D&D 3E/3.5 Spell Focus 3.5: WAH! Was it that bad?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This wizard of yours doesn't sem like he's getting much milage out of his focus. What's the point of taking spell focus if it won't increase the DC on a significant portion of your spells/day? At that point, you might as well take a metamagic feat. You'll probably use that at least once per day and it'll be more useful on that handful of spells than +1 DC.

You mean the 1st-level wizard, or the 8th?

If you mean 1st-level ... I didn't find Spell Focus that useful at that level. I find Skill Focus (Concentration) or even Toughness better at 1st-level. I should wait until I can cast more than two offensive spells per day before I take Spell Focus ... YMMV (and clearly does).

If you mean 8th-level ... I find Spell Focus to be useful since I can inflict Glitterdust and Fear on multiple opponents. Each opponent is facing a higher save DC.

Your strategy might be reasonable if the wizard expected to face creatures immune to mind-effecting spells.

I can't make any kind of generalizations about my foes. I may delve into a crypt early in the day and face multiple undead and some unfriendly earth elementals (we didn't have to fight the elementals though) - I might help hold off an orc horde later in the day. The Fear spell won't be useful early in the day, obviously. I don't have a lot of divinations available to me, so obviously I have to assume the worst.

However, if that's the general plan, it means that any kind of focussed enchanter or illusionist is not a viable character. If that wasn't true in 3.0 but is in 3.5 then IMO it's a very bad change. If it is true in both then the spell focus changes are an even stupider idea than I currently think.

I disagree. I don't believe I said that my DM will deliberately use creatures immune to my spells on a regular basis. But if he does ... well then it's a good idea I focused on more than one school

To be fair, Enchantment suffers some serious problems, although I don't believe 3.5 made it any worse. The plethora of spells that affect only a very narrow range of creature types is a big problem, if you ask me. I don't think Enchantment begins to shine until you can take Hold Monster. I wish the PH had another 100 pages of spells ... but that would also drive the price up.

We obviously have different ideas of what makes a wizard effective. In 3.0 a wizard could prepare Mage armor and two shield spells. He'd most likely have AC 23 and be well-nigh untouchable for two combats. Very safe (or so he thinks). But he does next to nothing for the party and if the ogre kills the fighter, cleric and rogue, AC 23 or AC 53, without any offense the wizard is next.

I was talking about a 1st-level wizard That wizard can't take both Shield and Mage Armor. In my case I would take Mage Armor, since it's enough to last me through a dungeon crawl. Then I pray to the FRCS deities that I don't run into widely-spaced out wilderness encounters I do think it behooves him to prepare a defensive spell though, even at 1st-level - suppose he runs into a tough encounter, and the party doesn't want to run? Suppose the cleric didn't prepare Sanctuary that day? Suppose I can't run away? Just because a 1st-level wizard is one of the weakest characters there doesn't mean I'm willing to give up on him when I've barely started. I'll take the defensive spell and live!

That's obviously overkill but if wizards focus their energy primarily on keeping themselves safe, they only succeed in reducing their usefulness to the team. I think wizards and sorcerors need to learn to live with vulnerability and focus on making sure the battle doesn't last long enough to threaten them.

Obviously we disagree here. I think knocking out the leader on round one is pretty boring, and I'm fully aware that with only d4 hp, wimpy AC and wimpy Fortitude save that I am very vulnerable to being killed ... possibly in round one by an NPC wizard with a very high save DC. I don't have a problem spending a round to prepare a defense and then go in with guns blazing. While I'm prepping the defense, the fighter isn't getting a full-round action - he's moving into position and maybe charging. He's not mounting an effective offense in round one, either. This means that both classes are now useful in combat, rather than having the wizard just blast the opposition in round one. I believe this is also one reason why they nerfed the archer - like the wizard, he can be just as effective on round one as in round two, three, four, etc.

I've heard the expression "the best defense is a good offense" but this is not always the case in DnD.

But then he wouldn't be an enchanter would he? Again, if the only kind of viable wizard is the generalist picking and choosing from all schools and never letting anything get more than 1/3 of his prepared spells, they might as well stop kidding themselves and remove the specialist and spell focus options from the game.

They might as well remove the specialist, since there aren't many useful Enchantment spells until the 4th-level spells, but I think Spell Focus is still pretty decent.

Even with the re-balancing of the schools (now each school has several useful spells) WotC has not balanced each one at each spell level.

So let's see if it changes by 9th or 10th level. If sorcerors and wizards are still casting spells against their foes strong saves then it's not an artifact of a 1st level wizards' weakness.

It may happen to me later in the day ... but just as likely I will be facing opponents with varied saves. Either way, I've found focusing too much on one area will lead to me being ineffective in some encounters or lead to me being dead. Neither is fun, if you ask me.

I really feel sorry for the wizard who took GSF (Enchantment) only to find out the BBEG is a lich!

I would definitely say you've focussed overly on defense. IME, a wizard who walks around with only a single high level offensive spell is a wizard who is dead weight for most of a party's encounters--heck he's pretty weenie even if the party only has one encounter in the day.

Heh. And if you saw my campaign you'd know the Greater Invisibility spell is for the fighter-rogue I only really have one really good defensive spell. And yes, it is my highest-level spell, and yes, this may not be the best strategy, but it has worked for me so far. Plus, I can't keep spending XP making scrolls of that spell. I've had to use it twice already in a combat situation (not to mention sneaking in and out of walled cities, since it's a multi-purpose utility spell).

IME, it's far better to be good at one thing than to be mediocre at several. Taking two spell focus feats (especially in 3.5 where you need GSF to start making a significant difference) is a path to mediocrity.

Having played a psion several times, I know this isn't true I also don't think the +1 DC isn't a significant difference. It does mean I may have to cast more spells, which I believe was the point, especially at higher levels.

It would also be boring if I could knock out all my enemies with just a single spell. In my second last encounter I had to use Glitterdust and a Fireball against three trolls. The monk made sure all the trolls were positioned to get hit by a Fireball - it cost him. I got to go before the trolls the next round (but before the monk's initiative) so I used Glitterdust. It only worked on two of the trolls! Instead of having a boring fight dominated by the fighter/rogue, now the rest of the party (except the unconscious monk) got to do something too.

However, since you obviously think my sample wizard is pathetic, maybe we should take yours.

SF: Conjuration and SF: Necromancy
Level 8.
Spells prepared (I'm guessing here):
1. [Open Slot], Shield, Mage Armor, Magic Missilex2
2. Blindness, Mirror Image, Glitterdust, Web
3. Blink, Fly, Greater Magic Weapon, Vampiric Touch
4. Greater Invis, Fear, Dimension Door

Close. You got my 1st-level pretty much down pat. I use the Mage Armor on the monk.
For second level I've got an Extended Mage Armor for myself ... but otherwise that's pretty accurate.
For third I don't use any of those spells. Fly is the only one I would consider using (I had a Scroll of Fly, but had to use it up). If this were 3.0 I would have to prepare slow but now I get to prepare more interesting spells instead. Like fireball, which I didn't have enough slots for at 7th-level

So, assuming that there is more than one combat in the day and that he casts at least two offensive spells in both of them, he's still facing the very distinct possibility of casting a spell at the strong save. He has a grand total of three spells with no save, two spells with will saves, one spell with a fort save, and one spell with a reflex save. So, if the two encounters feature creatures with the same weak save, he's almost sure to be out of offensive spells targetted at it. And he's still hosed if he comes up against undead in more than one encounter.

So now I've got two spells with a Reflex save, and another one at 9th-level. I hope. I need to look at the spell chart again.

Since I'm only 8th-level, I obviously suffer from lack of spell slots, so I have to prioritize (sp?). Reflex saves get the lowest priority. I have a fireball because sometimes I need direct damage. I have magic missile because I ran into one too many incorporeal undead Web is only there because it barely matters whether you make your save against it or not - it might as well be a no-save spell. It's really a "Strength" save, and it's easy for me to tell if my opponent is strong or not. I reserve Web until the end of the day, in case I run into a difficult opponent. Indeed, I'm thinking Web shouldn't be a 2nd-level spell since it's so good. One of these days my DM is going to use a cleric with good Fort/Will saves and Freedom of Movement. That's a good time for me to use that Dimension Door

Glitterdust is a multi-function spell, although it's hard to aim it at invisible opponents It also attacks multiple creatures.

Fear is my strongest offensive spell, but it doesn't work on many types of creatures ... so Glitterdust will serve well, and has a decent save DC too.

I find I have enough Will-save-or-consequences spells, and I would like another Fort-save-or-consequences spell. Oh well, next level...

Okay, that was rather rambling. Let me try again - I have several spells where the saving throw isn't particularly important (and work on large numbers of opponents) and I even have Greater Invisibility just in case I run into something with insane saving throw.

I still need that O's Resilient Sphere though ... at some point I'll run into a golem or something really spell resistant, and it'll either be the Sphere or the Door.

PS I've got several scrolls for a "rainy day" as well as a wand of see invisible because that spell is still required in 3.5.

Anyway, I don't think your wizard is "pathetic" and he may outperform my wizard many days of the week, but I think if he ran into opponents with defenses against mind-control more than once in a day he would be in big trouble.

And I still don't like Dominate Person

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Fair enough. And with lots of fireballs at third level, your wizard has a decent offense. However, all told it looks like you prepare 3 spells per day (blindness, glitterdust and fear) which take advantage of the two spell focus feats.

All told, it appears that your wizard is a generalist--such a wizard will rarely toss really high DC spells (if I were you, I'd probably take Greater Spell Penetration instead of either spell focus since it would apply to all of my spells) at an opponent's weak save but will often be able to target something at an opponent's weak save. . . after 10th or 11th level. That leaves half of your career, however, where, even as a generalist, you run a significant risk of having to toss spells at your foes' good saves. For a specialist, that risk doesn't go away at 10th level. . . .

And I'd like Hold Monster much better if it didn't now get a save every round. (Even a foe who needs to roll a 16 to save is unlikely to still be held on the third round). Compared to that, Dominate Person seems rather attractive.

Anyway, I don't think your wizard is "pathetic" and he may outperform my wizard many days of the week, but I think if he ran into opponents with defenses against mind-control more than once in a day he would be in big trouble.

And I still don't like Dominate Person

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Fair enough. And with lots of fireballs at third level, your wizard has a decent offense. However, all told it looks like you prepare 3 spells per day (blindness, glitterdust and fear) which take advantage of the two spell focus feats.

Yup. As I said before, taking Spell Focus at really low level isn't the greatest idea (at least IMO) but I love using save-or-die rather than direct-damage so I pretty much had to take them. At the higher levels, when I can prepare more such spells ... *evil grin* Maybe at higher levels I'll end up swallowing my generalism and take Fear more than once per day. I've taken Hold Monster and Confusion somewhat excessively with previous higher level wizards - but I always made sure I had something else like Flesh to Stone available as well. (Of course, I didn't do this until at least 11th-level.)

All told, it appears that your wizard is a generalist--such a wizard will rarely toss really high DC spells (if I were you, I'd probably take Greater Spell Penetration instead of either spell focus since it would apply to all of my spells)

Will do ... at a higher level. Maybe 10th.

at an opponent's weak save but will often be able to target something at an opponent's weak save. . . after 10th or 11th level. That leaves half of your career, however, where, even as a generalist, you run a significant risk of having to toss spells at your foes' good saves.

That is true, but I try to minimize the chances of that by spreading the saving throws around, and I try to save Web for when I absolutely need it.. At least IME that's safer than trying to specialize in one area. It seems to me that an Enchanter will often have to throw Will-save-throw spells at opponents with high saves, and will be seriously hurt when he runs into multiple encounters involving undead!

For a specialist, that risk doesn't go away at 10th level. . . .

I think I'm missing your point here ... doesn't this affect all wizards?

And I'd like Hold Monster much better if it didn't now get a save every round. (Even a foe who needs to roll a 16 to save is unlikely to still be held on the third round). Compared to that, Dominate Person seems rather attractive.

I can see your point about Hold Monster ... but not Dominate Person. That spell forces at least two saves (you have to give the order) and if you want to make it last all day that's a lot more saving throws ... plus it won't help me if I run into lots of non-humanoid opponents. (It sucks to have that spell prepared multiple times when you're facing giants.)

Plus, it practically gives me a cohort without an XP cost. Even if I only use it for 16 hours. Sorry, there's a little part of me that hates spells like that.

I find that spells too powerful in some ways (incredible duration) and too weak in other ways (very narrow target range). At least Hold Monster might freeze my opponent for one round, which means that opponent isn't hurting myself or another party member for that one round.

 

[Andion Isurand]

I agree with what DonAdam said

I'll just be using what I intended to before I knew the 3.5 change:

Both give +1 caster level and DC.

I never liked that spell focus only really benefited a few schools.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I agree with this. Giving +1 effective caster level and +1 to spell DC with the selected school sounds more reasonable to me.

Especially since it covers the scope of everything that would improve when one focuses on casting spells from a particular school.

 

[Spatula]

I can see your point about Hold Monster ... but not Dominate Person. That spell forces at least two saves (you have to give the order) and if you want to make it last all day that's a lot more saving throws ...

I must have missed something... How does Dominate Person force at least two saves? Or a lot of saves over the course of a day?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Dominate Person gives a save whenever you give an order that your victim is opposed to. This means they get a save whenever you give an order.

I think there was a change to 3.5 Dominate Person as well, but the point was the target range is so narrow that it's rarely useful. I can't picture a sorcerer taking this spell - I know Gfunk's Entropy did but I've never seen it in a game that I've been to.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Dominate was changed EXTENSIVELY in 3.5 The bonus to the save when ordered to do something against one's nature is no longer discretionary but is set.

More importantly, unlike all previous dominates which permitted characters to accomplish their orders by any means they chose and to act on their own initiative when not following orders, 3.5 Dominate doesn't appear to permit dominated characters to do anything (except eat and sleep) without orders or to pervert the intent of orders by following their letter rather than their spirit.

The spell also allows the character who cast the dominate spell to read the victim's interpretation of his sense perceptions (this sounds clear in the description of the spell but is marvelously unclear when you think about it since it specifies that you can't see through the victim's eyes and nothing indicates that it's full-blown mind-reading yet "a good idea of what's going on" would require either the reading of surface thoughts--in which case why only those related to perceiving the world around him would be heard is questionable--or seeing through the victim's eyes (which is specifically excluded).

It's a dramatic change from all previous domination spells and makes the spell far less interesting to play with.

I think there was a change to 3.5 Dominate Person as well, but the point was the target range is so narrow that it's rarely useful. I can't picture a sorcerer taking this spell - I know Gfunk's Entropy did but I've never seen it in a game that I've been to.

 

[Spatula]

Dominate Person gives a save whenever you give an order that your victim is opposed to. This means they get a save whenever you give an order.

The SRD says, "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus." If you give the target orders that are not against its nature, it doesn't get extra saves.

Elder-Basilisk, the "you know what the subject is experiencing" thing was in 3.0 as well, only even more vague. The new write-up of that function of the spell doesn't seem to be much of an improvement in clarity, unfortunately. The only substantial change from 3.0 is the bit about the target carrying out your orders to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Re: I agree with what DonAdam said

Giving +1 effective caster level and +1 to spell DC with the selected school sounds more reasonable to me.

I'd prefer to make it a bit more interesting: +1 effective caster level, +1 save DC, +1 to any attack roll needed. There, now pretty much EVERY spell in the game gets a benefit from it.

Instead of just cranking up the bonuses further, I'd also like to see Greater Spell Focus do something more interesting, but this is a start.