Talk:Arcane Weapon Focus (5e Feat)

Feats chains shouldn't exits. In addition, the only real benefit this gives is the magic weapon bonus to spell attack. War Caster already allows the other two.

Why can't Feat chains exist? This was deliberately chosen, because in order to cast spells with somatic components while holding a weapon you need the War Caster feat.

Also, War Caster does not allow you to use your weapon to perform touch spells.

--Scadu (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

You use your melee weapon to channel your arcane energy making the weapon count as magical.

I love this change, great addition.

--Scadu (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

This feat was designed in such a way to allow casters who also do melee attacks to maximize their potential. Sorry if people think it is unbalanced, but that is why the perquisite was a feat. I am going to revert some of the changes. If you want to discuss things further I am here to talk. --Scadu (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Feat chains were specifically eliminated in 5th Edition. Considering you can only get them every 4 levels or so (quicker if you're a fighter), and have to give up an Ability Score Increase, to get one, it makes sense. The goals of feats in 5e is to each add something that mechanically that builds and makes a character unique, but be able to benefit the widest array of characters possible, and feat chains limit your options based on choices you've previously made.

I don't think I understood the purpose of the first benefit at first. Is it supposed to "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage," like the monk's Ki-Empowered Strikes feature? If so, then that makes more sense.

Unfortunately, the Player's Handbook doesn't say much about the the spell range of "touch": "Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch." Since it doesn't specifically say that you have to touch it with your hand, I've always assumed as long as you can meet the requirements to cast a spell (Verbal, Somatic, and Material), that you can touch a creature or object with your hand, staff, sword, or whatever within your normal reach of 5 feet. I'm pretty confident War Caster was intended to allow all spellcasting, including spells with a range of Touch, but since this isn't specifically stated, we can keep it. Perhaps reword it to include a similar benefit to War Caster in regards to the somatic component of spells. Is there anything I'm missing here?

Sorry for the lengthy response...I hope that better explained some of my concerns.--Carcabob (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I get the concern with the feat chain issue, but I don't think I have ever read anything that says that can't be a thing, they just haven't done it yet. Yes, feat chains can get very pricey, but I felt that the concept of this feat would be broken without it. And this feat is something I really think is missing from the game.

As for the weapon counting as magical; I originally added it as flavor text, but when someone edited it I felt that it kind of made sense. So yes, it is suppose to act like the Ki-Empowered Strikes for the purposes of resistances and reductions.

With touch, since most spell casters tend to be weaponless, I had always assumed that touch meant hand-to-target. One of the reasons I assumed this was because there are 5ft range spells; meaning that you no longer have the risk of physically touching the target (e.i. touching a slime or mimic).

I will take the time to review the wording of everything and make sure it is 100% one what this feat is suppose to do.

And there is no problem with long responses. I would rather go back and forth on here discussing things than have someone change it without knowing the intent. I may take a couple of days to respond, but I am very passionate about my Homebrew creations.

--Scadu (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

With the new wording, I don't think having War Caster as a prerequisite is necessary. I think characters who have no need for the War Caster feat should still be able to take this feat and gain its benefits. Players certainly could have both though. I think I understand the point and scope of each benefit now. Mind if I reword some things to match the way the Player's Handbook words things? --Carcabob (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, go for it. Sorry about the slow response, the wife and kids were sick this last week.

--Scadu (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Do my changes still fit what you were intending? Also, we may want a name change to match feat naming conventions. A descriptor, rather than an abstract noun. Like "Sharpshooter", not "Bow Mastery". Maybe "Arcane Wielder"?

Yes,the changes are fine, but shouldn't spell casting still be a requirement since you removed War Caster? As far as the name is concerned, i was just recycling a feast name from 4e that was similar to what this fast is doing. I don't mind the idea of a name change though. My wife likes the Arcsne Wielder idea, but i am on the fence. Sadly i couldnt come up with anything better.

--Scadu (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh you're right. "The ability to cast at least one spell" should be, yeah. I'll keep thinking about the name. --Carcabob (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)