that matter)! You're assuming all of a rogue's attacks are going to hit, which they're not. Fighters are far more likely to hit, so you have to be careful when you give them extra dice, it can make a far greater difference than a few d6s of sneak attack.

The poster after you made the same mistake, saying he "ran the numbers". Well, that all depends on the AC of the target, doesn't it? if you're fighting something with a low or medium AC, sure, but enemies with very high AC are going to change those numbers a lot.


Sooo...the consensus is that "Improved Weapon Attack" is far from game breaking and is in fact not enough?


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Sooo...the consensus is that "Improved Weapon Attack" is far from game breaking and is in fact not enough?

I think improved weapon attack is a great idea. I posted something similar, but this idea is a lot simpler and would work better.

I think imp. weapon attack should be a fighter-only feat, and weapon specialization, greater weapon spec, and greater weapon focus should stay as they are in the SRD and be based on base attack bonus for their prereqs, and not fighter levels.

So for example, weapon spec's prereqs would be "base attack bonus +4" instead of "fighter level 4."

Greater weapon spec would have prereqs of "Weapon spec, base attack bonus +8" or +12 or whatever, and greater weapon focus' prereqs would be "weapon focus, base attack bonus of +8" or whatever you want it to be.

This way, fighters, monks, barbarians, rangers, and rogues can further specialize in weapons but fighters will still get the most mileage out of weapon feat use with the "weapon training" and "weapon mastery" class features. Improved weapon attack could have "fighter level 8" as a prereq, allowing a mid level pure fighter to get a special boost to one weapon type or weapon group, allowing him to stay ahead of the curve but also allowing other warror and rogue types to specialize. What do you think?

The fantasy literature also supports the idea that non-fighters can be weapon specialists: Drizzt, Artemis Entreri, and several other ranger/rogue type characters from the popular fantasy books are weapon specialists.

What do you think?


I'd like a fighter class feature, gained at 2nd level:

Martial Strike (Ex) The fighter gains a competence bonus on weapon damage equal to half his class level.

(I'd make weapon training just a + to attack, then). In that manner, fighters would instantly become the best class at fighting... with anything from a longsword to a two-by-four. +10 at 20th level is far less impressive than +10d6 for rogues (+10 bleeding, now), but it would be constant instead of situational. And there would be strong incentive to stay single-classed, instead of multiclassing with barbarian or something. And, as S W offered, we could open up Weapon Specialization to all classes without hurting the fighter.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'd like a fighter class feature, gained at 2nd level:

Martial Strike (Ex) The fighter gains a competence bonus on weapon damage equal to half his class level.

(I'd make weapon training just a + to attack, then). In that manner, fighters would instantly become the best class at fighting... with anything from a longsword to a two-by-four. +10 at 20th level is far less impressive than +10d6 for rogues (+10 bleeding, now), but it would be constant instead of situational. And there would be strong incentive to stay single-classed, instead of multiclassing with barbarian or something. And, as S W offered, we could open up Weapon Specialization to all classes without hurting the fighter.

I was reading the forums and there are some posts about the greter weapon focus and weapons spec feats requiring "base atatck bonus" instead of "fighter level x" now. Was that changed in the phb2? or is it a Paizo rule for Pathfinder? I was wondering if the weapon spec feats are already available to other classes now, since fighters get inherent weapon bonuses with the weapon training class ability.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Skills & Feats / Improved Weapon Attack All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats