I don't want to use my feat!

[Egres]

Premise: I would like to have RAW based replies.

From the SRD:

WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL]

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for 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.

As you can see, the feat states "you gain", and not "you can add" or something similar.

IMHO this means, RAW reasoning, that you can't choose to avoid the benefit of this feat.

In other words, if you attack with the weapon you are focused on, you add that +1 on your attack rolls, no matter what you want.

I 'll admit this could appear illogical and weird, but it wouldn't be the first time the RAW are strange.

Any thoughts?

 

[Christian]

Yeah. Whatever you're on, I definitely want some.

 

[Jdvn1]

... Why?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Verbose 'Why?'

In what situation would you *not* want to use the benefit of this feat?

 

[Christian]

Perhaps I can clarify the OP. He's suggesting that, by the RAW, a 20th level Fighter with 30 Strength using a +5 longsword will have a total attack bonus of +35, unless he has the Weapon Focus: Longsword feat, in which case he will have a total attack bonus of +1. I'm not sure what he tortured the RAW with to get them to say this, and I don't want to find out.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That can't possibly be his point. He must be meaning that he would want the feat and yet not take the bonus for some reason. Perhaps he wants the feat for it's prerequisite capabilities and yet still be a crappy fighter (for flavor reasons). Whatever. :\

 

[Egres]

Come on...it's obviously an academic issue...or maybe it's not.

Perhaps I can clarify the OP. He's suggesting that, by the RAW, a 20th level Fighter with 30 Strength using a +5 longsword will have a total attack bonus of +35, unless he has the Weapon Focus: Longsword feat, in which case he will have a total attack bonus of +1. I'm not sure what he tortured the RAW with to get them to say this, and I don't want to find out.

No, no.

I'm only saying that, by the RAW, if you attack with the weapon you are focused with, you can't choose to not benefit from that +1.

Any RAW-based reply that can negate my statement?

 

[ForceUser]

Come on...it's obviously an academic issue...or maybe it's not.


No, no.

I'm only saying that, by the RAW, if you attack with the weapon you are focused with, you can't choose to not benefit from that +1.

Any RAW-based reply that can negate my statement?

No, and why would you want to?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's similar to a dervish, who gains an ability that says he treats a scimitar as a light weapon for all purposes.

By gaining this ability, he takes a -4 on disarm checks and can no longer Power Attack with a scimitar.

The wording of the ability doesn't make it optional, so he can't elect to treat it as a one-handed weapon (like everyone else does, and like he did before gaining the ability).

Another example is Spell Penetration. If your friend with SR is in melee with a bunch of foes who don't have SR, Spell Penetration on your fireball is actually a disadvantage. But the feat says "You gain a +2" - it doesn't allow for the possibility of not gaining a +2 on your caster level check.

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

No, and why would you want to?

Come on...it's obviously an academic issue...or maybe it's not.

........