[Rant] On Spell Focus...

[Psion]

Enter only with a open mind (yes, that means you too Psion. )

Are you suggesting that I didn't come to my conclusion with an open mind?

The only thing that would salvage the feat, IMO, is the suggested +1 DC and +1 caster level.

I thought that this might be an overreaction to uber spell-DCs from combos with the archmage. But we see the latter is not a problem anymore, so what's the point?

* Symmentry. Weapon Focus is a feat that grants +1 to hit with a chosen weapon.

Um, my firewall won't let me at the compilation thread, but wasn't it upgraded to +2?

(Actually, Spell Focus has the advantage of affecting only 1 of 8 possible choices, as opposed the countless weapons in the game.)

So, weapons have pretty much one purpose in the game: deal damage. Unless you have your weapon taken from you, you pretty much have two weapon choices: your meleee weapon and your missile weapon (if any).

This is unlike spell focus. You might deal damage. Or you might scry someone (now on save DC, remember), or read their mind, or whatever. You only get to pick one blade of your magic swiss army knife to treat as your special one.

* Its a Base Feat. Few "base feats" or feats that start chains are a great as other feats with more pre-reqs. Compare it to weapon focus, dodge, or point blank shot, and you see they grant the same bonus, +1 to their appropriate ability.

You mean like dodge and power attack that have been improved? They seem to be moving away from this "base feats must be useless" philosophy.

That said, what feat chain follows on spell focus?

* There are still the traditional ways to boost DCs, Heighten Spell, Animal Buffer Spells (even with shorter durations), Stat Booster Magic Items, PrC's (even if their aren't many the core, there are PLENTY in outside sources and surly more to come), even more in books like Tome in Blood (Co-Op Spell?).

Which all have their own advantages and disads compared to Spell Focus.

* It makes the Save Booster Feats (Iron Will, etc.) More valuable because your beating the caster's 2-1.

And why is this a good thing?

If save boosters are weak, make them better, not other feats worse (unless they deserve to be, and I am not convinced that spell focus is).

* It reigns in some very powerful high level wizards (I personally saw a wizard with a base DC to saves of 25! + Caster Level Prismatic Spray and Disintergrate an entire module without breaking a sweat. Next level, he would have taken a level of Archmage had a dracolich not dropped him and all his stuff into a pool of acid.)

I've seen casters have their spells roll of the enemies like water off of a duck's back, because at high levels their save mods are so high. It is usually much easier to garner save bonuses from items and spells than it is to get save DC bonuses.

* As an added bonus, it adds another reign on the Mystic Theurge!

To fix a problem we are introducing in this edition as well? Let's just say I am not finding this your most compelling point.

* Its still a useful feat.

If everyone thought so, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

* Thanks to the shorter animal buffs, its going to be hard to get descent spell DCs.

This is my central point. AFAIAC, they have already fixed the big offender on save DCs: Archmages. I think that they are overcompensating if that is all there is to this feat. If it allows +1 caster level as some had mentioned, that would word (and would also make it so I don't have to fix lots of stat blocks...)

I'll wait and see if there is something that we aren't seeing in the book, but based on my experience in play, this feat really needs more than a +1 save DC to one school to be worthwhile.

 

[Mark]

The problem HERE is that under 3.5E, you can't get a +4 to your DC as you could in 3.0E - so WHY make 2 feats do what 1 did in 3.0 instead of eliminating the ONE troublemaker feat. It's assanine, and I don't need to wait until July 18ish to figure that out.

I'd imagine the argument for having two feats at +1 is so when the third party publishers get ahold of it and decide to create a series of additional feats to stack on top (Super-SF, Super-Duper-SF, My-Dad's-Can-Beat-Up-Your-Dad-SF, etc., ad infinitum), they'll be more likely to progress them in increments of +1. It could further be theorized that WotC has plans for a couple of Epic feats that do just that also.

Eliminating the second feat and keeping the single feat at +2 doesn't eliminate the perceived (supposed) problem and possibility of +2 progression but merely staves it off until someone suggests adding the GSF back in, either under the original name or under a new one, and reviving the progression at the higher rate. Setting the (albeit new or revised) precedent at +1 seems more likely to help make it stick.

Just my guessing at the reasoning, and by no means an endorsement of one way or the other until game play has commenced...

 

[jasamcarl]

Those who say this feat will never be taken are being somewhat simplistic. It is still the only spellcasting specific feat other than spell penetration that provides a benefit with no other cost other than the feat slot itself. Metamagic and Item Creation feats both cost higher spell slots or gold/xp to make use of; they are more utility feats than anything else. Spell focus is all about power. It improves the expected damage (ED) of spellcasters per round. The fact that it only applies to one school is really a non-issue; that is more a utility argument than one of power.

If a mage wants to maximize his actual power and be a 'blaster mage', then he will still go for both spell focus and greater spell focus for the +2; there really aren't that many alternatives that are viable in respect to combat ability other than spell penetration, which doesn't come into play until higher levels; there are enough feat slots to have both.

 

[Zogg]

Psion-

I'm confused by your suggestion at 'salvaging' Spell Focus. I can only interpret your suggestion in 2 ways:

1. Add +1 DC and add +1 caster level.

The problem here is that raising the caster level of any spell gives the caster a +1 to DC. This means, under this interpretation, the caster would net a +2 DC AND a +1 caster level. That's even better than in 3.0!

2. Add +1 DC and add +1 caster level (but not the DC bonus)

Well, the problem HERE is that this is really just the same as casting a spell at +1 caster level. Which really means the Spell Focus feat would resemble the heighten spell feat, except it only grants +1 DC and doesn't take up a higher spell slot. I find that to be somewhat redundant and it cancels out the utility of the heighten spell feat.

Sooooooooo...........I don't really see how your suggestion bodes well in either case. Some clarification, perhaps?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Those who say this feat will never be taken are being somewhat simplistic. It is still the only spellcasting specific feat other than spell penetration that provides a benefit with no other cost other than the feat slot itself. Metamagic and Item Creation feats both cost higher spell slots or gold/xp to make use of; they are more utility feats than anything else. Spell focus is all about power. It improves the expected damage (ED) of spellcasters per round. The fact that it only applies to one school is really a non-issue; that is more a utility argument than one of power.

If a mage wants to maximize his actual power and be a 'blaster mage', then he will still go for both spell focus and greater spell focus for the +2; there really aren't that many alternatives that are viable in respect to combat ability other than spell penetration, which doesn't come into play until higher levels; there are enough feat slots to have both.

Yeah I suppose and if you want to maximize AC you'll take dodge, still doesn't change that dodge sucks.

 

[Xeriar]

The bonus to DC was too good to pass up. It's a must-have for wizards, and no feat should be a must-have.

Name one other feat in the core rules in 3.0e that actually increases the power of spellcasters at no cost.

Spell Penetration doesn't affect everyone, and doesn't increase the power of the spell.

All Metamagic feats in the core rules add to the spell level

All Item Creation feats require XP and GP expenditure (why the hell aren't they just skills?

What's left... Weapon Focus? That's about it, really.

So yeah, of course they're gonna take Spell Focus BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO TAKE

... and to say the Archmage is "nerfed" is like saying that the red dragon the party is about to face has a broken nail.

The entire class is pretty lame. Why is it a 5-level class? For crying out loud, why does one stop being an archmage!?

What's the point at epic levels?

 

[Psion]

Psion-

I'm confused by your suggestion at 'salvaging' Spell Focus. I can only interpret your suggestion in 2 ways:

1. Add +1 DC and add +1 caster level.

The problem here is that raising the caster level of any spell gives the caster a +1 to DC.

Caster level. Not spell level. Caster level never affects DC. It affects things like damage, duration, and range.

 

[Psion]

2. Andy Collins himself has said (and I quote): "If you disallow GSF in your game, you'd almost certainly be OK leaving SF at +2."

This is an interesting point. In fact it sort of agrees with the general impression that most people objecting to this change have: that +2 DC to one school is appropriate for a feat. The problem isn't SF, it's GSF.

But that begs the question: if +2 for 1 feat would be alright, why is +1 for also alright? It certainly puts it in the body of "underpowered feats."

I think I could get by exlcluding GSF, reducing it to a total of +3, or reducing them both to +1 DC and caster level.

 

[Hardhead]

All I can say is, I'm working on a Psion right now and even with the reduced Fouci, I still plan to take SF and GSF.* It's still a good (even great) feat, especially if you plan to focus(!) on one school, as I plan to focus on Telepathy. It's gone from a feat that every single wizard has to have, to a feat that you may want to take depending on your build, and will still be *very* good in highly focused builds. That sounds about right to me.

* Though psionics haven't been revised, it's farily obvious that Psionic Foucs and it's Greater version should be nerfed in the same way.



- Z a c h

 

[Mark]

2. Andy Collins himself has said (and I quote): "If you disallow GSF in your game, you'd almost certainly be OK leaving SF at +2."

This seems to be a shortsighted fix for the reasons I have mentioned above regarding additional material that is bound to come out and be added to games later.