perhaps this question has been answered long ago, but i haven't found it with my terrible search-fu. Could someone please explain to me why Weapon Focus (ray) is a thing, but Weapon Focus (Touch) is not? it seems very odd that ranged touch attacks can be considered a weapon for the purposes of this feat, but melee touch attacks, which are defined as "armed unarmed attacks" are not. With a Touch attack you do not provoke AoO (after you cast it), and can hold the charge as long as you want, effectively holding an attacker at bay defensively, whereas a Ray spell cannot be held and always provokes an AoO. it seems dumb that you cannot take Weapon Focus is something that is more of a weapon (as defined by the rules) than something that you CAN take it in.
and while i do understand that you can pretty much get around this by taking Weapon Focus (unarmed Strike) if you have IUS, the bonus would not apply to the free touch attack associated with the spell unless you were a Magus using spellstrike to deliver it (assuming the "weapon in your other hand" was an Unarmed Strike). it also would not allow you to increase the damage for the spell with subsequent feats such as Weapon Specialization if you could qualify for it.
i just want to know the justification for this, or if its simply an oversight made when the Developers rules that Weapon Focus (Ray) was allowable...
When the rules for weaponlike spells and using applicable feats to enhance them were originally written (in 3.5's Complete Arcane), they stated that you could choose either "ranged spells" (defined as spells requiring a ranged touch attack) or "touch spells" (defined as damage-dealing spells with a range of touch) for feats such as Weapon Focus and several others.
In other words, it should be perfectly fine to choose "Weapon Focus (touch)".
The caveat is that Pathfinder isn't 3.5, and "ray" is the only spellcaster-related choice specified as being available for Weapon Focus in this game (which doesn't even incorporate all ranged touch spells), which means some GMs may not allow it.
well thats kind of the point. why was this part of 3.5 never converted over? it seems like either a complete oversight, or an intentional move by the developers. does anyone know why?
IF it is possible ( I would love to see this commentary) then would the bonus from WF(touch) stack with the one from WF(weapon) when a magus makes a spell strike? For the purposes of this idea, the wording in spellstrike seems to indicate that the free attack from casting the spell is both a weapon attack AND a spell with a range of touch. Beams like cheese to allow it. Perhaps this is the reason its not allowed?
Can someone link or quote where is says weapon focus (touch) exists, please?
Weapon Focus (Combat)
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.
The bold is the fluff. Some people adhere to it. Others ignore it. So depending on the value you give it, this will tell whether you are limited to only what it says or if it is no more than a guideline for possibilities. Personally I treat it as a guideline that helps to set an image or context. It can't always be taken literally, but that doesn't mean it never can.
With that said, WF(Touch) sounds reasonable to me. Unless there is some rule specifically disallowing it that someone knows of, I think it falls comfortably within RAW.
Incidentally since "Grapple" is called out, can you Weapon Focus any other maneuvers? ;)
So for melee touch spellcasters, the real question is whether "Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)" includes melee touch attacks. I think I always assumed that it did.
|
So for melee touch spellcasters, the real question is whether "Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)" includes melee touch attacks. I think I always assumed that it did.
It most definitely does not. Unarmed strikes work under a vastly different set of rules as touch attacks. They hit normal AC, not touch AC, they don't threaten without a feat, they deal damage based on your size, etc.
Can someone link or quote where is says weapon focus (touch) exists, please?You bet:
Weapon Focus (Touch) is a thing, and you can take it.
*fist-bump*