You can only take Weapon Focus once for each weapon. GWF lets you get a bigger bonus for that one weapon.
That’s because Weapon Focus does not stack.
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Did a search and couldn't find anything.
what is the benefit of choosing GWF when Weapon Focus stacks? I know one requires 8th level fighter, but there is nothing to suggest a benefit in the book, same thing for Greater Weapon Specialization
You can't take Weapon Focus for the same weapon twice, each time you take this feat, you must choose another weapon. In other words, Weapon Focus doesn't stack with itself. Greater Weapon Focus, however, can stack with Weapon focus, but it can't stack with itself.
Did a search and couldn't find anything.
what is the benefit of choosing GWF when Weapon Focus stacks? I know one requires 8th level fighter, but there is nothing to suggest a benefit in the book, same thing for Greater Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Focus grants +1 bonus which stacks with Weapon Focus +1 bonus for a total +2 bonus which stacks with other bonuses. Also, it grants access to Greater Weapon Specialization which grants +2 bonus to damage for a total of +4 damage with selected weapon with regular Weapon Specialization.
|
I've got a question with weapons training being add to the fighter it kind of negates weapons focus unless they stack.
If a figthter has weapons training axes 2 and gets +2 to hit and damage with axes I don't see why he could not take Weapons Speicalization or greater weapons seicalization with a single type of ax replacing weapons focus.
Basicly what I'm asking is why do you need weapons focus to qualify for weapons speicalization if you have weapons training.
rofl
Love how you "did a search", but "only read the first sentence"
I've got a question with weapons training being add to the fighter it kind of negates weapons focus unless they stack.
If a figthter has weapons training axes 2 and gets +2 to hit and damage with axes I don't see why he could not take Weapons Speicalization or greater weapons seicalization with a single type of ax replacing weapons focus.
Basicly what I'm asking is why do you need weapons focus to qualify for weapons speicalization if you have weapons training.
Weapon Focus stacks with Weapon Training.
I've got a question with weapons training being add to the fighter it kind of negates weapons focus unless they stack.
If a figthter has weapons training axes 2 and gets +2 to hit and damage with axes I don't see why he could not take Weapons Speicalization or greater weapons seicalization with a single type of ax replacing weapons focus.
Basicly what I'm asking is why do you need weapons focus to qualify for weapons speicalization if you have weapons training.
Yes you do. Having an ability that is similar to a feat does not equal having that feat as a prerequisite.
edit: The 2nd sentence is the reason why. I was responding to the last post even though I replied to this one. The weapon training is just a way to make the fighter better at what it does. It was never meant to replace a feat.
|
I would ask a somewhat opposite question. Why can only fighters select specialization and other fighter-only feats? If, say a rogue, wanted to drop two feats on WF and WS, why not let them? Is it really a big deal to allow non-fighters access? Most of the feats have a BAB requirement anyway, so in addition to being feat "starved" most non-fighter classes suffer from slower BAB progression as well.
I would ask a somewhat opposite question. Why can only fighters select specialization and other fighter-only feats? If, say a rogue, wanted to drop two feats on WF and WS, why not let them? Is it really a big deal to allow non-fighters access? Most of the feats have a BAB requirement anyway, so in addition to being feat "starved" most non-fighter classes suffer from slower BAB progression as well.
+ A GIGANTIC 1
I would ask a somewhat opposite question. Why can only fighters select specialization and other fighter-only feats? If, say a rogue, wanted to drop two feats on WF and WS, why not let them? Is it really a big deal to allow non-fighters access? Most of the feats have a BAB requirement anyway, so in addition to being feat "starved" most non-fighter classes suffer from slower BAB progression as well.
I think it is mostly an insurance policy to make sure that fighter remain king in their area. I don't think allowing other classes to take it would matter too much though.
I would ask a somewhat opposite question. Why can only fighters select specialization and other fighter-only feats? If, say a rogue, wanted to drop two feats on WF and WS, why not let them? Is it really a big deal to allow non-fighters access? Most of the feats have a BAB requirement anyway, so in addition to being feat "starved" most non-fighter classes suffer from slower BAB progression as well.
The only concern I would have with this, is that weapon specialization is likely to be a feat that everybody takes (barbarians, paladins, monks, rogues and rangers), and in many of these cases it will be a significant damage increase, as they are focused on making many attacks. I fear that players prone to optimization will be less inclined to choose more flavourful feats compared to it.
And as wraithstrike mentions, keeping it fighter-only, is one of the ways to (weapon training the other) to make the fighter slightly more the all-around damage-dealer than the other martial classes.It might not do much harm to allow it, but I'd rather ask, what good would come of it?
perhaps I should phrase my question more clearly. If you have weapons training 1, you should not have to buy weapons focus to qualify for weapons specialzation.
Why? Weapon Focus is better than Weapon Specialization anyway. +1 to hit is much more valuable than +2 damage, at least until your last attack is hitting on anything but a 1.
perhaps I should phrase my question more clearly. If you have weapons training 1, you should not have to buy weapons focus to qualify for weapons specialzation.Why? Weapon Focus is better than Weapon Specialization anyway. +1 to hit is much more valuable than +2 damage, at least until your last attack is hitting on anything but a 1.
At level 4, it's quite rare to be doing an average of 40+ points of damage in a single attack (in my experience).
|
|
The only concern I would have with this, is that weapon specialization is likely to be a feat that everybody takes (barbarians, paladins, monks, rogues and rangers), and in many of these cases it will be a significant damage increase, as they are focused on making many attacks. I fear that players prone to optimization will be less inclined to choose more flavourful feats compared to it.
And as wraithstrike mentions, keeping it fighter-only, is one of the ways to (weapon training the other) to make the fighter slightly more the all-around damage-dealer than the other martial classes.It might not do much harm to allow it, but I'd rather ask, what good would come of it?
I don't like rules that restrict the ability of a character to customize himself into the vision a player has. Perhaps the player wants his paladin to really focus on being a holy warrior. Rather than dual-class fighter cleric so he has access to fighter-specific feats, he could just take it as a paladin. I see no balance issues. Either way, he will have late entry for spells, and a slowed feat tree. Non-fighters (except maybe rogues) are still feat-starved (albeit not as bad as 3.5) so blowing two of their feats to gain a +1 to hit and +2 to damage is not much. There are other feats that buff smite, channeling, etc that are more impactful than the minor buffs from WF/WS.
Fighters, Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians all have a way to get a bonus of +2 (or more) to hit and damage, each with different limitations.
The Barbarian has rage - it only works for a limited number of rounds.
The Ranger has Favored Enemy. It works all day long, but only against a specific category of opponent.
The paladin ha Smite, which is usually better than +2/+2, but can be used only once per day against a single opponent.
The fighter has Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization and Weapon Training. It usually has comparable cumulative bonuses, works against everybody, but is tied to a specific piece of equipment.
|
|
My question is more a general one with regards to fighter-specific feats, like Critical Mastery, Disruptive, Spellbreaker, & Penetrating Strike. Why are those restricted? If it's because we want the fighter to be the uber-warrior on the battlefield, why not make some of the monkish feats restricted? For flavor/fluff purposes, do we want anyone to be able to use Scorpion Style-Gorgon's Fist-Medusa's Wrath? After all, you can make a fighter using Unarmed Strikes a better combatant than a monk because he can take all the same feats (albeit with later entry, but more of them) plus the WF/WS chains and still wear heavy armor.
Absolutely Twilight -- because a fighter with all those feats is still going to feel, look and function much differently than a monk does.
If the monk can't outdamage the fighter in unarmed combat (which is a slight possibility) he still has better saves, more abilities and more skill points to throw into the mix as well as some of the best defensive capabilities in the game.
|
|
So if a fighter can emulate the fighting styles/skills of a monk, why can't other classes emulate the fighting styles/skills of a fighter? Because the other classes' buffs are mostly circumstantial, even allowing them to take fighter-specific feats, the fighter will out-fight them in most situations. Seems like an unnecessary restriction.
Because without those restrictions the other classes would have what the fighter has all the time plus their own circumstantial bonuses too. The combination of which would put the fighter being.
Also the fighter (at least fluff wise) is really supposed to be the only one with the time and commitment to do the training needed to get those feats -- the other classes are too busy doing the stuff that allows them to have their own bonuses instead.
I was under the impression you were asking about the fighter specific bonus feats such as penetrating strike, greater penetrating strike or critical mastery.
I would ask a somewhat opposite question. Why can only fighters select specialization and other fighter-only feats?
Why can only rogues get sneak attack? If I want an underhanded fighter with much underhanded damage, I can't!
Why can only clerics (among the core classes, at least) cast mass heal, true resurrection and miracle? My paladin is quite miraculous?
Because they're class features for classes in a class-based game. And those fighter-only feats are fighter class features. They just did it a bit differently: Instead of listing them in the fighter description and saying "Instead of a feat, a fighter can get one of these instead" since fighters are the feat monsters, they often have prerequisites like other feats, and fighters can choose them with their regular feats, too.
But other than that, they're class features.
The answer is not robbing the fighter, but turning the game class-less (or using generic classes like "warrior", "expert" and "spellcaster") and turn everything into class features.
My question is more a general one with regards to fighter-specific feats, like Critical Mastery, Disruptive, Spellbreaker, & Penetrating Strike. Why are those restricted?
Critical Mastery: Fighters are the ultimate warriors, whose focussed training, which is more focussed than everyone else's, lets them apply two critical riders to their crits instead of just one.
Disruptive and Spellbreaker: I guess that's a special path for fighters only, like only rogues can choose the path where they backstab other people's buff and defence spells.
Penetrating Strike: Well, paladins get to be so full of holy fervour that they can completely ignore some of their enemies' SR. Why can't very holy clerics have that?
If it's because we want the fighter to be the uber-warrior on the battlefield, why not make some of the monkish feats restricted?
I don't see them as monkish feats, but more as unarmed warriors' feats. Monks aren't just unarmed warriors
For flavor/fluff purposes, do we want anyone to be able to use Scorpion Style-Gorgon's Fist-Medusa's Wrath? After all, you can make a fighter using Unarmed Strikes a better combatant than a monk because he can take all the same feats (albeit with later entry, but more of them) plus the WF/WS chains and still wear heavy armor.
That's true. If you just want an unarmed fighter, play an unarmed fighter. They're better at it.
A monk's not really for that. They're decent (but not outstanding) unarmed fighters that also get to do a lot of cool, crazy stuff. And the stuff they get is something nobody else can get. No fighter can teleport around as a move action. No fighter can ignore poisons and diseases. No fighter can hit you now and decide to kill you with that punch the day after tomorrow.
I was, but part of your counter was the time involved in training fighter-specific feats. So I counter that point with another question. So maybe I should change my comparison to Weapon Specialization vs. Channel Smite.
My answer is yes -- it does take more time obviously otherwise anyone could do it -- it also takes a commitment to learning fighting and nothing else for 4 levels as demonstrated by taking said levels in the fighter class.
|
|
Why can only rogues get sneak attack? If I want an underhanded fighter with much underhanded damage, I can't!
Why can only clerics (among the core classes, at least) cast mass heal, true resurrection and miracle? My paladin is quite miraculous?
Because they're class features...
I'm okay with that concept, except that feats are not class features. If those feats are intended only for fighters then why not write them that way. Something akin to rogue talents or barbarian rage, maybe call it combat training. At each even level, instead of bonus feats, the fighter gets to select from a list of powers (some level specific) to customize their fighting skills. They would still get the standard feat at each odd level so they can dip into other things like Combat Expertise, TWF, etc. Just seems like the development could have been handled differently, IMHO.
i have to agree with abraham here. Why would u ever relax the requirement on fighter specifik feats? i think the main idea to these restrictions, comes from 3.5 where they in fact where the only thing a fighter could do other classes couldnt. If you lifted the restriction back then, then a paladin, would be able to choose all the fighter abilities, and still have his paladin fluff.
I think you should probably view the fighter specific feats, as abilities intended for the fighter only. like if his lvl 4 bonus feat, gave him his choice of a feat or wp specialization, or something like that. Just another way to implement the things that make a fighter a fighter. you wouldnt agree to a character concept of a fighter that worshipped a god, and then ran around smiting people with the gods power, while still being a fighter would you, just alowing him acces ti smite evil?
to me that is what you are about to do to the fighter, let everyone else steal what makes a fighter, a fighter.
bah "sniped"
I'm okay with that concept, except that feats are not class features. If those feats are intended only for fighters then why not write them that way. ...
im pretty sure that it says requirement is fighter level X, to me that pretty much says its only intended for the fighter, as only they can take them according to the rules.
They effectively did this:
They made a category of feats called Combat Feats. Most people can take most Combat feats. Some people (Fighters) can take ones that only fighters get.
Fighters have a class ability called "Bonus Combat Feat", which is like Rogue Talents, except that they can also select abilities other classes can get with them, and they can still use their regular feats to get them.
The real solution to this is to move about 1/5 of the Combat Feats to General Feats, make the rest Fighter Talents and require a certain number of levels of Fighter. This would, of course, make you even more unhappy...but would give you a contextual framework, like Rogue Talents, to decide it's 'done right' by.
Because if there is any class in the game that desperately needs niche preservation, it's the Fighter, followed by the Barbarian and then the Rogue.
Notice what these three classes lack? A general "Hey that's cool magic" effect.
Twilight -- you are probably right -- it could have been handled differently in all likelihood. However backwards compatibility raises its head again as well as something else a little less obvious: Word count.
Coming up with another new system of "one class tricks" would have eaten up a lot more word count, and required the dropping of other things somewhere. Also the more they changed it from 3.5 the more problems there would be in a change over. Just the few tweaks they did make has cause many questions and hand wringing already -- imagine how much more of this there would be if they had changed the fighter over?
And people would still want these feats -- it makes sense to have a feat line that focuses on using one weapon well, or penetrating a creatures natural defenses or make the most of a lucky hit. So you wouldn't lose word count from taking out the feats because they wouldn't have been taken out.
With the feats left in and the fighter's new system that you would have developed he would have all those bonuses, and then been able to take them again in feat format leading to a game imbalance with the other classes as to what the fighter could achieve in attack bonus and damage (and raised the amount of attack bonus and damage the other classes could do) -- these feats would go from "Nice" to "mandatory" for anyone wanting to participate in combat with weapons -- requiring access to more feat slots for such characters and mandating higher numbers for AC and HP in order to keep things challenging against the new higher numbers everyone would have.
I'm okay with that concept, except that feats are not class features. If those feats are intended only for fighters then why not write them that way.
Note that Monte Cook did something similar in Arcana Evolved with the Warmain class -- it's similar to the Fighter class, except at certain levels it gets a specific class ability instead of a bonus feat. For instance, at level 4, the warmain gets Weapon Specialization instead of a fighter feat.
Note, however, that it makes the Warmain worse (i.e., less versatile) than a Fighter, not better.
With the advent of Weapon Training in Pathfinder, I opened up Weapon Specialization and company to non-fighters. Prereq is a BaB equal to the former fighter level required.
However, I allow fighters to take those feats and apply them to an entire weapon category, like their weapon training, rather than to a single weapon.
The people it really helps are the rogues and other mid BaB melee guys.
|
|
Note, however, that it makes the Warmain worse (i.e., less versatile) than a Fighter, not better.
This could be mitigated by making a list of class abilities that the player could choose from rather than specifying an ability at certain levels. Even the Weapon/Armor training could have been added. I understand the word-count and backward compatibility concepts as well. I'm not saying it wouldn't have required a bit more work on the publication, but with the intense use of beta and play-testing, I'm sure we could have "helped" the developers work out the details. I guess I am just hung up on the fact that feats are not class abilities and to make some of them restricted to a certain class seems like the wrong way to handle the situation. A feat (combat or not) seems like an boon that should be open to any character with similar class-abilities. In any case, I appreciate the banter.
Some feats are class abilities though:
Sorcerer - eschew materials
Wizard - scribe scroll
Ranger - combat style
Monk - bonus feats/unarmed strike/stunning fist
Alchemist - throw anything
Some feats are class abilities though:
Sorcerer - eschew materials
Wizard - scribe scroll
Ranger - combat style
Monk - bonus feats/unarmed strike/stunning fist
Alchemist - throw anything
Those aren't exclusive feats, though. But Extra Mercy, Extra Ki, Extra Rage, Lingering Performance, etc. are essentially paladin/monk/barbarian/bard-only feats, for example.
At level 4, it's quite rare to be doing an average of 40+ points of damage in a single attack (in my experience).perhaps I should phrase my question more clearly. If you have weapons training 1, you should not have to buy weapons focus to qualify for weapons specialzation.Why? Weapon Focus is better than Weapon Specialization anyway. +1 to hit is much more valuable than +2 damage, at least until your last attack is hitting on anything but a 1.
What does that have to do with anything being discussed? For one thing, at level 4, even your first attack isn't hitting on don't-roll-a-one, so bonuses to hit are even more important. For another thing, even if what Lou Diamond proposes were allowed (which is what I was discussing), your point would still be irrelevant, because you don't have Weapon Training 1 at level 4, and thus wouldn't have the option to take Weapon Specialization then. Even if it were, Weapon Focus would still be a better deal than Weapon Specialization. WSpec is only useful for Fighters because only Fighters can throw away feats for marginal gains. +2 damage is pretty marginal; +1 to hit isn't.
|
|
Some feats are class abilities
I guess you could say that, although I don't view it like that. IMO, they are just specific bonus feats granted similar to a fighter's bonus feats, their just more specific. I don't see those as any different than a human selecting any of those as his bonus feat (I know, that could be argued as a race ability). I'm just hung up on the language of "feat" vs. "class ability."
What does that have to do with anything being discussed? For one thing, at level 4, even your first attack isn't hitting on don't-roll-a-one, so bonuses to hit are even more important.At level 4, it's quite rare to be doing an average of 40+ points of damage in a single attack (in my experience).Why? Weapon Focus is better than Weapon Specialization anyway. +1 to hit is much more valuable than +2 damage, at least until your last attack is hitting on anything but a 1.
Huh? I thought it was obvious -- if you're doing 10 points of damage with a successful attack that hits 50% of the time, then a +1 to hit adds +0.5 to your expected damage and a +2 to damage adds +1 to your expected damage. Your statement that a +1 to hit is "much more valuable" is just flat-out wrong for a good portion of a PC's career.
Huh? I thought it was obvious -- if you're doing 10 points of damage with a successful attack that hits 50% of the time, then a +1 to hit adds +0.5 to your expected damage and a +2 to damage adds +1 to your expected damage. Your statement that a +1 to hit is "much more valuable" is just flat-out wrong for a good portion of a PC's career.
A Fighter isn't going to be averaging 10 points of damage at any point in his career. Even at level 1, he's doing at least 2d6+6 (18 strength * 1.5) with a greatsword (or two shortswords, albeit as 1d6+4 and 1d6+2 rather than the totaled 2d6+6), which is 13 average. At level 4, he's going to be doing more like 2d6+15 (20 strength * 1.5, +1 weapon, +6 power attack), or 22 average. Using your 50% figure, that's 1.1 for weapon focus vs 1 for weapon spec. And remember, you should have already taken weapon focus by level 4 because it's available at level 1 and you have either four or five (for humans) to spend before level 4. Considering that WF's value jumps at level 6 with the iterative attack, and Spec doesn't become available until 4, I find that it's your statement that focus is less valuable than specialization "for a good portion of a PC's career" so far out in left field as to be comical.
Furthermore, focus increases the value of specialization. If you take both focus and spec in the level 4 example above, your expected damage jumps by 2.2, which is greater than the sum of 1.1 + 1. If at any point you're considering taking weapon specialization, you should have already bought weapon focus, because it's better and makes specialization better.
Huh? I thought it was obvious -- if you're doing 10 points of damage with a successful attack that hits 50% of the time, then a +1 to hit adds +0.5 to your expected damage and a +2 to damage adds +1 to your expected damage. Your statement that a +1 to hit is "much more valuable" is just flat-out wrong for a good portion of a PC's career.A Fighter isn't going to be averaging 10 points of damage at any point in his career. Even at level 1, he's doing at least 2d6+6 (18 strength * 1.5) with a greatsword, which is 13 average. At level 4, he's going to be doing more like 2d6+15 (20 strength * 1.5, +1 weapon, +6 power attack), or 22 average. Using your 50% figure, that's 1.1 for weapon focus vs 1 for weapon spec.
You're right, I screwed up -- 20 average damage is the break-even point, not 40.
The fighter only feats are essentially fighter class abilities, instead of pigeon-holing fighters into having a few feats + auto gaining the weapon focus feat tree, they gave fighters a lot of feats, and the option to take several feats only he was allowed access to. That being said I like the idea of allowing martial characters to count as half or 1/4 of fighter levels for the purposes of said feats.
I'm okay with that concept, except that feats are not class features. If those feats are intended only for fighters then why not write them that way.Why can only rogues get sneak attack? If I want an underhanded fighter with much underhanded damage, I can't!
Why can only clerics (among the core classes, at least) cast mass heal, true resurrection and miracle? My paladin is quite miraculous?
Because they're class features...
Did you even read what I wrote? Because I explained it there.
A Fighter isn't going to be averaging 10 points of damage at any point in his career.
That's wrong. Your fighters might not, but not everyone plays the same character as you. Others might not actually have an 18 at first level, or might use a different weapon (or even fighting style).
That's wrong. Your fighters might not, but not everyone plays the same character as you. Others might not actually have an 18 at first level, or might use a different weapon (or even fighting style).
A Fighter isn't going to be averaging 10 points of damage at any point in his career.
OK, let me rephrase for the subtext-challenged:
A Fighter who cares about how much damage he's going to do isn't going to be averaging 10 damage per hit at any point in his career. Obviously a Fighter who doesn't care about how much damage he's doing isn't going to do as much, but at the same time that Fighter does not care about the relative value of Weapon Focus versus Weapon Specialization, so your point is quite irrelevant to the actual conversation; its only point is to be annoying.
It's so trivial to get a Fighter to higher than 10 points of average damage that even a decidedly non-optimal Fighter can do it at level 1. 16 Strength (which is low even for rolling for humans, half-elves, or half-orcs) + greatclub (which is the cruddiest martial weapon) + power attack = 12.5 average damage. 14 Strength only lowers that to 11.5. You have to go all the way down to 13 Strength to get under 10 damage per hit with a two-handed weapon or dual wielding 1d6 weapons (technically per pair of hits with dual wield).
Actually, there's one exception: archers. Archery damage relies on composite bows and bracers of archery, which are too expensive at level 1.
A two weapon fighter might be doing less than 10 points average a hit at lower levels.