[Rant] On Spell Focus...

[Stalker0]

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

I agree with this. Especially for a wizard, who can get some of his metamagics and item creation as bonus feats, there aren't a lot of good choices for low level mages. Spell focus is just one of the only good ones. Probably may favorite one is extra slot from tomb and blood, at least that's something my wizard can use often.

 

[Dimwhit]

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.

No offense, but this in an argument that bugs me. Possible third-party materiall should never be considered when altering the core rules. For one, many gaming groups (mine included) does not use third-party books. And second, that material is quite often over-powered and adversely affects the game balance. If the Wizards game designers are altering the rules based on third-party products, they should be slapped around repeatedly.

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.

All I know is that my Wizard currently has Spell Focus in two schools and Greater Spell Focus in one of them. I'll probably be picking 3 new feats when I have to "redesign" my character for 3.5 (which I will probably have to do, since my group is going 3.5). Considering how few feats most classes get, it's just not worth wasting those slots.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

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

You know, I hadn't thought of it that way.

There isn't even lower-tier metamagics that are the equivalent of the toughness feat (e.g. a flat +3 hp of damage for evocation spells or whatever).

 

[Zogg]

No offense, but this in an argument that bugs me. Possible third-party materiall should never be considered when altering the core rules. For one, many gaming groups (mine included) does not use third-party books. And second, that material is quite often over-powered and adversely affects the game balance. If the Wizards game designers are altering the rules based on third-party products, they should be slapped around repeatedly.

I have to second this remark. The designers should make the core rules the best they can be and not worry about the mutations that are inevitable.

And they DEFINITELY should be slapped around repeatedly.

 

[Mark]

No offense, but this in an argument that bugs me. Possible third-party materiall should never be considered when altering the core rules. For one, many gaming groups (mine included) does not use third-party books. And second, that material is quite often over-powered and adversely affects the game balance. If the Wizards game designers are altering the rules based on third-party products, they should be slapped around repeatedly.

Third-party material is simply one side of the argument, the other being material added by WotC either as class book additions or as epic material. Nonetheless, I think it boils down to leaving room to grow in such a way as to maintain balance. One feat that gives it all (+2) suggests it grows (whether through WotC or others) at a rate of +2, keeping two feats each at +1 suggests it grows at that rate.

But you bring up an interesting point. Should WotC who opened the box and invited third-party publishers to add-on material simply ignore the box, or should they also use foresight when presenting their materials that take into account that there will be additions by third-party pubs (considering it should be no more difficult to consider along side considering their own future additions)?

 

[Valiantheart]

I wonder is Spell penetration and GSP + 2 and +4?

 

[DanMcS]

All I know is that my Wizard currently has Spell Focus in two schools and Greater Spell Focus in one of them. I'll probably be picking 3 new feats when I have to "redesign" my character for 3.5 (which I will probably have to do, since my group is going 3.5). Considering how few feats most classes get, it's just not worth wasting those slots.

So, you're so angry that your spell DCs are being dropped by a point/feat, that you're going to forgo the feat entirely and drop the DCs a further point? That'll show them.

 

[Mark]

I have to second this remark. The designers should make the core rules the best they can be and not worry about the mutations that are inevitable.

Ignore the mutations of third-party pubs? Ignore those that they no doubt intend to add later of their own? Ignore both? Revising the system while maintaining the foresight that there will be additional material from somewhere seems like exactly what people would hope they would do. Of perhaps you'd rather 4.0 come even sooner to fix what is broken by their subsequent material?

 

[Dimwhit]

But you bring up an interesting point. Should WotC who opened the box and invited third-party publishers to add-on material simply ignore the box, or should they also use foresight when presenting their materials that take into account that there will be additions by third-party pubs (considering it should be no more difficult to consider along side considering their own future additions)?

I don't think they should ignore the box, but they should rely on third-party pubs to be reasonable and not throw the game out of balance, as some do. And when that happens, Wizards should rely on the players and DMs to not use that material. I don't see it as their responsibility to look at what outside parties will do to affect their rules. It's their responsibility to look at the core of what they've designed to see if it works well within itself. If others screw it up with add-ons...well, that's bound to happen. Just don't use those books.

But for groups like mine, it feels like we'd be penalized if a feat/spell/etc. were limited in the core rules just because another company may come along and tack too much onto it later.

I'm sure that's not the only reason Wizards would alter the rules, but I don't think it should play any factor at all.

 

[Dimwhit]

Of perhaps you'd rather 4.0 come even sooner to fix what is broken by their subsequent material?

Well now, I'm sorry, but if Wizards can't release subsequent material that doesn't break the rules they themselves set up in the core books, they have no business doing this in the first place. And, of course, that's exactly what 3.5 is. It's fixing all the screw-ups they made in 3.0 after releasing all the splatbooks (that, and the desiginers unhappy with how some people were using their rules).

edited: oops, hit quote instead of bold