Greater Spell Focus: balanced?

[shilsen]

Headband of Intellect + Greater Spell Focus

I haven't seen it personally, but from what people say it is quite a deadly combo, isn't it? But which of the 2 makes the combination broken? GSF costs a feat, it is supposed to be worthwhile, and since a PC - except Wiz - usually have 7-8 feats in 20 levels, the value of a feat is high. Headband of Intellect has a market price 4kgp (+2), 16kgp (+4) or 36kgp (+6): given the extreme usefulness to a spellcaster, it has a ridiculously low price.

Now I ask you, for an extra +2 on your spells DC, would you rather spend a feat or 16kgp (and in the latter case have other benefits)?

At any level where it's financially feasible, I'd prefer the Headband +4 over the feat. Besides the problem of a limited number of feats, the Headband has a big advantage over the feat. It provides extra spells per day (at least 2), which the feat does not.

 

[hammymchamham]

true, instead of getting Greater Spell Focuc in one school, I could get Create Wonderous Item and make my own head band of intellect for less

 

[Ravellion]

Headband of Intellect + Greater Spell Focus

I haven't seen it personally, but from what people say it is quite a deadly combo, isn't it? But which of the 2 makes the combination broken? GSF costs a feat, it is supposed to be worthwhile, and since a PC - except Wiz - usually have 7-8 feats in 20 levels, the value of a feat is high. Headband of Intellect has a market price 4kgp (+2), 16kgp (+4) or 36kgp (+6): given the extreme usefulness to a spellcaster, it has a ridiculously low price.

Now I ask you, for an extra +2 on your spells DC, would you rather spend a feat or 16kgp (and in the latter case have other benefits)?

The thing is that there is parity between the classes with belts of Giant Strength and headbands of intellect, and Spell Focus and Weapon focus and Specialization.

Greater spell focus, introduced in a splat book, suddenly broke the parity, without introducing something on the other end of the spectrum. It also has the problem of increasing the problem which the Epic Level rules try to prevent (A rogue always making his reflex save and a fighter never, because base bonusses slowly move away from each other). Adding +2 to the DC seems unnecessary - quite often my adversaries are classed humanoids, and I simply found it to be unbalancing. Perhaps I should be using dragons all the time, but that would be a weakness in teh system IMHO.

Actually that might be a better feat, if it really is necessary: +2 vs save DC against a particular foe, Humanoid and giant can not be chosen.

Rav

 

[Apok]

Otherwise I am unconvinced that spellcasters need another dc boost to remain competitive with their enemies saves, especially as the can choose which save type to attack.

Then you have obviously never looked closely at some of the higher CR monsters out there, or you have never played with a DM who liked to advance monsters beyond their listed stats in the MM. Or, you have done both and you just don't care, and if that's the case then I don't see any point in continuing the discussion.

As a parting note, if a Wizards DC's are roughtly equivalent in nature to a fighter-type's BAB (I think that was the general consensus) then why doesn't the Wizards Spell DC's increase with level as a function of the class?

 

[IceBear]

I think the whole reason why there is a Greater Spell Focus is because of the ongoing opinions of many that it should be harder to save against the spells of higher level mages.

I keep seeing people proposing rules where the caster level factors into the DC of the save. GSF and Heighten become two ways to simulate higher level casters being harder to save against. Yes, I know that a spellcaster could get GSF at lower levels, but given the fact that it costs feats that low level casters might want for something else, I could see the rationale for this explanation.

Personally, I don't think it's broken. Yes, DCs can get insanely high, but that's generally because of spellcaster's ability scores than GSF. GSF comes at the cost of a precious feat. Increased ability scores help with DC and with skills. Gee, which would I rather do? It's the ability score increase that you should have an issue with when it comes to save DCs, not GSF.

IceBear

 

[Apok]

The thing is that there is parity between the classes with belts of Giant Strength and headbands of intellect, and Spell Focus and Weapon focus and Specialization.

Greater spell focus, introduced in a splat book, suddenly broke the parity, without introducing something on the other end of the spectrum.

Okay, lets talk about parity. We have been assuming that a Wizards DC's are roughly equivalent to a Fighters Attack bonus in terms of being combat-effective, so I'll go on that.

Fighter's Strength affects BAB and Damage, Wizards Intelligence affects DC. So far, so good.

Both Fighters and Wizards can increase their Strength and Intelligence through Magical Items, Wishes, and the every-four-levels Stat Boosts, so again we are even.

Fighters have Weapon Focus and Weapon specialization to increase both their attack bonus and damage, and wizards have Spell Focus to increase their DC's in one school. I'd say we are still even on this score.

Now, according to you, it's GSF that breaks this chain of parity, but allow me to inject some other things into the equation...

Fighters Attack bonus and damage can increase with magical weapons. Wizards have no equivalent DC booster.

Fighters Attack bonus can increase with certain buff spells and effects (not including the Bull's Strength or Endurance type spells as they are subsumed by magical stat boosting items). Aid, Bless, Bard's Inspire Courage, Belsameth's Blessing, and Polymorph Other just to name a few. Wizards have one DC boosting spell that I know of (spell enhancer) but it's only good for one single spell, whereas the other examples last for several rounds or minutes or even days at a time. Fighter wins out here, bigtime.

Finally, Fighters get better Attack bonuses as a function of their level . Every time you level up, you get a +1 to your BAB. Wizards have no such equivalent booster to their DC's.

To top it all off, whenever a fighter gets a +1 Attack bonus, it's good for every attack he makes. Spell Focus and GSF only enhance one single school, which will likely constitute only a portion of a Wizards spells. So, taking all this into consideration, I am in no way convinced (nor will I likely ever be) that Greater Spell Focus is unbalanced or makes Wizards the Ultimate Bootylicious Butt-Kicking class.

 

[IceBear]

Apok and I don't agree much (at least I don't think so ) but I agree with him here.

IceBear

 

[Apok]

Personally, I don't think it's broken. Yes, DCs can get insanely high, but that's generally because of spellcaster's ability scores than GSF.

Excellent points all-around.

Just as an aside, the really high DC's actually don't come into play until you start working in PrC's that grant Spellpower. Red Wizard and Archmage both can cause save DC's to skyrocket into stratospheric levels. A friend of mine once built a 32nd level Evoker/Archmage/Red Wizard with Evocation save DC's of 52 + spell level (the DC's for his other schools were much, much lower).

 

[thol]

greater spell focus and feats like it are not the problem.

the problem is the ridiculous DMs that let their players buy +6 headbands of intellect.

i am tired of people blaming magic item balance issues on game mechanic "faults". the main way characters get overpowered is when the DM lets players go to the Magic Item section of Wal-Mart and buy whatever they feel like with the overabundance of gold they found in their last adventure, or to the Magic Home Depot and get parts to make their item for $19.95.

in d&d you should get your magic items the old fashioned way... sparingly given out by your DM after completeing a successful adventure.

 

[Ravellion]

Apok and I don't agree much (at least I don't think so ) but I agree with him here.

IceBear

So what you are saying is that greater Spell Focus is missing from the core rules, and the splatbooks are correcting the fact. If you play just core rules, no splatbooks, wizards are quite weak. You do realize that is what you are saying right?