Pissed about the reduction of the Spell Focus Feats

[Numion]

I think that the problem with the Spell Focus Feats is that they don't make the caster better with spells of the chosen school; they make the caster better with spells of that chosen school which happen to have a save.

So for some schools (abjuration, divination) where the proportion of 'save' spells is low (although this might change if scry now allows a save!) it was not a good Feat to take even at +2. OTOH Evocation and Transmutation have a lot of 'save' spells, and for that matter a lot of 'save' spells which affect multiple enemies, and so even at +1 it will still be a useful Feat.

And point blank shot only helps ranged attacks. Whats your point?

 

[Al]

And point blank shot only helps ranged attacks. Whats your point?

Not a parity at all. An archer uses his ranged attack far more often than even a specialised wizard uses his school spells. For one, he would be a fool to memorise all his spells from one school (unless he is an enchanter and knows a horde of Lernean Hydras are round the corner...not very likely); for two, he runs out of spells far more quickly than the archer runs out of arrows.

Again, an accurate SR

You miss Grog's point. Grog's point is that %-wise, more high CRs creatures have SR than low CR creatures. Thus, his spells are more likely to fail- even with Spell Penetration.

The mathematical analysis is solid-Spell Focus at +2 is mechanically superior to most magical feats.

Show me the analysis. Show me, incidentally, a comparable analysis with Weapon Specialisation in terms of net average offensive effectiveness increase.

Yes, they are. The SF/GSF combo was a must have

Sure. I'm more than willing to concede that GSF was pushing it. What I'm wary of is that SF *in isolation* was broken.

Are there situations where the Wizard PC will target a humanoid who will only save on a 20? Quite a few

Assertion alert! Again, demonstrate clearly where this occurs. I would say relatively rarely- most high level PCs have the nouse the get Cloaks of Resistance, and perhaps burn a feat on a booster for their worst save (it pays).

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.

No, no one took Heighten Spell because it was lame. If anything, Heighten Spell becomes more useful from SF/GSF, as the DC boosts stack.

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

Probably not (unless it's a cleric with Wis or a rogue with Dex). However, what he can get is a nice item which gives a +5 to saves (relatively cheaply compared to high-level wealth); no such equivalent item exists for DCs. He can get a Luckstone, which boosts saves at a nice cheap price (and checks). He can get a Pale green ioun stone which boosts his saves (and attacks and checks). For less than 10% of his wealth at top-level, he can boost his saves by 7. There is no excuse for any top-level PC having any save value at less than about +15. If anything, my examples are wrong not because they underestimate the impact of SF, but because they underestimate the height of PC saves. The wizard, with his Headband and Tome +5, can, for roughly four times the cost, boost his DCs by 5.

Evocation

is an even less effective choice for SF, since it is save for half. With save for half spells, against enemies with a 50/50 chance to save (average according to WotC guidelines), net effectiveness is increased by 1/32 by the +1 SF. You've got to look at me straight-faced and say that fighter can do a base 64 damage without WS to obtain effectiveness parity.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Probably not (unless it's a cleric with Wis or a rogue with Dex). However, what he can get is a nice item which gives a +5 to saves (relatively cheaply compared to high-level wealth); no such equivalent item exists for DCs.

Oh joy. Find me a rogue who can make a Fortitude save, average +20, at 20th-level, and I'll show you a nerfed wizard.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, an accurate SR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You miss Grog's point. Grog's point is that %-wise, more high CRs creatures have SR than low CR creatures. Thus, his spells are more likely to fail- even with Spell Penetration.

I got the point. A high-level wizard's spells are more powerful. They are not supposed to work 50% of the time.

I can't wait to tell my players - hey, guess what, every wizard you run into has a 50% chance of killing one of you. Well, you are supposed to lose 20-25% of your resources

 

[Dimwhit]

I know I'm not happy about it. I have a low-level Wizard with 2 spell focuses and 1 greater spell focus. If my group refuses to house rule it, I'm picking 3 new feats for my Wizards. It's just not worth the precious feat slot at +1! Stupid change.

 

[RigaMortus]

Only if you believe that a standard wizard (i.e., one without spell penetration feats or spell power) should always have a 50% chance of spell failure when faced with SR on a monster of CR equal to his level. At any rate, even if it's an "accurate" SR, it still reduces the chance of the wizard affecting his foe with a spell considerably.

I'm agreeing with you, and would also like to add this...

If Spell DCs should "always" have a 50/50 chance vs a monster of CR equal to level, then shouldn't the same thing hold true for melee/ranged combat? Shouldn't a Fighter then have a 50/50 chance of hitting an opponent who'se CR is equal to his level? it's only fair, right?

 

[RigaMortus]

I got the point. A high-level wizard's spells are more powerful. They are not supposed to work 50% of the time.

Well they ARE higher level spells. They ARE supposed to be "more powerful". Shouldn't they be effective more than 50% of the time? Seems ashame to get a level 9 spell that doesn't work very effectively on equivalent opponents of the same level. Maybe they are meant to take out a kobold dens instead?

 

[Zogg]

Ugh. Don't mean to sound like a broken record but the point stands:

It's really easy for any PC to raise his saves - they need only make a small effort through feat selection or proper equipment choices.

In 3E, a spellcaster could almost keep up but it took a great deal of effort - SF had to be taken in several schools, ability point increases HAD to be spent on the primary spellcasting stat (as opposed to the useful CON or DEX), and a sick amount of money had to be spent on the proper items. Don't even get me started on combating spell resistance.

NOW, in 3.5E, there really is no chance to keep up with enemy saves now that SF has been reduced in power. A cloak of resistance +2 is only 4K gold. That's sick considering it can effectively cancel out the 2 SF/GSF feats. It's clear WotC screwed up on this one - and NO IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD - but I'm pretty sure the new rule will be ignored by the masses.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Shouldn't they be effective more than 50% of the time?

Precisely. Why bother having a CR system otherwise?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Originally posted by Zogg

It's really easy for any PC to raise his saves - they need only make a small effort through feat selection or proper equipment choices.

You are sounding like a broken record because this is true for the spellcaster especially.

The defender has use magic items to pump 3 ability scores and spend 3 feats to bolster them saves by 2.

3.0 D&D requires the spellcaster to boost one ability with magic items to improve DCs and two feats to bolster them by 4.

You know it was too good to last. Cheese with that?

 

[Grog]

Where do people get this idea that a spellcaster is supposed to end an encounter in one round from anyway? A fighter can only do that by resorting to a broken item (vorpal - I'll bet money this is being nerfed) and he has to spend his resources (hit points) as well.

Bad comparassion. The wizard doesn't "only" have a 50% chance of ending the encounter in one round. He only has a 50% chance of his spell doing anything at all.

That isn't going to save him from Will-save spells,

The titan also has a pretty good Will save. And anyway, what Will save spells could the wizard throw? The only will-save-or-die spells allow a Fort save in addition. Hold has been nerfed to a save every round, and does nothing to stop use of SLAs, so the titan could just go ethereal and wait a round or two to break out of the spell. Dominate monster? If anyone except a deity tries to give a titan orders, he's going to get another Will save, this time with the +4 bonus for trying to make the subject do something against its nature.

I just don't see a lot of Will save spells that could end the encounter in one round.

waves of exhaustion (a bit embarrasing for a creature with a well-spring of vitality) or Reflex save-or-consequences spells. His good save only saves him from roughly one third of the save-or-consequences spells in a wizard's arsenal.

What Reflex save-or-consequences spells are there? And I'm already on record as not liking the cone of fatigue/exhaustion spells.

Half of the problem is monster design ... far too many monsters have wimpy ACs and wimpy saves. Of course, a full-round attack is a lot less effective than a save-or-consequences spell.

I would say that depends on both the damage the full attack does, and the consequences of the spell.