Ability Focus: Spells?

[Hypersmurf]

Yep yep. So maybe you could take it. But it would be worthless; because "Spells" has no DC. Only individual spells have a DC.

Fists of Thunder and Lightning...

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Fists of Thunder and Lightning...

Could be a special case. Any reports on how Ability Focus applies to all of a Beholder's Eye Beams (Su)?

I'd prefer to think that when one stat block conflicts with the rules, the rules still win in general.

Cheers, -- N

 

[gnfnrf]

Hypersmurf, I'm curious as to what your answer is to the original question.

Because, while you are effectively arguing related points, you don't seem to have actually addressed it.

For myself, it is obvious that the feat cannot apply to spellcasting. If the rules seem to vaguely imply that it might, don't draw that inference. Trying to break the game is fun, but only up to a point. If the rules outright state that it does, then I will play a different game where it does not.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Nifft]

For myself, it is obvious that the feat cannot apply to spellcasting.

Same here. I'm participating because it's an interesting intellectual exercise, through which I will learn about this corner of the rules. But if the RAW answer turns out to be insane, I'm not obligated to use that bit of the RAW in my games.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd prefer to think that when one stat block conflicts with the rules, the rules still win in general.

But the rule says Ability Focus applies to one Special Attack. It doesn't elaborate on what happens when one special attack encompasses several effects, each with their own DC.

Fists of Thunder and Lightning gives us an example of one special effect encompassing multiple effects, each with their own DC, and demonstrates that a single Ability Focus feat applies to all DCs thus encompassed.

It's not conflicting with the rules; rather, it's the only example we have (that I could find in the Core rules, at any rate) of how the rule should be applied in such a situation.

Using the Marut as a precedent, I'd assume a Beholder who took Ability Focus (Eye Rays) would apply the bonus to all DCs falling under the Eye Rays Special Attack.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

But the rule says Ability Focus applies to one Special Attack. It doesn't elaborate on what happens when one special attack encompasses several effects, each with their own DC.
-Hyp.

Yup and specifically ability focus (eldritch blast) will have different DCs based on the combination of essence and shape invocations placed on the eldritch blast.


Prime example and one that is specifically allowed per Complete Arcane.

Personally I think the feat is written incorrectly and that it shouldn't apply to things like "spells" or "class abilities" but rather to spell-like abilities and the like. But you do have a point and the books are not consistent in their approach to writing up special attacks.

 

[Nifft]

precedent

Sadly, using every book WotC has published as precedent, I find it much more likely that a stat block has errors.

Seriously, I don't think we want to start a precedent of citing stat-blocks as "proof". Otherwise, the most common repository of editing errors becomes the iron fist of law.

Cheers, -- N

 

[James McMurray]

Hmm actually I think this is incorrect.

The FAQ lists eldritch blast as a spell-like ability that AF can be used with - it does not say that a warlock can not take AF for a specific invocation (like say charm, baleful utterance or miasmic cloud - all allow saving throws)

Oops, true. I spoke without rechecking the text.

I still wouldn't allow Ability Focus (Spells), no matter what your stat block calls them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sadly, using every book WotC has published as precedent, I find it much more likely that a stat block has errors.

And where a stat block contradicts text, I agree that it should not take precedence.

But when a piece of text doesn't cover something, and a stat block exists as an example of what was not covered, isn't that better than no example at all?

Were it not for the Sample Half-Giant stat block in the XPH, for example, I'd maintain that Powerful Build is precisely written, and does not allow a Medium half-giant to wield a Large greatsword. With the stat block present, however, I'm inclined to say that Powerful Build is sloppily written, and allows a Medium half-giant to wield a Large greatsword; the example allows us to interpret the text where ambiguity exists.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

But the rule says Ability Focus applies to one Special Attack

Okay, let's try the angle that Spells as a Special Attack contradicts a lot of the Core rules, and thus cannot be valid.

I'll cite this text here:

Special Attacks and Special Qualities

Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature’s descriptive text.

When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows:

10 + ½ the attacker’s racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.

The save DC is given in the creature’s description along with the ability on which the DC is based.

... which is inconsistent with how Spells work, and I'll also cite this bit here:

Supernatural Abilities (Su)

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks.

... just to show that Spells cannot be considered (Su).

Considering Spells to be Spell-Like (Sp) would be amusing, but is equally obviously flawed.

Thoughts? Cheers, -- N