Ability Focus: Spells?

[Hypersmurf]

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'd say it's an apparent exception to the "must be Sp, Su, or Ex" rule, like the Kuo-Toa's Pincer Staff or the Sahuagin's Blood Frenzy.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

My thought is that I've already shot apart the premise that a special attack is necessarily a special ability, so Hyp's point stands (as is so often the case).

 

[Nifft]

I'd say it's an apparent exception to the "must be Sp, Su, or Ex" rule, like the Kuo-Toa's Pincer Staff or the Sahuagin's Blood Frenzy.

Fair enough. But if you get to make arbitrary "apparent exceptions" to excuse clear rules violations, then so do we: "spells" is an exception, and you can't take Ability Focus (Spells) because another set of feats already covers focusing on those.

-- N

 

[gnfnrf]

If the rule for how to determine what Ability Focus can apply to is what appears on the "Special Attacks" line, does this mean that no creature from recent books can ever take it? The new style statblock doesn't include a "Special Attacks" section.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fair enough. But if you get to make arbitrary "apparent exceptions" to excuse clear rules violations, then so do we...

Another example recently is the Haste spell.

The text for Dodge bonuses states that no spell provides a Dodge bonus. The text for Haste states that the Haste spell provides a Dodge bonus.

The general principle is that more specific takes precedence over less specific - the rule for the Haste spell trumps the rule for all spells.

This is similar - we have a rule that all special abilities are Ex, Su, or Sp, and then we have the Pincer Staff - a special attack that is not Ex, Su, or Sp. The rule for the Pincer Staff special ability overrides the rule for all special abilities.

When I say 'apparent exception', I mean it's an exception that's apparent. We can see that it's an exception, because it conflicts with a more general rule.

Your exception is arbitrary, rather than apparent - Spells is listed as a special attack, but you're saying it's an exception to the rule that Ability Focus applies to special attacks because another feat exists that applies to spells. Spell Focus doesn't by its existence exclude the possibility of Ability Focus applying to spells, so the exception is not derived from anything written... it's an arbitrary preference thing.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the rule for how to determine what Ability Focus can apply to is what appears on the "Special Attacks" line, does this mean that no creature from recent books can ever take it? The new style statblock doesn't include a "Special Attacks" section.

It's a potential problem, since the prerequisite for the feat is "Special Attack". If nothing in the new stat block indicates what is or is not a "Special Attack", how can one determine if a creature meets the prerequisite?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

When I say 'apparent exception', I mean it's an exception that's apparent. We can see that it's an exception, because it conflicts with a more general rule.

Alright, let's try a different tack. The comparison I made earlier between things that aren't Ex, Sp or Su (and yet appear as Special Attacks) applies to Spells, too. I'd contest that this means those things don't fit, and are not special attacks. The placement on the Special Attacks line is wrong.

Spells are exceptional in two ways: they're unqualified as special attacks, and they have their own "focus" feat mechanic; they have two reasons (one better than the other, I'll admit) to be excluded from Ability Focus.

- - -

In an orthogonal point, Ability Focus is under-specified. You can "qualify" for it using something like Improved Grab or Rend, which has no DC.

The easiest fix would be to have Ability Focus require a qualifying special attack, which would be an (Ex) or (Su) attack that has a DC, which would solve both issues.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Alright, let's try a different tack. The comparison I made earlier between things that aren't Ex, Sp or Su (and yet appear as Special Attacks) applies to Spells, too. I'd contest that this means those things don't fit, and are not special attacks. The placement on the Special Attacks line is wrong.

Which is where I'd say that in the absence of errata, the placement is not wrong... hence the apparent exception.

It's like how two-handed weapons require two hands to wield effectively. Does that mean that classifying the lance as a two-handed weapon is wrong? No, it means the lance is an exception to the general rule.

In an orthogonal point, Ability Focus is under-specified. You can "qualify" for it using something like Improved Grab or Rend, which has no DC.

Well, yes and no. You could qualify for it with Rend. Then you choose one of your special attacks, and the DC for that special attack increases by 2.

If Rend is your only special attack, it makes the feat useless. Ability Focus (Rend) is like Weapon Specialization (Net) - legal, but pointless. If Rend isn't your only special attack, then you could qualify for the feat even if you didn't have Rend. There's no exploit there, so why is the feat 'under-specified'?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Which is where I'd say that in the absence of errata, the placement is not wrong... hence the apparent exception.

It's like how two-handed weapons require two hands to wield effectively. Does that mean that classifying the lance as a two-handed weapon is wrong? No, it means the lance is an exception to the general rule.

That's not an apparent exception -- that's an explicit exception, like the rapier and spiked chain being finessable.

If we saw a stat-block with a guy on horseback using a greatsword and a shield, would you think the greatsword implicitly gained the same exception?

There's no exploit there, so why is the feat 'under-specified'?

For exploit details, see thread title.

"Qualifying" as defined in my proposed errata does two things: prevents stupid NPCs from taking Ability Focus (Rend), and prevents malicious characters from taking Ability Focus (Spells).

One of those things you addressed. The other is the topic of this thread. Guess which one I care about more?

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

So since the Trumpet Archon cast spells like a cleric and this is not a spell-like ability, it requires all material, somatic, verbal and divine focus requirements normally needed by a cleric.

What is its divine focus? Its trumpet (logical)?

Also because of strange nature of the special attack feature it would appear that the Trumpet Archon could take both Ability Focus (Spells) and Spell Focus (school) and get a +3 to the spell DCs of that school, he could even go with greater spell focus and get a +4. He would meet all the requirements - he is a spellcaster since he casts spells as if a cleric (hence not a spell like ability). These are untyped bonuses so they should stack.