You can have Weapon Focus (Grapple). Which is basically using your body to restrain someone. You can also use Weapon Focus for whatever weapon you're using to Disarm, Trip, or Sunder.
What about Bull Rush and Overrun? Here you're using your body to either shove someone or push past someone. Can you Focus with those just like you can Grapple?
I would not allow it myself, as I don't want people double-stacking Weapon Focus (weapon used in maneuver) with Weapon Focus (maneuver itself). Now, if Paizo publishes a feat, "Maneuver Focus (type of maneuver)", that's another story.
Grapple is a little odd in that it's usually done with your bare manipulators (hands, tentacles, whatever) but there are a rare few weapons that you can grapple with (nets, mancatchers, etc.)
No. There are already feats for combat maneuvers. Improved (maneuver) and Greater (maneuver). These feats each give you +2 instead of +1. There is no need to stack another +1 from Weapon Focus on each one. Although if you have Weapon Focus with the weapon being used in the maneuver and you have Improved/Greater (maneuver), both bonuses will apply.
Weapon Focus doesn't stack with itself so having Weapon Focus (Disarm) and Weapon Focus (Longsword) would not grant you a +2 when disarming with a Longsword. You would still only get +1.
Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun, meanwhile, do not generally use any weapons. So they do not benefit from any extra bonuses and there is no way to attempt to stack WF feats. We know that Weapon Focus (Grapple) is already allowed. Thus my question concerning Bull Rush and Overrun. As they don't use weapons either, it doesn't seem hard to imagine allowing Focus for them. Impr and Greater feats give +2 each. WF only grants a +1...which is a rather expensive way to bump one's CMB.
But either way, was just wondering what people thought.
Unless I'm forgetting something there is not a weapon focus (disarm/trip/sunder).
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.
So it wouldn't be possible to double dip in those instances. Take weapon focus (weapon) and when you use that weapon it would also apply to trip/disarm/sunder made with that weapon.
As noted there is the various improved <maneuver> for those purposes.
If there were a weapon focus (maneuver) it would stack with weapon focus (weapon) as the bonus granted from weapon focus is untyped. Untyped bonuses always stack unless from the same source - I wouldn't call weapon focus (x) the same source as weapon focus (y).
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.
I read the first bold as the context, not the rule. It is the fluff. It gives us examples of how the feat works, but this may not be the full limit of what is allowed.
I read the second bold to mean that it can't stack with itself. So Weapon Focus (Disarm) and Weapon Focus (Longsword) would not grant +2 when disarming with a longsword.
I'm aware of the Impr and Greater feats that grant +2 in addition to other things. But someone who wanted to focus on overrunning might be able to squeeze another +1 out of the rules at the cost of a feat.
Maybe. I'm not seeing anything that would specifically disallow this (although maybe someone sees something I've missed). As stated, Weapon Focus(Grapple) is there already and that's as much a Maneuver as Bull Rush and Overrun. So if a maneuver is allowed...
If you treat that first bold as "fluff" with no meaning and only the "Benefit:" as rules, then you can only take Weapon Focus for actual weapons. That first bold is rules, or you can't take grapple because it's not a weapon.
Having Weapon Focus (Maneuver) also reduces the value of the Improved Maneuver feats, as the prerequisites are easier.
|
Is a bull rush a weapon? I don't think so; it's something you do with a weapon (probably an unarmed strike), but it's not a weapon itself.
Grapple is specifically allowed; I'm not really sure why. Maybe because it's somewhat separate from unarmed strikes. After all, creatures with Grab do grappling without using unarmed strikes.
But I don't think other maneuvers are considered weapons, and therefore not valid targets for Weapon Focus.
The problem is the wf grapple example is our only example ro go on. There is no general rule to use.
If you treat that first bold as "fluff" with no meaning and only the "Benefit:" as rules, then you can only take Weapon Focus for actual weapons. That first bold is rules, or you can't take grapple because it's not a weapon.
Just to be sure here, you're saying that the "fluff" is actually the rule? Because in other feats it's not. Some people think the "fluff" is just that and should be discarded.
Interesting dichotomy. Someone might think Vicious Stomp "fluff" means nothing and I don't have to actually kick the target (any unarmed strike of any kind is good enough), but yet with Weapon Focus suddenly the "fluff" is the rule and should be adhered to strictly. No one is sensing an issue here? Odd.
What is the weapon in Weapon Focus (Grapple)? You're not using a manufactured weapon. You're not even using an unarmed strike as that is something else entirely. You're using your body in a way that improves your ability to grapple. And this doesn't stop you from taking Improved Grapple or Greater Grapple nor does it reduce the value of those feats. You can take 3 feats (or 4 if you're a fighter) to grant you up to +6 on a grapple check and no one has issue with this. So why suddenly is Weapon Focus (Bull Rush) not allowed?
What is the weapon in Weapon Focus (Bull Rush)? Again, no manufactured weapon. You are using your body just like you are in Weapon Focus (Grapple), only here you're using it to shove someone instead of restrain them.
Thus far I've seen some opinions, which is fine. I was looking for those because I was curious what people thought. But I'm also interested in RAW as well. What rules are present that form those opinions? That I haven't seen yet. Again, if you think it's the "fluff", then there may be an issue as Feat fluff cannot be applied as the rule uniformly (Greater Overrun wouldn't make sense then). Nor should it be ignored uniformly.
Regardless, some folks so far that don't think it should be allowed. Curious to know if anyone does. And why.
I think some people are misreading the OP. He never asked about double-dipping for disarm/trip/sunder, he simply stated that you could take WF for the weapon you used for those attacks (which is clearly true).
Anyway, since WF (grapple) is allowed, I'd say WF (bull rush) and WF (overrun) should also be allowed.
As for this reducing the value of Improved <maneuver> feats, IMO that wouldn't be the case. The main purpose of taking the Improved <maneuver> feats is to be able to perform the maneuver without provoking AoOs. I'd assume that anyone who considers taking WF <maneuver> would already have the relevant Improved <maneuver> feat.
Edit: That said, in terms of RAW, grapple is called out more as an exception to the rule of being required to choose a weapon, than as an example of things you can choose. So bull rush and overrun would not be applicable unless you houserule it.
I think WF (grapple) is, indeed, linked to the fact some creatures inflict damages thanks to grappling checks. I don't remember any other manoeuvres that does the same.
Grapplers even inflict unarmed strike damages with some grapple checks, not attack rolls.
IMO, the only WF you can take are listed in the "fluff" section.
A little errata to move the list to the benefit section or create a bit of text clarifying the feat would be great.
Note: Is there any monster who have WF for something not listed ?
What about WF (grapple) ? What monsters do have this feat ?
I'm sure it can help understand this little case.
Just to be sure here, you're saying that the "fluff" is actually the rule?
Close. I'm saying that if what you're calling fluff *ISN'T* a rule, then this isn't a question because maneuvers aren't weapons. I'm saying you can't have it both ways. (although you can have it one way in one instance and the other way in a different instance).
Because in other feats it's not. Some people think the "fluff" is just that and should be discarded.
Tell that to the posters in the improvised weapon threads.
Again, I'm saying that if you discard it as fluff in this instance, what you're left with doesn't support allowing even weapon focus (grapple). I'm not saying "you must/musn't discard this as fluff", I'm pointing out the consequences of discarding/not discarding.
Interesting dichotomy. Someone might think Vicious Stomp "fluff" means nothing and I don't have to actually kick the target (any unarmed strike of any kind is good enough), but yet with Weapon Focus suddenly the "fluff" is the rule and should be adhered to strictly. No one is sensing an issue here? Odd.
I *DO* sense the ... I hesitate to call it irony.
I think the fluff "informs" the crunch. The fluff is the designers saying "this is how we envision this".
I think by RAW ... you can't tell. It's going to be a GM call. My call would be "No, and if Weapon Focus(grapple) wasn't in the 'fluff' I wouldn't allow that either, because it doesn't seem to be supported by the actual "benefit" of the feat"
I'll try to elaborate on my previous post. Generally speaking, to establish permission to do something in PF we need permission to do it. We have a general rule about what is a weapon, and this qualifies those weapons to be targeted by weapon focus. The problem with the Weapon Focus grapple is that we do not have any general rule to go on. We just have a single line saying we can take weapon focus grapple.
However, without context we have nothing to extend this to the other combat maneuvers. So it either establishes it as a general rule, with absolutely no explanation. Or its a specific exception which usually doesnt need much explanation.
Im inclined to see it as an exception. to open it up as a general rule we need more explanation or exposition on the topic other than the implication we can take WF in a single combat maneuver.
Well said, Mojorat. I agree.
