Weapon Focus vs. Greater Weapon Focus


Rules Questions

51 to 54 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Zurai wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Zurai wrote:


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).

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.

While you are not incorrect, I believe your calculations are off on the dualwielding fighter.

Given that he gains the damage bonus on both attacks, it raises your level 4 example (20 str, +1 weapon, PA), average damage with WS is 13 compared to 12.1 with WF.

You are right, the fighter would have both, and as weapon focus is a requirement for weapon specialization, it is never a choice between the two.

But I don't believe that WS is a sub-optimal choice, as any fighter should take it, and IMHO most other martial classes, especially if they rely on multiple attacks rather than few hard hitting ones.


Abraham spalding wrote:
A two weapon fighter might be doing less than 10 points average a hit at lower levels.

I covered that. "technically per pair of hits with dual wield"


Zurai wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
A two weapon fighter might be doing less than 10 points average a hit at lower levels.
I covered that. "technically per pair of hits with dual wield"

Fair enough then I missed that line. It did matter in one of my recent games -- we have a dual wielder in our Saturday game that had a lot of trouble over coming DR between level 4~6. He is in much better shape now at level 7 though.


Unfortunately DR hits TWF and archers disproportionately hard.

At low point buy values the high cost of TWF and the need to go with paired light weapons plus the penalty to hit might drive the average DPR down significantly. Increased chances to hit CR appropriate monsters might balance that out but I rather doubt it.

Of course the TWF needs bonuses to hit anyway he can so he should always be taking WF whenever possible.

51 to 54 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Weapon Focus vs. Greater Weapon Focus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions