D&D 3.x Spell Focus 3.5: WAH! Was it that bad?

[volcivar]

Spell level and SR

It's pretty much only benefit in upping the spell level was upping the DC. It's still a potent tool to prep with, because the spell's higher level also hits SR pretty nicely.

SR is absolutely NOT effected by a spells's level in the core rules. The caster level check to overcome SR is a d20 roll + Caster Level. Spell Level has nothing to do with it.

I agree with those that say that SF and GSF did not need to be changed. Especially since Spell Power was changed to "+1 caster level" for the Red Wizard and Archmage in the DMG, and it seemed that one of the reasons for the change was BECAUSE of the stacking issues with these classes. Since this is not an issue any longer, what gives?

I can maybe see an issue with these at lower levels. However, at high levels A LOT creatures that are in the high CR bracket have both high SR AND high saves. I can't say how many times I have heard "He Saves" from the DM - this is with the 3.0 SF and GSF.

I have yet to see a REASONABLE explanation for the change and do not expect it.

A reasonable change would be to have a caster level prerequisite so that low level creatures would still pose a challenge. I can see having SF and GSF at 1st to 3rd level or so is BAD. At least put a prereq on GSF. 9th caster level sounds good to me. Either this or remove it and simply have spell focus at +2.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree with those that say that SF and GSF did not need to be changed. Especially since Spell Power was changed to "+1 caster level" for the Red Wizard and Archmage in the DMG, and it seemed that one of the reasons for the change was BECAUSE of the stacking issues with these classes. Since this is not an issue any longer, what gives?

I'm not sure if this was a reason for the change. With the amount of info put out by WotC before-hand, I may have missed such an announcement.

I maintain the problem was the difference between a high-CR opponent's good and bad saves, even in a balanced 3.0 game (eg no Empower abuse, no broken prestige classes, etc).

 

[volcivar]

Who told you that?

I mistated myself and edited the post. Please see above.

The problem was the difference between a high-CR opponent's good and bad saves

It often seems that high CR creatures really have no "bad" saves. Maybe "lower" than thier others, but seldom "bad". This is especially the case with dragons and outsiders. At high levels ousiders are VERY frequent.

I haven't done a comparison so I cannot be certain that most high CR creatures fall into these categories. That said I think I will for my own personal edification.

Would anyone know of any such comparisons already made/posted?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It often seems that high CR creatures really have no "bad" saves. Maybe "lower" than thier others, but seldom "bad". This is especially the case with dragons and outsiders. At high levels ousiders are VERY frequent.

I see what you mean. Many high CR creatures are outsiders and dragons. However, most other creatures have a bad save, and this save is often "conspicuous" to use a Ryan Dancey-ism.

I haven't done a comparison so I cannot be certain that most high CR creatures fall into these categories. That said I think I will for my own personal edification.

Good idea. Be sure to include high-level NPCs as well, however. Just add appropriate cloaks of resistance.

Would anyone know of any such comparisons already made/posted?

There was one in the thread that Ryan D originally posted in. I agreed with the comparison in part, but not with the wyvern example. (Those looked like "average" saves to me.)

I'm not at home, so I can't find the link. I don't have search function either.

 

[Gwarok]

New change is BS. Wax GSF and keep SF at +2. I hate splatbooks and the fact they mod core rules because of them is pretty damn feeble. Like I am going to waste one of my precious feats on +1 DC to one school. Stupid, stupid, stupid change...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

New change is BS. Wax GSF and keep SF at +2. I hate splatbooks and the fact they mod core rules because of them is pretty damn feeble. Like I am going to waste one of my precious feats on +1 DC to one school. Stupid, stupid, stupid change...

Andy said that's a decent and balanced house rule, but I think Ryan Dancey would disagree.

 

[Urbannen]

Another issue is that as it stands, Epic Spell Focus gives you +6 to your save DCs.

Frankly, I think GSF should have been changed to prerequisite: Caster Level 11.

 

[Al]

Spell Focus, on its own, was never a problem. GSF, Archmagi, Red Wizards and other DC-boosters were.

Spell Focus could easily be matched by Iron Will, Great Fort or Lightning Reflexes- or, indeed, outstripped. Iron Will protects against nearly all enchantments, illusions, divinations and some transmutations, abjurations, conjurations and necromantic spells. I can't remember any evocations with a Will save off hand. If the caster can have SF, then the target can have a save booster. Especially given the notion of 'conspicuous' saves, then a sensible character would put a feat into bolstering their worst save. In the long run, a fighter with Iron Will is probably going to be better off than a fighter with Greater Weapon Specialisation.

In any case, is the emphasis too much on offense over defense? Not really. Will saves can be broken using Dispel Magic, Break Enchantment or, at high level, circumvented totally using Mind Blank. A top-level party is well advised to Mind Blank their fighter and rogue, lest they face a former ally under a Dominate. Only Fort saves of the true save-or-die variety were unpleasant, and there were a myriad of spells and items to defuse this. Reflex saves were hardly ever complained abouts, but hit point boosters are common, and a Mass Heal more than mends anything that a Meteor Swarm can hurl at you.

What of the DCs outstripping the saves? Only in the cases of GSF or PrCs. Ability scores may have been higher, but save-boosters were easy to find than DC-boosters. Consider that a Cloak of Resistance +5 costs 25,000gp to the Headband of Intellect +6's 36,000, and the save boosts past the DC. Moreover, other than the stat-boosting items, there are no core DC boosting items. Luckstones and Pale Green Ioun Stones can further bolster saves, for little more than the cost of upgrading your +4 Vorpal weapon to a +5.

No, the problem was poor strategic decisions by the 'victims'. DnD is a game where defense ought be consider as much an issue as offense. Just as a 20th level fighter with an AC of 12 is inexcusable, so is one with a Will save of +6. After all, what's the use of being able to dish out 200+ points of damage per round with your MegaDoom Sword and 30 Strength when you're instantly turned on the party? Far better to buff your Will save to +15 and settle for a mere 180 points per round.

 

[MadScientist]

Where are Ryan Dancy's remarks? I would be interested in reading them.

 

[Dimwhit]

I strongly disagree that 3.0 GSF was over the top. I have a 6th level Wizard with SF/GSF in evocation. At 6th level, creatures were making their save more often than not. Even with GSF and a spell-boosted INT of over 20. Those save, of course, would only be more frequent as time goes on, because I couldn't raise my DCs any more, really, yet the creatures would be tougher.

So no one will ever convince me that GSF is too powerful. Now some of those non-core or FR PrCs, that's another matter. But like I've mentioned before, core rules should not be altered based on what other publishers might do with them. They were fine and didn't need changing. It's the non-core stuff that needed changing.

So now I'm just going to ditch those feats, suffer the horrible DCs, and take some item creation feats or something.