D&D 3.x 3.5 Spell Focus gives only +1 to DCs

[Pax]

What can a 20th level min/maxed wizard do these days for spell DCs?

[snip]

The wizard looks fine to me. (Assuming you're a min/max monster, of course. Those who aren't are, as always, screwed.)

No offense, but I think a min/maxxed wizard should have better than a 45% chance to see an average, non-exceptional "off the shelf" Pit Fiend.

Consider especially what happens when teh Pit Fiend is named, made a major NPC, and given magic items (as par of it's treaure) which it can use ... similarly min/maxxed.

Like, say, a Cloak or Vest of Resistance (+5), and a Stone of Good Luck? All of a sudden, the fiend has an 85% chance to make his saves vs the Wizard's spells ... and that's just plain not right.

mmu1 said:
Umm... I believe one of the aspects of this system is that you're supposed to be able to save against spells on a regular basis?

Regular, yes. MOST of the time, no.

I'd be happy with 50/50 overall average. Look at it from the <i>spellcasting PC's</i> point of view. IF the party wizard can COUNT on two-thirds or MORE of every mob of orcs, group of ogres, or pair of giants (for a few examples) making their saving throws against his Fireballs or Lightning Bolts ... where's the fun for HIM?

Better to polymorph into something good in melee, buf yourself, and cast Tenser's Transformation. At least then, your spells work as advertised!

I know that a lot of people think save-or-die spells are only worth it if the other guy doesn't stand a chance of saving, but that's not how the game's supposed to work.

You're overpolarising the issue. For example, I'd be happy if the target had less than 90% chance to save; IME, it works out to "he only fails on a 1" more often than is strictly fair.

 

[Trainz]

No offense, but I think a min/maxxed wizard should have better than a 45% chance to see an average, non-exceptional "off the shelf" Pit Fiend.

Pit Fiends are hardly "off the shelf" critters, they are the uber devils. About time they start looking like some.

I think I will like 3.5. I'm not 20/20 sure, but I have a good feeling about it. And I'm sure arcane casters will be fun to play, no matter how grim things might look. If anything, it will probably be easier for the DM to guauge an encounter with a more balanced set of spells and abilities.

Remember: It is easier to boost PC's than to nerf monsters.

 

[Piratecat]

Piratecat hinted at in another thread that Stat Boosting items are going to recieve a price increase.

No I didn't! Or if I did, I didn't mean to, because I haven't looked and I honestly don't know. I did hint about a raise in the price of skill-boosting items, because that's been mentioned by Ed Stark.

 

[Limper]

Remember: It is easier to boost PC's than to nerf monsters.

Its also a lot more fun to boost the monsters than it is to nerf the PC's.

 

[Pax]

Pit Fiends are hardly "off the shelf" critters, they are the uber devils. About time they start looking like some.

Acutally, Pit Fiends aren't the bottom of the ladder ... but they aren't the top, either. That would be a space reserved for the Dukes of Hell.

You generally don't encounter a pit fiend, the way you encounter a dragon. You encounter up to a few of them.

I think I will like 3.5. I'm not 20/20 sure, but I have a good feeling about it. And I'm sure arcane casters will be fun to play, no matter how grim things might look. If anything, it will probably be easier for the DM to guauge an encounter with a more balanced set of spells and abilities.

Remember: It is easier to boost PC's than to nerf monsters.

I'm sure I'll like 3.5 in general, too ... but this is one change I can't agree with. Spell Focus is to wizards, what Weapon Focus is to fighters.

But unlike a fighter, if a Wizard "misses" ... he doesn't have infinite retries to work with.

 

[Saeviomagy]

No offense, but I think a min/maxxed wizard should have better than a 45% chance to see an average, non-exceptional "off the shelf" Pit Fiend.

I'm looking at the example and I'm seeing a 18/20*19/20=85% chance to affect him. And at those sort of levels, affect=take out of action typically.

One 8th level spell is far, far less than 20% of the resources of a single mage, let alone a party. That balor had better be about cr 15 if this is how the game goes. Currently they're significantly weaker, and placed at cr 18...

Consider especially what happens when teh Pit Fiend is named, made a major NPC, and given magic items (as par of it's treaure) which it can use ... similarly min/maxxed.

Like, say, a Cloak or Vest of Resistance (+5), and a Stone of Good Luck? All of a sudden, the fiend has an 85% chance to make his saves vs the Wizard's spells ... and that's just plain not right.

So - your argument is that twinking out a balor for defense against magic (which ISN'T the only thing he has to be wary of...) is fine against a wizard who's twinked out for spell DC's (which, lets face it, is just about all he'll ever need)?

Regular, yes. MOST of the time, no.

I'd be happy with 50/50 overall average. Look at it from the <i>spellcasting PC's</i> point of view. IF the party wizard can COUNT on two-thirds or MORE of every mob of orcs, group of ogres, or pair of giants (for a few examples) making their saving throws against his Fireballs or Lightning Bolts ... where's the fun for HIM?

That 1/3rd failed their saves and probably died? Besides, the difference between +2 and +1 isn't going to suddenly bump us up to 2/3rds save success rate...

Better to polymorph into something good in melee, buf yourself, and cast Tenser's Transformation. At least then, your spells work as advertised!

And you're in the front lines, taking some risks, expending Hp's instead of spells (as well as spells?).

And now, with polymorph not being the thoroughly broken travesty it used to be, it's not that much more efficient a tactic.

You're overpolarising the issue. For example, I'd be happy if the target had less than 90% chance to save; IME, it works out to "he only fails on a 1" more often than is strictly fair.

You've got some seriously anti-magic-user DM's then.

 

[Technik4]

Isolation

A lot of things can look bad when taken alone. Like spell focus, or stat buffs or save or die spells. Is the game changing? Yes, but honestly it changes the *most* for the min/maxers, they need to find new min/max tactics. For everyone else, some spells work differently, but since it was never a big numbers crunching thing, they may stick to old favorites as they always have.

I'm ready to judge 3.5, but I'm not ready to judge the change to Spell Focus.

Technik

 

[dcollins]

Revised D&D: "Third-and-a-Half Edition Rules, Second Edition Feel"

 

[the Jester]

Re: Isolation

A lot of things can look bad when taken alone. Like spell focus, or stat buffs or save or die spells. Is the game changing? Yes, but honestly it changes the *most* for the min/maxers, they need to find new min/max tactics. For everyone else, some spells work differently, but since it was never a big numbers crunching thing, they may stick to old favorites as they always have.

I'm ready to judge 3.5, but I'm not ready to judge the change to Spell Focus.

Technik

Y'know, Technik, every time I read one of your posts I respect you more.

We have to meet some day.

Meet- and GAME!!

 

[Grog]

Re: Isolation

A lot of things can look bad when taken alone. Like spell focus, or stat buffs or save or die spells. Is the game changing? Yes, but honestly it changes the *most* for the min/maxers, they need to find new min/max tactics. For everyone else, some spells work differently, but since it was never a big numbers crunching thing, they may stick to old favorites as they always have.

Actually, it seems to me that changes like these will impact people who don't min-max their characters a lot more than those who do.

People who min-max will come up with just the right combination of abilities to make their character as powerful as possible - and they'll often make up characters with tons of different PrCs/non-core feats/obscure items in order to do it. Meanwhile, people who don't min-max won't scrounge through a bunch of different sources and will instead just take obvious beneficial feats - like Spell Focus. But since they don't have as many different sources of power, the nerfing of one hurts them a lot more.

Put another way, losing one point off your save DC hurts the non-min-maxer with a 20 DC a lot more than the min-maxer with a 32 DC.