Ability Focus: Spells?

[Hypersmurf]

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?

If I saw twenty-six such stat blocks, I'd certainly consider it!

"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).

Your proposed erratum excludes Sp abilities... why? Special abilities can be Sp as well as Ex or Su...

And Special Attacks can be none of the above, to judge by Pincer Staff, Blood Frenzy, and Spells (x26)...

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

You have 26 examples of Ability Focus (Spells)? I don't think so. You don't even have 26 examples of implicit exception.

You only have one example of Ability Focus boosting two save DCs, and that's likely the result of an editing error (Fist of Thunder and Lightning) -- the original monster had no feats, so it wasn't an issue that two effects were listed under a single bold heading.

Your proposed erratum excludes Sp abilities... why? Special abilities can be Sp as well as Ex or Su...

I want to preempt Ability Focus (Spell-Like Abilities), because that's just about as stupid as Ability Focus (Spells) for a critter with a lot of spell-like abilities.

A line saying you can focus on one spell-like ability would be sufficient; but the first line, the inclusive one, should simply allow you to focus on any (Ex) or (Su) that has a save DC.

But that's a proposal, not a reading.

- - -

Back to the readings: by the doctrine of apparent exception, Int 12 is sufficient for Combat Expertise (PHB-II, page 35); by this same doctrine, Ability Focus does not rely on an ability appearing in the Special Attack line, or the character having a Special Attack line at all (PHB-II, page 51).

So far we have the only prerequisite of Ability Focus not being necessary (and this is separate from my previous argument that it is not sufficient). I'd say the feat is poorly worded, or poorly interpreted by stat-block writers, or both.

Given the above, I'd argue that the doctrine of apparent exception causes more trouble than it's worth. Stat blocks are evil, mang. It's hard to get them right, and probably quite easy to overlook one when editing hundreds. Let's not use them as the gold standard.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

I think, by the RAW, and by standing FAQ answers, you could take Ability Focus for a single spell or single invocation. Single spell-like abilities are explicitly allowed, as are feats (stunning fist), class features (death strike), and things with varying saving throws or that don't always have one (eldritch blast).

As many creatures have "spell-like abilities" listed as a special attack, the same logic would seem to apply to spells as spell-like abilities.

As Spell Focus grants a +1 and applies to a whole school, Ability Focus (fireball) granting a +2 on that spell would seem to fulfill the minimum logical requirements for balance.

I don't think I'd allow it, but that's houserules territory.

 

[moritheil]

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.

The way rules threads tend to work, some come for the original issue; some come for the side arguments and rule nuances. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out rule inconsistencies. It's important for DMs to know about these problems before they get a player who insists that the RAW is on his side and brings up said examples.

prevents malicious characters from taking Ability Focus (Spells).

Just a nitpick, but you mean malicious players, right?

 

[Nifft]

Just a nitpick, but you mean malicious players, right?

I'm including malice-filled DMs, too.

-- N

 

[moritheil]

I'm including malice-filled DMs, too.

-- N

Awwww.

 

[Nail]

Awwww.

(Interesting thread!)

 

[SadisticFishing]

Heh, intention is important though, they clearly didn't mean for you to be able to take Ability Focus (Spells).

But, I hate to argue against the side I agree with - Sp has to be Abilty Focus-able, or Warlocks would be in trouble.. and in the PHb2 (it might even be in CArc), it explicitly says that you can take Ability Focus (Eldritch Blast).

Then again, if you can take Ability Focus (Eldritch Blast), and not (Invocations), wouldn't you have to take Ability Focus (Finger of Death), and not (Spells)?

 

[irdeggman]

I want to preempt Ability Focus (Spell-Like Abilities), because that's just about as stupid as Ability Focus (Spells) for a critter with a lot of spell-like abilities.

A line saying you can focus on one spell-like ability would be sufficient; but the first line, the inclusive one, should simply allow you to focus on any (Ex) or (Su) that has a save DC.

But that's a proposal, not a reading.

Or a reading from the FAQ:

Does the Ability Focus feat (Monster Manual, page 303) apply to spell-like abilities?
Yes, although each selection of the feat applies only to a single spell-like ability. A dretch could select Ability Focus (scare) or Ability Focus (stinking cloud).

 

[irdeggman]

Heh, intention is important though, they clearly didn't mean for you to be able to take Ability Focus (Spells).

But, I hate to argue against the side I agree with - Sp has to be Abilty Focus-able, or Warlocks would be in trouble.. and in the PHb2 (it might even be in CArc), it explicitly says that you can take Ability Focus (Eldritch Blast).

Complete Arcane pg 7 (near the bottum it specifically states Ability Focus (Eldritch Blast) and earlier on the page it says that a warlock can take Ability Focus.