Pissed about the reduction of the Spell Focus Feats

[Darklone]

I don't really agree with these examples.

You take averages. Against a monk that's ok, he has three strong saves. But a wizard, especially a PC, is likely to target weak saves on his opponents. That gives you another 10%. At least.

Now look at someone with higher Int... as any villain or PC... and you can be sure that the opponent will not have an equally high stat for the relevant save.

If we assume (not so seldom for me) that the victim saves on a 18-20 or even 19-20... then Spell focus makes a feeble 5% that may give a factor of 1.5 or even two times the chance to fail the save.

It's still worth it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe it was also a similar reason why the changed haste - everybody took it, nobody took quicken spell. Everybody took Spell focus, nobody Heighten Spell.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Zogg]

Thank you to those of you who agree with my impression - hopefully we have been given wrong information OR my DM will just agree with me and ignore the change. People need to keep in mind that this feat only affects 1 school of magic - and as many have already pointed out there are the 3 feats out there that raise saves by +2 - so the new Spell Focus/GSF feats are now going to be rendered obsolete.

I might as well take a big black sharpie and scratch those feats off the list. Boy, my choices in 3.5E sure are expanding.

 

[Ranes]

I mainly DM. I like the change. My players - some newbies, some veterans - will not care. As a player who likes to play wizards, I will still probably spend a feat on SF and when, just once in that PC's lifespan, as the campaign hinges on a possible TPK and my wizard's target fails its save by 1 (and I don't even know it, because the DM keeps exact numbers hidden), my choice of feat will be vindicated.

If, on the other hand, my wizard's spell DC falls short by 1... Oh well. Them's the breaks.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Get rid of?

How are they supposed to 'get rid of GSF'? This isn't a new edition; it's a revision of the current eddition. WoTC has stated explicitly that all of the material out there could still be used. So they can't remove anything, they can only edit it and re-release it.

By putting in SF and then adding a sidebar, after more playtesting we realized GSF found in some supplements unbalanced things, so we no longer have it in the game, anyone who already has GSF should get to trade their feat for a new feat.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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.

"Bad" saves lag 2 to 3 points behind "good" saves, or roughly six levels. So a +1 to a save DC is the same as six levels of saving throw bonuses against the conspicuous target. +2 to a save DC (GSF) is worth 9 levels of saving throw bonuses.

What that really means in practice (because most encounters match the PCs against opponents of roughly the same power level) is that casters with SF and GSF have a 5% to 10% advantage when casting spells at conspicuous targets.

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 (and there's nothing worse than a feat that you absolutely, positively should always take - that's what class features are for.) Even with the revised values, pure spellcasters will probably still take them, because the advantages they offer are so significant.

If there's a problem here its more with the range of difference between good saves and bad saves. The system set up seems to be if you have a chance in hell of beating the good save you blow away the bad saves. This gets especially bad with the monsters since many of them have absudrley high stats in their good sav areas making the the character who can beat those saves even worse when pared up against someones weak save.

 

[Ravellion]

Thank you to those of you who agree with my impression - hopefully we have been given wrong information OR my DM will just agree with me and ignore the change. People need to keep in mind that this feat only affects 1 school of magic - and as many have already pointed out there are the 3 feats out there that raise saves by +2 - so the new Spell Focus/GSF feats are now going to be rendered obsolete.

I might as well take a big black sharpie and scratch those feats off the list. Boy, my choices in 3.5E sure are expanding.

Yes, they are. The SF/GSF combo was a must have, so no you must choose from a more balanced field of feats. As a Dm, knowing how it is like behind the screen, I knew as a player that SF/GSF was always worth it. If you didn't think it was worth it, your unbalanced(as in too few spells depending ona save) spell selection was to blame, not the SF/GSF feats.

The +2 to a saving throw feat obsoleting DCs is ridiculous. You migth as well say that a cloak of resistance obsoletes 1st-5th level spells.

Are there situations where the Wizard PC will target a humanoid who will only save on a 20? Quite a few. Are there situations where the Wizard PC will target a humanoid who will only fail on a 1? Only very, very rarely, and defineitly not with his highest level spell.

Rav

 

[Christian]

I imagine that if people weren't taking the feat at +2, it was because it wasn't ... trying to find a good word ... sexy. As feats go, you know. The mathematical analysis is solid-Spell Focus at +2 is mechanically superior to most magical feats. Any primary spellcaster who uses a fair number of spells that allow saving throws, especially if s/he has more than one or two that are used regularly and share a school, min/maxes effectively by taking this feat. (Possibly not until higher levels, when s/he has more spells per day, though.) At +1, it's probably very slightly underpowered ... Maybe a +2 to Spellcraft checks to identify/decipher scrolls of spells of the chosen school would be in order.

It's not relevant to compare to the save bonus feats-defense is always going to be a bit easier than offense, not to mention that the target doesn't get to pick what save to use against a given attack ...

(Weapon Focus suffers from this same 'boring' factor, BTW. It's actually a very potent feat for a character who spends a fair amount of time in melee or missile combat ... Players who are more interested in min-maxing than in making 'cool' characters are advised to keep this in mind.)

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I imagine that if people weren't taking the feat at +2, it was because it wasn't ... trying to find a good word ... sexy. As feats go, you know. The mathematical analysis is solid-Spell Focus at +2 is mechanically superior to most magical feats.

Where is this solid mathematical analysis. so far I've seen worst/best case scenarios from both sides of this debate, netiher of which have in any way proven it was too good or too weak or whatever.

Personally I think, empower, extend, craft wonderous and craft arms and armor are clearly supperior on a mathmatical level.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

By putting in SF and then adding a sidebar, after more playtesting we realized GSF found in some supplements unbalanced things, so we no longer have it in the game, anyone who already has GSF should get to trade their feat for a new feat.

An announcement from WotC

"Attention all munchkins! The following prestige classes are broken: red wizard, archmage, incantrix, forsaker, etc. Please stop taking these classes!"

If that were real, it wouldn't work. Despite Sean K Reynold's redesign of the Archmage prestige class to something more balanced (he designed it in the first place) people still demand the right to play a prestige class like that.

Don't believe me?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm also curious why you ignore the input of the designer of the prestige class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don’t ignore his input but notice this - his final version didn’t make it in the books. I know I would never (nor would my players) take a PrC that would hit their caster levels by 5 just for a few abilities. Spell power is NOT good enough to give up 2 levels of spells (like 8th and 9th).
I can only guess (?) that’s why the final version was different than Mr. Reynolds version.

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm14.showMessageRange?topicID=2982.topic&start=21&stop=40

I just hope the Red Wizard/Archmage get nerfed in the 3.5 DMG.

Shard O'Glase

If there's a problem here its more with the range of difference between good saves and bad saves. The system set up seems to be if you have a chance in hell of beating the good save you blow away the bad saves.

If they changed the entire saving throw system, wouldn't this be a hidden anti-spellcaster nerf?

Changing a feat is a revision. Changing the entire saving throw system is a new edition.

Besides, I'm amazed (and pleased) that WotC is taking responsibility for previous mistakes. More corporations should adopt WotC's work ethic.