[Rant] On Spell Focus...

[Zogg]

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?

Now we are getting into an entirely different argument. This boils down to "what is 3.5E"? Is it:

1. A revision of core rules based on what was broken in the core rules.

2. A revision of core rules based on what was broken in the third-party supplements

or

3. Some combination therein.

?

I don't think it's ever really been clear - and spell focus lies at the heart of the matter. I would hope that 3.5E is based entirely on #1.

And so the point I am making is that when making core rules, one should strive to make them the best core rules possible and yes, ignore all third party supplements. If a third-party supplement gives barbarians a "super duper rage" ability that gives a +10 to STR and CON that does not make the core rules bad, it makes the third party supplement bad. The same goes with GSF - apparently too many people think it's overpowered. That does not mean the designers should reduce what is fair - the designers should not that Spell Focus to a particular school is IT - no further "focus" can be stacked on top.

Talk about a no-brainer.

 

[Mark]

When I know it is going to rain, and I do not wish to get wet, I bring an umbrella.

Zogg and Dimwhit - You seem to be comtinuing to ignore the crux of my point. There *will* be supplemental material, both from WotC and from third-party pubs. Designing the revised rules with the foresight that this will come to pass, IMO, is the no-brainer.

The designers have apparently already decided that SF needed a change, I guess the question was in which way would it *be* changed. One feat with +2 and no subsequent feat...or...two feats at +1 each, one being subsequent to the other.

The first way ignores any possible proliferation (which we *know* will happen through WotC and others)... or ... the first way promotes the idea that any subsequent additions should happen in +2 increments. The second way is smart enough to take proliferation into account, is it not?

 

[Xeriar]

The first way ignores any possible proliferation (which we *know* will happen through WotC and others)... or ... the first way promotes the idea that any subsequent additions should happen in +2 increments. The second way is smart enough to take proliferation into account, is it not?

Not really. It creates a fairly large split - and I know that I'm not the only one who will utterly ignore this particular revision. Spell Power was Broken, Spell Power is not Fixed.

Spellcasters (Wizards in particular) needed some decent feat to up their power, like every single one of the other classes get in spades. At only +1 - Spell Focus isn't that feat, anymore.

 

[Zogg]

The first way ignores any possible proliferation (which we *know* will happen through WotC and others)... or ... the first way promotes the idea that any subsequent additions should happen in +2 increments. The second way is smart enough to take proliferation into account, is it not?

I guess, from my perspective, is that it comes down to "who should the designers pander to?" Should they pander to those who buy up and use all supplements (and are therefore liable to abuse certain weak portions of the core rules).

OR

Should they pander to those who use the core rules and maybe a supplement or two?

Obviously the first group might be more enticing for the designers - these are the people that truly "support the industry" buy purchasing loads of RPG products. Unfortunately this group also includes people that might exploit chink in the armor of the core rules.

The second group is more likely to play what's been playtested and operate the game under fair conditions - and what has 3.5E done? It's really just penalized them. It's crap.

 

[Dimwhit]

When I know it is going to rain, and I do not wish to get wet, I bring an umbrella.

Zogg and Dimwhit - You seem to be comtinuing to ignore the crux of my point. There *will* be supplemental material, both from WotC and from third-party pubs. Designing the revised rules with the foresight that this will come to pass, IMO, is the no-brainer.

The designers have apparently already decided that SF needed a change, I guess the question was in which way would it *be* changed. One feat with +2 and no subsequent feat...or...two feats at +1 each, one being subsequent to the other.

The first way ignores any possible proliferation (which we *know* will happen through WotC and others)... or ... the first way promotes the idea that any subsequent additions should happen in +2 increments. The second way is smart enough to take proliferation into account, is it not?

I'm not ignoring your point. I completely understand your arguement. I just don't agree. So they decide the SF/GSF chain is broken. Do you kill GSF, or change them to +1? By looking ahead to their own splatbooks and third-party pubs and deciding to go with +1 based on possible future changes, they have just screwed over everyone who is never going to buy their splatbooks and, to a greater extent, the third-party books. I don't care what what the other publishing companies put out later, because I'm not going to buy it. So why do I have to deal with a hosed feat based on that? (Arguements about house rules and not moving to 3.5 aside.) And as for their own future supplements, I stand by my previous argument. If Wizards is afraid that by leaving SF at +2, one of their own future products may break it...well TS for them. That's just bad designing.

But I do see your point, and I see what you're getting at. I think a lot of it is based on whether or not you use all available d20 materials, or just the core rules.

 

[Mark]

Not really. It creates a fairly large split - and I know that I'm not the only one who will utterly ignore this particular revision. Spell Power was Broken, Spell Power is not Fixed.

Spellcasters (Wizards in particular) needed some decent feat to up their power, like every single one of the other classes get in spades. At only +1 - Spell Focus isn't that feat, anymore.

As noted above, I'm going to try things out as revised before I pass judgment on them. The problem with house rules is that they generally don't hold up well and need additional house rules to fix what they unbalance. I wouldn't make any adjustments until I can see how it works as revised and know better what might be the best way to judiciously fix it, if at all.

I'm not sure I completely grasp what you've posted, though. Perhaps you could repost and clarify. I think you may have left a few words out during writing it.

I guess, from my perspective, is that it comes down to "who should the designers pander to?" Should they pander to those who buy up and use all supplements (and are therefore liable to abuse certain weak portions of the core rules).

OR

Should they pander to those who use the core rules and maybe a supplement or two?

Obviously the first group might be more enticing for the designers - these are the people that truly "support the industry" buy purchasing loads of RPG products. Unfortunately this group also includes people that might exploit chink in the armor of the core rules.

The second group is more likely to play what's been playtested and operate the game under fair conditions - and what has 3.5E done? It's really just penalized them. It's crap.

I think we know who they *will* pander to regardless of who they *should* pander to, and I am not making an assumption that they are not one and the same nor convinced it is a matter of pandering, rather than balancing the rules for its own sake.

I take it you consider yourself a member of the second group, so let me ask, "How much have you tinkered with the 3.0 rules as written?"

One of the things the designers need to consider is that almost everyone tinkers with the rules to some extent, whether individually, as a third-party pub, or by adding material from WotC subsequent to the core rules. Ultimately they strive, if I am not mistaken, to set the base in such a way that no matter from which way stuff is piled on it, it remains untoppled.

For my own part, I am almost so strictly a core rules guy that people wonder why I even bother with additional rules discussion. It's what I use to create my materials for CMG and you will find little to no CMG material that would overturn a core rule. This is why the revisions discussion holds interest for me ... in the end I will have to work with whatever becomes the new "core rules"...

 

[Technik4]

Archmages and Spell Power

Spell Power was changed.

Is it necessarily less powerful? Well that depends.

Previously a Wiz15/Acm1 who took Spell Power +1 would have all of his spells increased by 1, a rather nice benefit.

Now a Wiz15/Acm1 who took Spell Power +1 gets a +1 boost to duration/damage die/range and +1 Spell Penetration.

To compare the 2, lets cast an 8th level spell:

3.0: casts Horrid Wilting for 16d8 at +1 DC relative to 3.5 Wiz/Acm

3.5: casts Horrid Wilting for 17d8 at +1 Spell Penetration relative to 3.0 Wiz/Acm

Seems pretty balanced to me. In fact, the 3.5 Wiz/Acm may actually do more damage in many situations.

Lets take it up to more extreme levels: Wiz15/Acm5 with Spell Power +3

3.0: Casts Heightened (to 9th level) Disintegrate for 40d6 at +3 relative to 3.5 Wiz/Acm

3.5: Casts Heightened (9th) Disintegrate for 43d6 at +3 Spell Penetration.

I'm personally still inclined to go with the 3.5 version. More dice, more power. Speaking of which, from what we've seen 3.5 spells (high level ones) seem to have really high dice caps, 25 in many cases. The only way to get to 25 is via things like 3.5 Spell Power, possibly Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (the books arent in the stores yet...yeah I know, false hope), and epic level wizards.

Whats my point? I dont really know, but I don't think 3.5 is really turning down the power (maybe shifting the focus, no pun intended) so much as it is helping wizards. If Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration stay as they were in 3.0 then SR will not be nearly the hurdle it was, now the hurdle is monster's saving throws. But most spells, even if saved against do have some effect.

Technik

 

[Dimwhit]

I take it you consider yourself a member of the second group, so let me ask, "How much have you tinkered with the 3.0 rules as written?"

Actually, we don't tinker at all. We have a few house rules, but those rules aren't modifications to what we think are broken rules. Just stuff like fumbles, variant tumble rules, etc.

And I have to say is, having played 3.0 since it came out and only use Wizards-produced books, I never felt anything was broken or unbalanced. Granted, some of the prestige classes in the splat books were a bit much, but for the most part we don't have any min/maxers, so our games were never unbalanced. That's why rules changes like SF, buff spells, and power attack irk me, because they've always been perfectly fine. For example, even at high levels, we didn't have our casters casting two or three buffs spells on everyone in the party every day. And when those spells were cast, it didn't throw anything off. Same goes for Spell Focus, which is actually a feat that wasn't taken much by spellcasters to begin with. Now it never will be. And since we run pretty strict on the rules as written, house-ruling 3.5 isn't a very viable option.

So at this point, it's mostly letting off steam, because for me, 3.5 is pretty much a done deal, for better or for worse (and I should say there are changes I do like).

 

[Mouseferatu]

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

(This is about the Weapon Focus feat, for those who don't remember that far back.)

Nope, not upgraded. It's still +1. Of course, you can now buy Greater Weapon Focus for an additional +1, but that requires the second feat.

 

[Mark]

So at this point, it's mostly letting off steam, because for me, 3.5 is pretty much a done deal, for better or for worse (and I should say there are changes I do like).

I hear you, and we're pretty much in the same boat. You as a DM and player, I'm guessing, and myself as a DM, player, and publisher. I'm just not convinced that the change is damaging so much as an adjustment (as pointed out in Technik4) with worthwhile foresight (as I mention). We'll see, sooner or later, and I am sure that the umbrage expressed by yourself and others is a mere precursor to what can be expected once the rule books are in everyone's hands...