A Fighter Without Weapon Focus [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Fighter Without Weapon Focus [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sledged
05-27-06, 09:04 PM Looking to try something different, but I'm not sure how viable it is. Has anyone put together an effective 20th-level fighter without ever have taken the Weapon Focus feat?
belthazzar1113
05-27-06, 09:07 PM its certainly possible, but i don't think most people do it because at a certain point your going to pick and stick with a weapon and have enough feats to burn taking WF just to grab weapon specilization.
Tempest Stormwind
05-28-06, 01:52 AM Bah, Weapon Focus is only useful at very low levels, and is only worth it if you need it as a prereq.

The optimized fighter makes use of what his class gives him -- feats. Feats mean you can master multiple complex manuevers and synergize them as best you can.

The example I always cite (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005) actually uses Dexterity over Strength, and doesn't need Con to be as high as you'd think. And no, it doesn't use Weapon Focus either.

The only reason "most people" take Weapon Focus beyond the reasons cited above (i.e. it's a low-level game, or you need it as a prerequisite for something else) is because "most people" don't know how to properly build Fighters. (Granted, most "properly built" fighters involve getting *out* of the class as soon as possible and into something better, but the point still stands.) A fighter in 3e or 3.5 is NOT the damage dealer (that's the Barbarian, Druid, Cleric, or an optimized Monk) -- he's the defense and the combat support (often through battlefield control).
Tralan
05-28-06, 02:37 AM The only reason "most people" take Weapon Focus... is because "most people" don't know how to properly build Fighters.

Or because it fits their idea of what they want for their fighter. Not everyone likes to play the Punisher clones. There is nothing wrong with Punisher clones, BTW. Just some people would rather be have a "chosen weapon," which can be fun also.

As to the original poster: yeah. I built a fighter and didn't take the feat. I was trying to make a build and I needed the feat space for something else. by the time I had an open feat slot, the +2 damage wasn't really necessary. Although, I'm not big on fighters. I prefere Psy Warriors, so my knowlege of fighter types is corrupted by "magic."
Cadfan
05-28-06, 02:59 AM Or maybe because weapon focus synergizes with basically every possible combat maneuver a fighter could possibly want to perform? It is ironic that you mention the wonders of feat synergy, but disregard the one feat that synergizes with every possible fighter attack feat there is.

Its one of the best feats out there for a fighter. Missing is the worst possible thing you can do with a fighter. With weapon focus, you miss less often. Approximately 5% of your attacks convert from misses into hits, neglecting attacks where you only miss on a natural 1. In a typical fight in my campaigns, that's one or two extra hits.
Ghostwheel
05-28-06, 03:10 AM Many people who take Weapon Focus, and the related feats, simply stop thinking about other weapons. My philosophy about warrior type characters is that they should always seek to have a method to use that high BAB whenever possible. This usually means carrying a variety of weapons, some for melee and some for ranged attacks. This does not mean you use a dagger instead of your Great-Axe just to say that you did it. But if, for example, you can lay your hands on a weapon of Disruption , you will have a good alternative when facing Undead. Other examples will readily suggest themselves.

Mini-rant over; I apologize for straying a bit off-topic.
Father Dale
05-28-06, 03:39 AM Normally I would agree that weapon focus is suboptimal for most builds.

However, for a 20th lvl fighter, you are staring down the door at epic play. And the best epic fighter feat (devestating critical) requires weapon focus.

Also, with the new feats in the PHB II there are plenty of choices to make that would require weapon focus.

I'm also a big believer in fighters having lots of different weapons at their disposal, even if they don't have feats specific to a particular weapon.
Tempest Stormwind
05-28-06, 03:50 AM I believe I spoke too soon.

My statement above holds if you alter the first line to "the only *mechanical* reason...". If your character concept requires you specialize in a given weapon, then sure. However, you can get exactly the same specialization effect through other feats. The game's mechanics are independent of the roleplay organization -- it's not like commoners say "You can't be a master with the rapier, you don't have the feat to do it!".

By the way, for the others: One feat. You can do TONS with that one feat, frequently on the order of "Don't suck when you try something other than a regular attack, and get +4 on your attack roll with it". I would prefer this to +1 attack with a single weapon in nearly every circumstance, especially if those maneuvers you choose are ones like, say, Improved Trip (that is, if you trip them -- which is quite likely given the +4 instead of the mere +1 -- you get a free attack anyway, only this time they're prone, which gives you a +4 on your attack roll... again, instead of the +1).

On its own, Weapon Focus *sucks*. And it's absurdly easy to have a fighter without it.

While I agree with Father Dale, I should note that his major points supporting Weapon Focus are -- surprise -- the same ones I mentioned above: It's only useful in low-level games (which epic is not) unless it's required to take something (in his case, Devastating Critical or any PHB2 feat). In no other mechanical circumstances is Weapon Focus ever worth it.
Ghostwheel
05-28-06, 03:55 AM I'm also a big believer in fighters having lots of different weapons at their disposal, even if they don't have feats specific to a particular weapon....

Thank you for your support of moderation and diversification.

...Or that have feats that apply not only to their "focus" weapon, but to various others. Power-Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Rapid Shot are all examples of feats that can be taken early that can apply to a wide variety of weapons.
Cadfan
05-28-06, 04:51 AM You can do TONS with that one feat, frequently on the order of "Don't suck when you try something other than a regular attack, and get +4 on your attack roll with it". I would prefer this to +1 attack with a single weapon in nearly every circumstance,

Yes, yes, now, stop for a moment.

Ok, so you like those feats, and you've taken a couple of them. Wouldn't it be great if there was a feat which "synergized" with those feats, increasing that +4 to, say, a +5 across the board for all of them? And wouldn't it be nice if that feat also granted the same bonus to every normal attack roll you ever make? A single feat that could make you better at normal attacks, charges, sunder attempts, disarm attempts, power attacking, using combat expertise, or really, anything else you can dream up? All in one feat??

Why, if that idea sounds intriguing, have I got the feat for you!
Odimax
05-28-06, 05:16 AM Even disregarding the fact that you need Weapon Focus to later select feats like Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy, I still think Weapon Focus is a decent feat.

+1 to hit is still +1 to hit, even at Epic Levels. Say, you are attacking a dragon which has AC 60, and you hit AC 59. D'oh! Wish I had Weapon Focus!

Obviously, that's a situation that doesn't always happen, and other feats might be considered "better", but I think Weapon Focus is still useful.

Plus, it's cool to say that you have "focus" with a weapon. Like you train with it so much that you are a badass with it. :D
CaoSlayer
05-28-06, 06:04 AM Weapon focus it is a great feat, the +1 dont seems a great thing but do some matchs:

let´s say that you are facing a BBEG who you need a 17 to hit (or a lesser oponent with your second attack), that it is that you only can hurt him with a 17,18,18 or 20.. if you add weapon focus then you can hit him also with a 16 so you have 16-20 vs 17-20 so it is really a 20% more likely to hit.
That it is by the +1 by itself, now what happens with other feats?
if you use TWF or rapid shot, you are just having a -1 to hit vs a -2 to hit you are halving the penalty of those feats and since you have more attacks the benefit it is greater since lots of missed hits will become useful.

IF you use a two handed weapon and power attack, then you have the option of turning weapon focus into weapon specialization, that +1 to hit can be used as a +2 to damage at will, being so the barbarian spec.. if the complete weapon focus tree you will be able to have +8 damage to each hit, a nice bonus IMO, if you have something else like leap attack or that shock trooper then that +1 it is worth lot of damage.

and finally same hapens with combat expertise, if you have combat expertise and you want more AC you can either get the crappy dodge or just take weapon focus and turn that +1 to hit into a +1 to AC for every foe.

WF it is a feat worth level 1 through level 50

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sledged 05-27-06, 09:04 PM	Looking to try something different, but I'm not sure how viable it is. Has anyone put together an effective 20th-level fighter without ever have taken the Weapon Focus feat?
belthazzar1113 05-27-06, 09:07 PM	its certainly possible, but i don't think most people do it because at a certain point your going to pick and stick with a weapon and have enough feats to burn taking WF just to grab weapon specilization.
Tempest Stormwind 05-28-06, 01:52 AM	Bah, Weapon Focus is only useful at very low levels, and is only worth it if you need it as a prereq. The optimized fighter makes use of what his class gives him -- feats. Feats mean you can master multiple complex manuevers and synergize them as best you can. The example I always cite (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005) actually uses Dexterity over Strength, and doesn't need Con to be as high as you'd think. And no, it doesn't use Weapon Focus either. The only reason "most people" take Weapon Focus beyond the reasons cited above (i.e. it's a low-level game, or you need it as a prerequisite for something else) is because "most people" don't know how to properly build Fighters. (Granted, most "properly built" fighters involve getting out of the class as soon as possible and into something better, but the point still stands.) A fighter in 3e or 3.5 is NOT the damage dealer (that's the Barbarian, Druid, Cleric, or an optimized Monk) -- he's the defense and the combat support (often through battlefield control).
Tralan 05-28-06, 02:37 AM	The only reason "most people" take Weapon Focus... is because "most people" don't know how to properly build Fighters. Or because it fits their idea of what they want for their fighter. Not everyone likes to play the Punisher clones. There is nothing wrong with Punisher clones, BTW. Just some people would rather be have a "chosen weapon," which can be fun also. As to the original poster: yeah. I built a fighter and didn't take the feat. I was trying to make a build and I needed the feat space for something else. by the time I had an open feat slot, the +2 damage wasn't really necessary. Although, I'm not big on fighters. I prefere Psy Warriors, so my knowlege of fighter types is corrupted by "magic."
Cadfan 05-28-06, 02:59 AM	Or maybe because weapon focus synergizes with basically every possible combat maneuver a fighter could possibly want to perform? It is ironic that you mention the wonders of feat synergy, but disregard the one feat that synergizes with every possible fighter attack feat there is. Its one of the best feats out there for a fighter. Missing is the worst possible thing you can do with a fighter. With weapon focus, you miss less often. Approximately 5% of your attacks convert from misses into hits, neglecting attacks where you only miss on a natural 1. In a typical fight in my campaigns, that's one or two extra hits.
Ghostwheel 05-28-06, 03:10 AM	Many people who take Weapon Focus, and the related feats, simply stop thinking about other weapons. My philosophy about warrior type characters is that they should always seek to have a method to use that high BAB whenever possible. This usually means carrying a variety of weapons, some for melee and some for ranged attacks. This does not mean you use a dagger instead of your Great-Axe just to say that you did it. But if, for example, you can lay your hands on a weapon of Disruption , you will have a good alternative when facing Undead. Other examples will readily suggest themselves. Mini-rant over; I apologize for straying a bit off-topic.
Father Dale 05-28-06, 03:39 AM	Normally I would agree that weapon focus is suboptimal for most builds. However, for a 20th lvl fighter, you are staring down the door at epic play. And the best epic fighter feat (devestating critical) requires weapon focus. Also, with the new feats in the PHB II there are plenty of choices to make that would require weapon focus. I'm also a big believer in fighters having lots of different weapons at their disposal, even if they don't have feats specific to a particular weapon.
Tempest Stormwind 05-28-06, 03:50 AM	I believe I spoke too soon. My statement above holds if you alter the first line to "the only mechanical reason...". If your character concept requires you specialize in a given weapon, then sure. However, you can get exactly the same specialization effect through other feats. The game's mechanics are independent of the roleplay organization -- it's not like commoners say "You can't be a master with the rapier, you don't have the feat to do it!". By the way, for the others: One feat. You can do TONS with that one feat, frequently on the order of "Don't suck when you try something other than a regular attack, and get +4 on your attack roll with it". I would prefer this to +1 attack with a single weapon in nearly every circumstance, especially if those maneuvers you choose are ones like, say, Improved Trip (that is, if you trip them -- which is quite likely given the +4 instead of the mere +1 -- you get a free attack anyway, only this time they're prone, which gives you a +4 on your attack roll... again, instead of the +1). On its own, Weapon Focus sucks. And it's absurdly easy to have a fighter without it. While I agree with Father Dale, I should note that his major points supporting Weapon Focus are -- surprise -- the same ones I mentioned above: It's only useful in low-level games (which epic is not) unless it's required to take something (in his case, Devastating Critical or any PHB2 feat). In no other mechanical circumstances is Weapon Focus ever worth it.
Ghostwheel 05-28-06, 03:55 AM	I'm also a big believer in fighters having lots of different weapons at their disposal, even if they don't have feats specific to a particular weapon.... Thank you for your support of moderation and diversification. ...Or that have feats that apply not only to their "focus" weapon, but to various others. Power-Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Rapid Shot are all examples of feats that can be taken early that can apply to a wide variety of weapons.
Cadfan 05-28-06, 04:51 AM	You can do TONS with that one feat, frequently on the order of "Don't suck when you try something other than a regular attack, and get +4 on your attack roll with it". I would prefer this to +1 attack with a single weapon in nearly every circumstance, Yes, yes, now, stop for a moment. Ok, so you like those feats, and you've taken a couple of them. Wouldn't it be great if there was a feat which "synergized" with those feats, increasing that +4 to, say, a +5 across the board for all of them? And wouldn't it be nice if that feat also granted the same bonus to every normal attack roll you ever make? A single feat that could make you better at normal attacks, charges, sunder attempts, disarm attempts, power attacking, using combat expertise, or really, anything else you can dream up? All in one feat?? Why, if that idea sounds intriguing, have I got the feat for you!
Odimax 05-28-06, 05:16 AM	Even disregarding the fact that you need Weapon Focus to later select feats like Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy, I still think Weapon Focus is a decent feat. +1 to hit is still +1 to hit, even at Epic Levels. Say, you are attacking a dragon which has AC 60, and you hit AC 59. D'oh! Wish I had Weapon Focus! Obviously, that's a situation that doesn't always happen, and other feats might be considered "better", but I think Weapon Focus is still useful. Plus, it's cool to say that you have "focus" with a weapon. Like you train with it so much that you are a badass with it. :D
CaoSlayer 05-28-06, 06:04 AM	Weapon focus it is a great feat, the +1 dont seems a great thing but do some matchs: let´s say that you are facing a BBEG who you need a 17 to hit (or a lesser oponent with your second attack), that it is that you only can hurt him with a 17,18,18 or 20.. if you add weapon focus then you can hit him also with a 16 so you have 16-20 vs 17-20 so it is really a 20% more likely to hit. That it is by the +1 by itself, now what happens with other feats? if you use TWF or rapid shot, you are just having a -1 to hit vs a -2 to hit you are halving the penalty of those feats and since you have more attacks the benefit it is greater since lots of missed hits will become useful. IF you use a two handed weapon and power attack, then you have the option of turning weapon focus into weapon specialization, that +1 to hit can be used as a +2 to damage at will, being so the barbarian spec.. if the complete weapon focus tree you will be able to have +8 damage to each hit, a nice bonus IMO, if you have something else like leap attack or that shock trooper then that +1 it is worth lot of damage. and finally same hapens with combat expertise, if you have combat expertise and you want more AC you can either get the crappy dodge or just take weapon focus and turn that +1 to hit into a +1 to AC for every foe. WF it is a feat worth level 1 through level 50