Eldritch Glaive and Strength

[Jesterface]

I'm currently putting together a Warlock/Binder gestalt, using Eldritch Glaive. Obviously, as a melee touch attack, it uses Strength to determine the attack bonus. My question is whether or not you add your Strength modifier to the damage, as it doesn't specify in the book.

Cheers!

[Necroticplague]

No, it doesn't. An Eldritch Glaive doesn't do damage when it hits, it applies the effects of your Eldritch Blast. And since Eldritch Blasts aren't melee attacks, they don't get STR to damage. It's just like how a normal Eldritch Blast gets DEX to hit, and nothing to damage.

[Jesterface]

Legit, thought that may be the case! Many thanks!

Forgot to ask this as well; would Weapon Focus (Eldritch Blast) affect an Eldritch Glaive or no? Again, part of me is guessing a negative here.

[Hackulator]

Legit, thought that may be the case! Many thanks!

Forgot to ask this as well; would Weapon Focus (Eldritch Blast) affect an Eldritch Glaive or no? Again, part of me is guessing a negative here.

Yes, an eldritch glaive is still an eldritch blast.

[Jesterface]

Belter! Many thanks!

[Gruftzwerg]

Legit, thought that may be the case! Many thanks!

Forgot to ask this as well; would Weapon Focus (Eldritch Blast) affect an Eldritch Glaive or no? Again, part of me is guessing a negative here.

IIRC there is no Weapon Focus (Eldritch Blast). Just the normal Weapon Focus (Ray Attacks). And that makes the question meaningless since Eldritch Glaive isn't a Ray Attack.

And as last, Eldritch Glaive is weapon-like. This means it behaves for "itself" like a weapon. But it ain't a weapon and thus can't be target of effects that work on weapons. Most of the time it is a downside. But on the upside it can't be sundered or disarmed or otherwise harmful targeted by your enemies.

[Thurbane]

From memory, the books are a bit inconsistent as what the relevant Weapon Focus feats are. Some citations (with the usual disclaimer of how wonky stat blocks can be):

CAr p.20 lists "Weapon Focus (eldritch blast)" in the sample Acolyte of the Skin stat block.

CAr p.38 lists "Weapon Focus (ranged spell)" in the sample Fatespinner stat block.


Weapon Focus: Choose one category of weaponlike spells (ranged spells or touch spells) and gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made with such spells. You can gain this feat a second time, choosing a different category of weaponlike spells.

...Rules Compendium p.132 replicates this quote more-or-less verbatim.

CM p.81 lists "Weapon Focus (ray)" in the sample Ultimate Magus stat block.

Complete Mage also references Weapon Focus (ranged spells) and Weapon Focus (eldritch blast) at different points in the book.

[Gruftzwerg]

From memory, the books are a bit inconsistent as what the relevant Weapon Focus feats are. Some citations (with the usual disclaimer of how wonky stat blocks can be):

CAr p.20 lists "Weapon Focus (eldritch blast)" in the sample Acolyte of the Skin stat block.

CAr p.38 lists "Weapon Focus (ranged spell)" in the sample Fatespinner stat block.



...Rules Compendium p.132 replicates this quote more-or-less verbatim.

CM p.81 lists "Weapon Focus (ray)" in the sample Ultimate Magus stat block.

Complete Mage also references Weapon Focus (ranged spells) and Weapon Focus (eldritch blast) at different points in the book.

Well you got a point, but wouldn't the Primary Source (book) rule be in effect and making all other versions than in the PHB meaningless? That was my thought so far. And the PHB mentions only weapons, unarmed strike, grapple and Rays.

[Mato]

Well you got a point, but wouldn't the Primary Source (book) rule be in effect and making all other versions than in the PHB meaningless?Then there would be no such thing as warlock.

Problem with the primary source "rule" is even the errata forgot about it and the rule's compendium says to ignore it. The rule of thumb is, the "rule" is only brought up when a poster refuses to admit he should have looked at other source books and is wrong because of it, and so he wants to ignore it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Then there would be no such thing as warlock.

Problem with the primary source "rule" is even the errata forgot about it and the rule's compendium says to ignore it. The rule of thumb is, the "rule" is only brought up when a poster refuses to admit he should have looked at other source books and is wrong because of it, and so he wants to ignore it.

As far as I know "Weapon Focus" is only printed in the PHB (or did I miss it somewhere?).

Further 3 of the 4 examples turbane has given where just statblocks, the 4th unsure cause he didn't point me to the page to look and I don't intent to look the entire book up..^^.
And imho sample statblock ain't rules. They are meant as example not more. Sure you can say, "they should be consistent with the rules", but iirc there are other examples of wrong statblocks.
And the Primary Source rule is meant to clear inconsistent rulings:
While PHB extends the selectable weapon list for Weapon Focus by unarmed strike/natural attacks and rays, other books have statblocks that are inconsistent with this feat text. This is my indication to use the Primary Source rule.

And the Primary Source rule ain't that bad as you think. Wouldn't it be there, we could all loose access to our class abilities, if we somehow don't meet the requirements anymore (Complete Warrior and another book that I can't remember atm).
And the Dragon Disciple prc would stop working once the character hits the final (10th) prc lvl. Cause DD need to be a non dragon to enter the PRC and becomes a dragon when hitting lvl 10.

As you see, Primary Source rule has it's purpose.

[Sam K]

If you can afford the skill points, just take knowledge devotion instead of worrying about weapon focus. Because when you pick weapon focus, the terrorists catgirls win.