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

[Apok]

I don't care for this change either, but for slightly different reasons. Sure, a Wizard who is min/maxed out the wazoo and taking 2 or more PrC's that grant massive Spellpower boosts (Archmage & Red Wizard float to the top of this list) will have highly competative DC's, no problem.

But what about those casters who aren't min/maxed? Who don't want to take the Archmage PrC (*gasp* what a concept!)? Are they doomed to wallow in the pits of Spell DC Mediocrity, forever having their cool spells batted aside by creatures who's saving throws and SR are so much better than the caster's ability to penetrate them that it becomes a surreal running gag?

The last thing I want to happen is for "normal" (ie, non min/maxed) casters to become obsolete against equivalent challenges because they don't have the right PrC or good enough stat boosts or shell out major cash and/or xp for Wishes, etc. The previous incarnation of Spell Focus & Greater Spell Focus allowed the player who wasn't obsessed about every little number to keep his spellcaster a force on the battlefield. Unless there have been some other dramatic changes to the way Spell DC's are calculated that we aren't aware of, the concept of the non-tweaked spellcaster will become a non-entity.

Is that really the direction we want to go in?

 

[Darklone]

Though this seems to be a thread were shafted spellcasters complain about their lowered DCs (by one)...

I LIKE IT!!!

I mean, till now I didn't allow Greater Spell Focus. Why? I am playing mostly in the low level range (up to level 10-12).

IME, the player spellcasters had DCs that were high enough to waste 90% of the monsters. The other 10% had most of the time a 65% to save. And IMHO that is already a little bit on the strong side of the PCs.

I mean, I have 8 players and one big bad evil guy... I don't want him to fail one save and be chumped to death. Sure, usually I don't have only one big baddy, but for the real big final encounters, it rocks.

Sooo. IMHO, if some groups have problems with too high monster saves, it's a matter of the DM. I can understand many DMs to use high save baddies,... but it's not necessary.

I am more on the "Flood them in low level critters till they drown" side of the DM screen.

 

[Li Shenron]

I had no problems whatsoever with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. I think they were fine, and not overpowered, somehow between a Weapon Focus and a Weapon Specialization, if ever the comparison is possible.

I can see your point that once you get to save-or-die spells, which are higher level spells and therefore have higher DCs, having huge % of success takes out the fun. Perhaps the DC shouldn't have been so high for SoD spells, for many others it's not bad at all.

 

[cable]

Re: Re: Isolation

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.

I agree. Min/maxers will just stop playing arcane casters and move to greener pastures (ie like the new Monk/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian or Druid). You'll just end up with another set of imbalances. The designers should be aiming for balance for all classes rather than buffing/nerfing particular classes to encourage/discourage their use.

 

[Kalanyr]

This is why I think the move from 'save or die' to 'save or take a chunk of damage' are a good thing; couple this with a general reduction in SR & immunities and the wizard can contribute again, rather than dominating or being useless.

I think you're missing a rather important point its moving them to being average or being useless rather than being dominating or being useless. Dominating/Useless 50/50 is average , average/useless 50/50 is below average which IMO is totally maiming the spellcaster. (Not to mention its moving the 50/50 to 40/60 with the change to Greater Spell Focus).

 

[Bauglir]

The reason (IMO) largely that saving throws and SR are so high in 3e is to counter the save or die effects (this however has the unfortunate side effect of countering everything else)

Now that the save or die effects are less severe I anticipate seing an overall reduction in saves/SR, meaning that while the spells, if they land, will be less devastating that they will be much more likely to land.

 

[isoChron]

Hm, I ,for my part, would have been glad to see the Variant rule about rolled save DC's made standard. DC=1d20+spell level+INT(or WIS or CHA). In that way a wizard in lower levels has a chance to beat a heavy save guy and even in higher levels you can role bad enough to produce a puny DC.
We play it in our group and it raises the tension and fun in casting spells. Fortitude save vs. fighter .... try it ! No more "Uh, fighter=high fortitude, must take reflex ...".

Spell focus at +1 or +2 doesn't make a big difference for me (don't take it anyway, there are a lot of more interesting feats out there).
Min-Max may be fine but it helps in no way. DM's just adjust the encounters and all stays the same. Where is the difference ?
Just low level encounters get more boring ...

Just my point of view.

BYE

 

[Celtavian]

Re

This change I totally disagree with. It is extremely difficult to raise spell DC's, but rather easy to raise saving throws or erect warding spells. I don't quite understand the reason behind this change.

 

[Al]

This is an example of so-called 'backwards compatibility' at its worst.

It's 'backwardly compatible' because having trawled through dozens of 'me wiz has dc 87 w00t' and 'Sultans of Smack' (no offense- heck, I even posted a save smackdown ), using every supplement known to man, WotC decided to nerf casters.

The point is that now supplement-user, sure, are in line. Min-maxers, sure, are in line. Powergamers, sure, are in line.

Ordinary Sunday-afternoon-game-with-a-tin-of-a-beer-and-the-three-core-books gamers (which I would assert make up much more of the market than l33t-speaking w00ting munchkins) are nerfed.

 

[Fenes 2]

I'd agree with the assessement that this "nerf" was in part caused by powergaming combos (I hated this in Everquest as well, always punishing casual gamers when powergamers made too fast progress) and is a bad thing, but for one thing:
Any good DM will (or should) tailor his game to his PCs, not just (Mindlessly) taking the game as it is written and randomly choosing monsters out of the MM as opponents. If your spellcaster's DCs are not minmaxed, then your DM should not use save-minmaxed opponents against you.