Pissed about the reduction of the Spell Focus Feats

[Ravellion]

As a DM who likes to use NPCs as opponents to the PCs, this change is VERY welcome.

All the arguments I see for keeping it at +2/+4 are about Wizards not being able to affect greater spell resistant mage slaying were gerbils.

Some people actually have groups that fight NPCs at least some of the time (as it is actually assumed, see the Dungeon random encounters tables in the DMG), and I found a +2 per feat to be too much a must have, even with GSF banned IMC. I felt like I had to give all my NPCs cloaks of resistance to give them a chance, but I didn't want to do that for obvious reasons.

No actually, not just too much a must have, more of a: you are stupid to not take this feat. I would have liked SF to be +1, and then a sidebar saying that a GSF would be a really bad idea.

So that's why I think the change is fine, but then I still have one question:
To the people who say that they will not buy the edition exactly because of this change (ie. you were going to buy it before)... Would you also not buy a great car which has one cupholder too few in your opinion? This change is so easily houseruled, I can't believe not buying a book over just this.

Oh well.

Rav

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Okay I'll run through some numbers. I will assume minimal stats so as to make my maths easier.

Level 1 Wizard with 11 Int has a DC of 11 for his spells. Level 1 bad saves are +0 and succeed 50% of the time. Level 1 good saves are +2 and succeed 60% of the time.

Level 10 Wizard with 15 Int has a DC of 17 for his best spells. Level 10 bad saves are +3 and succeed 35% of the time. Level 10 good saves are +7 and succeed 55% of the time.

Level 20 Wizard with 19 Int has a DC of 23 for his best spells. Level 20 bad saves are +6 and succeed 20% of the time. Level 20 good saves are +12 and succeed 50% of the time.

Summary:
Bad saves succeeding = 50%, 35%, 20%
Good saves succeeding = 60%, 55%, 50%

Now we add in cloaks of resistance because this is a staple item that is desirable for saves in every campaign. I am aware of the various other bonuses for race and the like but they do not apply universally so I'll ignore them. Taking the 20th level characters and adding a +5 cloak we get:

Bad save is now +11, succeeding 45% of the time.
Good save is now +17, succeeding 75% of the time.

Add the feats to influence the saves and DCs. This is difficult to gauge because the defending characters have to spend 3 feats to uniformly improve all saves by 10% but they are likely to only bolster the poor saves. That means they would use up 2 feats. The spell caster would require a massive 14 feats to improve all his DCs (ignoring divination) which is clearly never going to happen. Instead they will have a focused school, maybe 2, but not likely because of cost. So this one school which holds at least 50% of the spells that they regularly favour has their DCs bumped up by 2 to improve the DCs by 10% By a whisker I'd have to think that the defender now has an advantage worth, say, an extra 5%

Bad save is now succeeding 50% of the time.
Good save is now succeeding 80% of the time.

Now add in the superior ability score that real characters have. I won't actually calculate anything because this is so variable but the following I believe to be true.

1. The character will max out their prime requisite.
2. Characters will improve save influencing stats as they can afford.
3. Spell casters will attempt to target poor saves.
   [/List=1]
   
   I don't know what the numbers would be but I bet that the spellcaster benefits the most here with their success rates versus poor saves. Good saves should still thwart the spellcaster more than half the time but that is how it should be.
   
   In short I think the change is fine but another possible solution for a pro-spellcaster campaign would be to restore spell focus to +2 and ditch greater spell focus completely. That would put the feats influence on DCs in the spellcasters favour again I think.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

In short I think the change is fine but another possible solution for a pro-spellcaster campaign would be to restore spell focus to +2 and ditch greater spell focus completely. That would put the feats influence on DCs in the spellcasters favour again I think.

I agree. Though I've never seen a problem with it, if we go with Ryan Dancey's analysis, then +4 is simply too strong. But halving the feats only places a greater feat burden on spellcasters, especially sorcerers, bards, clerics, and druids who don't receive any bonus feats. IMO a better solution may have been to simply remove Greater Spell Focus from the game. This prevents PCs from gaining the unbalancing +4, but only requires one feat for the +2.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

From imc experience I might also add that save boosting feats are usually overlooked for the more proactive feats which are considered more fun.

The whole DC/saves arms race is not something I really want to encourage because of the bland nature of it.

Yeah, I agree, RyanD is on to it. Now, fingers crossed, what they should have in the up-coming core rules 3.5 is give good proactive feats to the spellcasters.

Players scratching their heads over which feats to take is a very good thing, imo.

 

[Derrick Reeves]

FreeTheSlaves, you could have just used the NPC tables in the DMG. I'll present a similar analysis to yours based on these. I've chosen levels to represent

At first level, a spellcaster will have 15 in their spellcasting ability (1). This sets the save DC of their 1st-level spells at 13. Glancing over the tables, the range of bad saves goes from -1 to +2 - 35-50% chance. Good saves are +3 or +4, which gives a 55-60% chance to save. (2)

At sixth level, a spellcaster will have 16 in their spellcasting ability, and may have a +2 item (from 13k gold in equipment), setting the save DC of their 3rd-level spells at 17. Bad saves at this level are +2 to +5, presenting a 30-45% chance to save. Good saves tend to be in the +6 to +8 range, with 50-60% chances for succesful saves. (3)

At twelfth level, a spellcaster will have 18 in their spellcasting ability, and can count on a +4 item (from 88k gold in equipment),setting the save DC of their 6th-level spells at 22. Bad saves at this level are +4 to +8, presenting a 15-35% chance to save. Good saves are +9 to +12 (4), presenting a 40-55% chance for success. (5)

At eighteenth level, a spellcaster will have 19 in their spellcasting ability, can count on a +6 item (from 440k gold in equipment), and will probably have acquired a +1 inherent bonus, setting the save DC of their 9th level spells at 27. Bad saves at this level are +6 to +13, presenting a 5-35% chance for success. Good saves are +12 to +16 (6), with 30-50% chances for a successful save. (7)


The old Spell Focus was pretty good - probably too good - when you look over these numbers. With Greater Spell Focus, saving throws went from Russian Roulette to being shot in the face .

After having done this analysis, I now think that the new revisions are just fine. The added DC will still be meaningful in the same way that Weapon Focus is, without swamping even good saving throw bonuses.


(1) More if you're not playing standard array. With points-based, this tends to be 16, dice-built spellcaster (IME) tend towards 17-18. Obviously, this higher starting level will increase later totals. OTOH, the DM should take higher party stats into account when creating challenges, so this should cancel out.

(2) Typical 1st level challenges: Goblins and Orcs are actually a bit worse off. (Hobgoblins, of course, have fine saves ) Ghouls have very good Will saves, though this doesn't seem to be very important given the available spells. The Ogre's massive fortitude save is balanced out by weak saves within the expected range.

(3) Typical 6th level challenges: Trolls have fantastic fortitude saves (though everyone should know this). Their weak saves are in the expected range. Wyverns are tough, as all their saves are good (though a low AC will allow the fighters to carry the load). The Hellcat, likewise, has all good saves, and SR (though 16 isn't going to be a big ask as this level).

(4) Actually, the NPC Rogue has a Reflex save of +17, having taken Lightning Reflexes, so he'll save 90% of the time (with Evasion)!

(5) Typical 12th level challenges: The Devourer's saves are in the bottom end of the expected range, thankfully! The Kraken, on the other hand, has HUGE saves - its poor saves are about as good as strong saves for an NPC of the same CR. Adult Blue Dragons are no slouches either.

(6) Ok, there's some really high-end saves up here that I didn't mention - the Rogue is still bouncing like a jumping jack, and you already knew not to try Heightened Dominate Person on the high priest, right?

(7) Balors and Mariliths will have a hard time saving against anything at this level. The latter's spell resistance will make a difference, though. Dragons are heavily spell resistant AND have good saves, though. The big T saves against pretty much everything, has heaps of SR and mad immunities.

 

[LordAO]

I wonder if they are going to make Iron Will only give a +1 saving throw? Fair is fair? Or is it?

And a + to a saving throw is much more broad than a single school of magic.

 

[Spatula]

Re: Re: Pissed about the reduction of the Spell Focus Feats

That's a huge, practical advantage in game for the use of SF and GSF. With the old versions of the abilities, not taking SF and GSF was almost always a mistake

...if you're a specialist, and your school has a lot of spells that allow saves. Or a generalist focused on one spell school.

I just don't think that +1 on saves for one school is worth a feat. The 3.0 Spell Focus is not a problem. Greater Spell Focus, combined with Forgotten Realms PrCs that pump up spell DCs, are a problem. And I believe two of those PrCs are making their way into the 3.5 DMG.

But I think that the change might be a good one in that it could encourage mages to spend their feats on something other than uber-specialization.

 

[drowdude]

No, it doesn't bother me at all and frankly I am glad for the change.

I agree.

The spell DCs most PC wizards were tossing around were kind of outrageous, even at low levels. I can still remember the DC 22 fireballs Mulkhoran was tossing around at 5th level

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Pissed about the reduction of the Spell Focus Feats

When designing anything that affects a save DC, the target that should be considered when determining rule balance is the target most likely to be affected by the spell. That means that in the case of a spell with a Fort save, the conspicuous target is a character with a "bad" Fort Save... That's a huge, practical advantage in game for the use of SF and GSF. With the old versions of the abilities, not taking SF and GSF was almost always a mistake...

I guess I have to throw some observations in on this issue. The first one is this: In general terms, no normal D&D players make this analysis except for the hard-core minority who crunch numbers and visit D&D websites daily.

I've been playing wekly with a group of players in our 20s and 30s since 3rd Edition came out (even before, we were using 2nd Edition). We've all played AD&D as kids in the '80s, and are generally pretty bright. And yet none of my fellow players has ever thought to memorize what kinds of classes and monsters have which bad saves and target spells precisely against those saves. No spellcaster has ever taken the Spell Focus feat in 3 years of playing (in at least 3 different campaigns with numerous rotating PCs in each).

So in practice, it doesn't look to me like those "compare only to bad saves" statistics are anywhere near as relevant in a large majority of play sessions. I suppose one could ask: Should we balance the rules for a median game or a worst-case min-max game? But then the other factor is that we don't use FRCS (or whatever) so no one's ever seen Greater Spell Focus, and apparently no one's ever thought that +2 to DCs to one single school of magic was worth the bother (including me).

I agree with the posters who think the proper solution would be to deep-six Greater Spell Focus. From what I've seen, from non-grand-master-level players, without the FRCS rules, you could have told that Spell Focus was being increased and I would have thought that it was justified, since I've never seen anyone value it enough to take it yet.

 

[green slime]

GSF came sprung out of the woodwork that was PsiHB.

There is is perfectly feasible to create a DC d20+21 (psions roll d20 to determine the DC, instead of having a flat 10 base) Mass Domination power at 15th level.

And that is without the added cheese from Mind's Eye.

Gamers always want more options for their games. More options always mean a sliding increase in power. Because gamers PAY for these products.

I think this toning down of Spell Focus and GSF is a good thing.