|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
(seeing as there's no discussion since last summer, and the search-returned threads were by and large the definition of inconclusive).
Many combat feats refer to "type of weapon" or "weapon type", but the equipment section sorts them by "categories", which makes it rather maddening to determine exactly how exclusive a feat is. For instance, Weapon Focus only refers to "type of weapon", and refers to "rays" (for spellcasters), lending the impression that "sword" or "polearm" would be a type of weapon (since there are many rays, and many swords, etc), while others such as Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Improved Critical are quite specific. In the fighter class section, weapons are further sorted by "groups".
A FAQ ruling would be appreciated (and I recommend all instances of "type of" and similar be removed from Feat descriptions in the next print-cycle, unless there's going to be a new "Type" table...and that would be cool).
|
I have to agree with you on this one, it is rather unclear. I've always treated it as 'one weapon per feat taken', but only because I assumed that was how it worked.
Interestingly enough, weapons DO have a type. Piercing/Bludgeoning/Slashing. So I should be able to take Weapon Focus: Slashing. :) I'll have to read up on those old threads.
|
|
From the prerequisites for Weapon Focus, "weapon type" means one specific selection with which you could be proficient, as for the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat or classes that grant proficiency in selected weapons.
This generally means one line on the Weapons table, apart from certain weapons whose descriptions say that they use the same proficiency as another weapon. MWP makes it clear that a "weapon type" is not the same as the category "martial weapons", which would be the other possible interpretation. You can't be proficient with "swords" or "polearms", so those are not valid selections.
You can also take Weapon Focus for one of the other choices listed in the feat description. This is a list of specific selections, not of examples (though it's not an exhaustive list, as a creature can have, for instance, Weapon Focus with one of its natural attack forms).
It depends on the feat in question.
Weapon Focus is chosen for one sort of weapon, such as longswords or greatclubs, not a broader group.
I was going to back this by the old "this is the way it always have been"-argument, but decided to find something more substantial based on the core rules.
Take a look at the Marilith for example. She has got weapon focus (longswords).
You can find the same appliance of WF in a lot of monsters in the beastiaries and NPCs in adventure paths.
Weapon type isn't clearly defined, but I sincerely doubt that there is going to be an errata concerning this (and even less a substantial change for further printings).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
See? -- This is the problem: Two posters in a row with different interpretations, because it's not explicitly detailed anywhere. "Type of" is a HUGE arbitrary when there isn't a "Type" table.
Now for an example of how it could become a bigger problem in Society play: A half-elf PC has an Elven Curved Sword and the Heirloom Weapon trait. Around 9th level or so (after he's picked up WF, WS, ImpCrit, etc.) the thing gets sundered/stolen/rusted whatever. He thinks, no problem: just pick up a Bastardsword and swing that two-handed. But then he's informed that his feat-chain is more restrictive than he thought it was, and that since he didn't take Exotic Weapon Proficiency before Weapon Focus, and because there are no "retraining rules" in Society play -- his character is scroooooooood.
RECOMMENDATION: If it is the Paizo intent to make WF and WS less restrictive than they were in WOTC 3e, Errata-declare that all instances of "Type of" be converted to "Group of" (as listed in the Fighter section under Weapon Training on p56).
(IMO retraining rules are needed for Society play for reasons such as these.)
|
See? -- This is the problem: Two posters in a row with different interpretations, because it's not explicitly detailed anywhere. "Type of" is a HUGE arbitrary when there isn't a "Type" table.
Now for an example of how it could become a bigger problem in Society play: A half-elf PC has an Elven Curved Sword and the Heirloom Weapon trait. Around 9th level or so (after he's picked up WF, WS, ImpCrit, etc.) the thing gets sundered/stolen/rusted whatever. He thinks, no problem: just pick up a Bastardsword and swing that two-handed. But then he's informed that his feat-chain is more restrictive than he thought it was, and that since he didn't take Exotic Weapon Proficiency before Weapon Focus, and because there are no "retraining rules" in Society play -- his character is scroooooooood.
RECOMMENDATION: If it is the Paizo intent to make WF and WS less restrictive than they were in WOTC 3e, Errata-declare that all instances of "Type of" be converted to "Group of" (as listed in the Fighter section under Weapon Training on p56).
(IMO retraining rules are needed for Society play for reasons such as these.)
Well if they have specialization, that means atleast 4 fighter levels. Fightets CAN retrain feats every few levels. Or they could always take EWP and be fine.
That's the breaks of trying to be cheap and beat the system.
|
|
1) The char-concept above isn't being "cheap" by not taking EWP if he doesn't need it. If it transpires that he needs it later -- "Hi! I'm here for my GED exam because they said I need one now to do my job!" -- and the mechanics don't let him, then something needs to be fixed.
2) A fighter's retraining is all well and good, but what if the character is in his prestige class now, and is two levels away from the next even-numbered fighter level? Even if he takes EWP in a general odd-level slot, his WF & WS still won't work because the ordering of the feats will be wrong, and WF disqualified and hence WS also disqualified until they're in the proper order. Now imagine that his PRC has a prerequisite of WF or WS. Or that he took Weapon Focus at 1st level but his 1st-level class wasn't Fighter. He's screwed -- and in that position because what weapons the feats actually apply to isn't clear in several cases.
RECOMMENDATION: If it is the Paizo intent to make WF and WS less restrictive than they were in WOTC 3e, Errata-declare that all instances of "Type of" be converted to "Group of" (as listed in the Fighter section under Weapon Training on p56).
Can you explain, why you interprete 'type of' as 'group of'?
I can't really find anything to support this, other than the fact that 'type of' itself isn't satisfactory.
2) A fighter's retraining is all well and good, but what if the character is in his prestige class now, and is two levels away from the next even-numbered fighter level? Even if he takes EWP in a general odd-level slot, his WF & WS still won't work because the ordering of the feats will be wrong, and WF disqualified and hence WS also disqualified until they're in the proper order. Now imagine that his PRC has a prerequisite of WF or WS. Or that he took Weapon Focus at 1st level but his 1st-level class wasn't Fighter. He's screwed -- and in that position because what weapons the feats actually apply to isn't clear in several cases.
As far as I can tell this is a non-issue: the game does not care about the order in which you took feats as long as you qualified for them at the time. Feats that you do not qualify for at the moment simply 'turn off'. I cannot cite an example involving feat chains, but the most common example of this is Power Attack. If your Strength drops below 13 from temporary or permanent ability damage, the feat just turns off until you meet the pre-requisites again.
Depending on the PRC I can see this still causing problems, for example is if calls out 'Make X special attack with a weapon you have Weapon Focus for' then yes, since you no longer qualify for Weapon Focus, you probably can't make the attack. Still, we have hit very, very corner case territory here.
Also, while society play might track the levels at which you gained certain feats (I'm not sure, I have never played PFS), the base game doesn't force you to, so there isn't even necessarily a mechanic for adjudicating the order in which someone took all of his feats anyway.
|
|
We're getting side-tracked on the retraining issue (which I brought up simply to illustrate a point) -- however that sidetracking itself serves to highlight the "snowball effect" downstream of the poor wording in the WF/WS/etc combat feats.
Can you explain, why you interprete 'type of' as 'group of'?
"Type" and "group", as nouns, are synonyms (and so are "category" and "classification" and all the rest). -- Thus the need for tables.
The fighter class section has the only thing remotely resembling an organized grouping, and it's a natural inclination to default to it when the wording of a feat is otherwise ambiguous.
The intention is for a Weapon Focus (and similar feats) to apply to a 'type' of weapon, such as longswords, or short swords, or light crossbows.
If the text had said to select one weapon, then it would be interpreted that a Fighter with Weapon Focus has focused with a single Longsword, and that his training would not apply to a +1 Longsword he found in a ruins. This ability exists elsewhere, but it is not what the game assumes your martial combatant will rely on.
If it had been intended to apply to multiple different weapons such as One-handed Martial weapons, then yes, it would have said categories.
I have the impression that we're all proficient in this game system enough to know what Weapon Focus applies to. For those that don't, take a look at what some of the monsters have selected for their Weapon Focus from the Bestiary (such as Claw on the Xill, Falchion on orcs, I believe), or what Pathfinder NPCs have selected for their own. Beyond that I wouldn't advise trying to squeeze extra benefit out of the feats.
This is strictly house-rule territory, but both in my own games, and the games I'm in, we've done the following :
Weapon Proficiency (Fighter Group)
Weapon Proficiency, Exotic (Fighter Group) (Prereq : WP (FG))
Weapon Focus (Fighter Group)
Weapon Specialization (Fighter Group) (Prereq : WF (FG))
Weapon Specialization, Greater (Fighter Group) (Prereq : WS (FG))
If you have the exotic proficiency for the group, you have it for all exotic weapons in the group. If you have Weapon Focus (Group), you have it for all weapons in the group (including exotics if you have the Exotic proficiency for the group).
1/2 BAB classes get 1 group
2/3 BAB classes get 2 groups (Monks have to take Monk Weapons as 1 group, unless they are Zen Archers, then they take Bows instead)
Full BAB classes get 4 groups
Again, house rule, but it's working nicely. Most characters tend to have one or two weapons they use anyway, and this gives them the ability to pick up somethign down the road without being penalized for it not being their special type.
I've always liked weapon groups. Bravo, mdt.
LOL, well I do admit it was my idea to bring it up to my current GM. I've always liked that alternate rule from Unearthed Arcana.
|
|
The intention is for a Weapon Focus (and similar feats) to apply to a 'type' of weapon, such as longswords, or short swords, or light crossbows.But we don't really know that....but even if so (i.e., hypothetically you and I know), the wording is still grammatically arbitrary since "type" is not defined.
If the text had said to select one weapon, then it would be interpreted that a Fighter with Weapon Focus has focused with a single Longsword, and that his training would not apply to a +1 Longsword he found in a ruins.And that's an example of reductio ad absurdum run in the other direction. -- All of it existing because the relevant terms are not defined.
I have the impression that we're all proficient in this game system enough to know what Weapon Focus applies to.And what if we weren't (see example can-of-worms situation I provided previously). -- I would submit to you that the average player is certainly not all that proficient with this game system or any other, and especially so given the melange of 3.5 and Pathfinder rolled together in their subconscious.
For those that don't, take a look at what some of the monsters have selected for their Weapon Focus from the Bestiary (such as Claw on the Xill, Falchion on orcs, I believe),
The fact that you're even bringing up monster characteristics from the Bestiary as a means of rules adjudication for a Combat feat definition query involving the Core Rulebook kind of beggars the point: What is currently written is insufficiently descriptive.