D&D 3E/3.5 Spell Focus 3.5: WAH! Was it that bad?

[TrubbulTheTroll]

WAH! Spell Focus drops to a +1 bonus in 3.5. So did Greater Spell Focus! Granting a total of +2 to DC for a particular school when both schools are taken. This is quite a drop from +4 in 3.0.

Was Spell Focus really that unbalanced in 3.0? Does anyone miss the +2 to DC?

Talk to me!

 

[der_kluge]

Heck yea! It's the first thing I've house ruled in my 3.5 house rules. I left them the same as they were. Lame. LAME-O to drop them.

Who from WoTC is responsible for this? 20 lashes with a wet noodle, I say!

 

[aurance]

The story is, the revisionists felt that Spell Focus was ok at +2 but Greater Spell Focus was over the top at +4. They can't just negatively rule something in the PHB (I.E. "Greater Spell Focus no longer exists"), so they kept both and reduced their power.

I house-ruled GSF out, and kept SF at +2.

-A

 

[Negative Zero]

whoever did this really dropped the ball. GSF was never a core rule, so there was no reason to change SF in the first place. i've seen to many comments by the designers along the lines of "well. people weren't playing the way we wanted them to, so now we're gonna change the rules so they will."

ok, a little poetic license there on my part, but that's essentially what happened with this. same thing happened with power attack. so rather than leave well enough alone, they added another feat to the PHB and ruined them both. why? IMO, so they could accurately advertise that the new book contains x number of new feats. shameful if you ask me. ... you did ask me ... right?

~NegZ

 

[psionotic]

How about combining Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus into 1 feat? The first time you take it, you get +2, but every subsequent time you take it for the same school you only get an additional +1..


So if someone really wanted to have sick saves on their evocation spells, they could spend feat after feat upon it.

Most though, would probably only take it once. 3 feats for +4 to DCs to one school hardly seems worth it to me. 4 feats for +5 is slightly worse, etc.

(since someone brought it up, though, I like the new Power Attack feat. Finally 2 handed weapon wielders can be the equal of sword + shielders and 2 weapon fighters)

 

[PaulGreystoke]

Why all the Fuss?

I'm surprised people are still complaining about the Spell Focus nerf. I know it seemed startling a few weeks ago when we first heard about it, but it scarcely seems to be an issue now that the books are out. Those who have roved through the 3.5 spell lists have discovered that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of no save spells. The 3.5 paradigm is that if a spell requires a touch attack roll, then it allows no save. There are now spells (new & old alike) of almost every level that fit this new paradigm, so spellcasters don't need to buff up their spell DCs in order to affect creatures with good saves. They just need to succeed at a touch attack roll, which remains absurdly easy.

The same is true of those complaining that SR wasn't nerfed. The fact the most Conjuration spells can't be resisted by SR renders the point moot. A good spellcaster will just make sure that they have some Conjurations available when they are likely to face opponents with SR. Only Specialists who have taken Conjuration as one of their opposed schools won't be able to benefit from this change. Of course, since Teleportation is now part of the Conjuration school, I doubt we will see many of these theoretical Conjuration-bereft Specialists in actual play.

 

[Negative Zero]

Re: Why all the Fuss?

I'm surprised people are still complaining about the Spell Focus nerf. ...

don't confuse the vocal minority with everyone. just coz we've seen a few posts about it (and i mean few in the relative sense; i.e. relative to the actual number of people who visit these boards) doesn't mean that everyone or even most people knew. in fact some people go out of their way to avoid all spoilers before a product release. weird, i know

~NegZ

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How about combining Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus into 1 feat? The first time you take it, you get +2, but every subsequent time you take it for the same school you only get an additional +1..


So if someone really wanted to have sick saves on their evocation spells, they could spend feat after feat upon it.

How about ... not? That would be open to abuse of the archmage style.

Most though, would probably only take it once. 3 feats for +4 to DCs to one school hardly seems worth it to me. 4 feats for +5 is slightly worse, etc.

Most is not all. Lots of people would keep taking Spell Focus multiple times. The thing is ... high-cost/high-power rarely works in DnD. Players and DMs simply adapt to the costs and enjoy the benefits.

Ryan Dancey, former WotC designer, comments:

When designing anything that affects a save DC, the target that should be considered when determining rule balance is the target most likely to be affected by the spell. That means that in the case of a spell with a Fort save, the conspicuous target is a character with a "bad" Fort Save.

"Bad" saves lag 2 to 3 points behind "good" saves, or roughly six levels. So a +1 to a save DC is the same as six levels of saving throw bonuses against the conspicuous target. +2 to a save DC (GSF) is worth 9 levels of saving throw bonuses.

What that really means in practice (because most encounters match the PCs against opponents of roughly the same power level) is that casters with SF and GSF have a 5% to 10% advantage when casting spells at conspicuous targets.

That's a huge, practical advantage in game for the use of SF and GSF. With the old versions of the abilities, not taking SF and GSF was almost always a mistake (and there's nothing worse than a feat that you absolutely, positively should always take - that's what class features are for.) Even with the revised values, pure spellcasters will probably still take them, because the advantages they offer are so significant.

 

[Wormwood]

In my experience, SF and GSF both *read* as balanced, but were unbalanced in play.

Chalk this up as a good change for me.

 

[Thresher]

Funny how the 'default setting' gets kicked down to accomodate a Forgotten Realms PrC that dosnt really fit into the 'default setting' but I guess thats why we got Red Wizzies as well.

Maybe its time for Wotc to think about what the default setting actually is, yes thats nice, you whored it up in some realms game at home with your archmage Mr Designer but for the rest of us that arent doing it I dont really see the need to inflict it as a flaw in the system for everyone else who wasnt raping the rules.