D&D 3E/3.5 Spell Focus 3.5: WAH! Was it that bad?
I asked the very same question yesterday.
Here it is.
From what I gather, it is more the fear of a min/maxer taking advantage of the feats and also PrCs. But hey, that's what a DM is for. These boards give a decent heads up. A DM could just ban thse PrCs or house rule it out.
My big beef was I had geared my cleric to a Heirophant (after going Divine Disciple). And there were other class abilities that I wanted to take. But it would have been nice to have this option to increase my spell's effectiveness- especially with SR.
Continuing the rant
Here it is.
From what I gather, it is more the fear of a min/maxer taking advantage of the feats and also PrCs. But hey, that's what a DM is for. These boards give a decent heads up. A DM could just ban thse PrCs or house rule it out.
My big beef was I had geared my cleric to a Heirophant (after going Divine Disciple). And there were other class abilities that I wanted to take. But it would have been nice to have this option to increase my spell's effectiveness- especially with SR.
Continuing the rant
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Thresher said:
Greater Spell Focus was a problem on it's own, even without taking broken prestige classes into account.
BTW PRCs aren't supposed to be more powerful than core classes, whether they are FR-specific or not.
I understand this, but who ever has the perfect spell prepared at any given moment. A clr10 only has 6/3/2/1 spells per day. The lower ones are almost useless at that level. And so he really only 3 spells +D a day to cast effectively. How is he able to gauge which enemy he will encounter that day, and if it is not an NPC, what is the beasts' good saves.
Taking both feats gives you +2, or 10% advantage. For a player with only 4 feats (lvl 10 human cleric) spending two of them for a measly 10% is not worth it. That is an 11 instead of 10 on a d20. Is it really worth it?
And then you come to a char with good saves. Does that make your caster a gimp now? Before, you can rely on your fireballs and Lbolts to do some damage from far away. Now, it's a 55% hit? I'm sorry, but for 2 feats...
but of course I have not played with the char yet. maybe I will get a different impression after a couple games, but if every commoner makes the save and takes nothing... I will be quite put out...
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Since this thread is where the debate appears to be happening, I'll post here despite this being a response to the Ryan Dancey quote on the other thread.
The idea that "any feat which is a must have" should be a class feature instead of a feat is decent but does not reflect anything in the design of 3.0--and even less in the design of 3.5.
For fighters, for instance, weapon focus, specialization, and the greater versions of those are feats rather than class abilities. Similarly, for wizards spell penetration and greater spell penetration are feats not class abilities. And for conjurers, Augment Summoning is a feat not a class ability. These are all must have feats for nearly any fighter, wizard, or sorceror.
Now, the role that WF, WS, GWF, GWF, SP, GSP, and AS play in the game is as "must have" abilities for particular designs of a class. Fighters, wizards, and sorcerors are not like bards, rogues, rangers, paladins, or barbarians who have the vast majority of their needed class features spelled out for them. They have more flexibility. That's why every fighting class doesn't have weapon focus as a class ability for instance, even though it's very nearly a must have feat for many designs--some characters will want it but others won't. Similarly, some wizards want Augment Summoning but not Spell Penetration and others would want a different feat. By being feats instead of class abilities they preserve the flexibility of the classes.
Spell focus fits that category exactly. It's just as must have for a focussed wizard as weapon focus is for a focussed fighter. However, it's not a class feature since some fighters and some wizards are designed so as to make it unnecessary and making it a class feature would make such designs more difficult to pull off. Thus the Dancey was missapplying the "no must have feats" principle. There are plenty of "must have" feats and Spell Focus exactly fits the description of what other "must have" feats have in common.
The idea that "any feat which is a must have" should be a class feature instead of a feat is decent but does not reflect anything in the design of 3.0--and even less in the design of 3.5.
For fighters, for instance, weapon focus, specialization, and the greater versions of those are feats rather than class abilities. Similarly, for wizards spell penetration and greater spell penetration are feats not class abilities. And for conjurers, Augment Summoning is a feat not a class ability. These are all must have feats for nearly any fighter, wizard, or sorceror.
Now, the role that WF, WS, GWF, GWF, SP, GSP, and AS play in the game is as "must have" abilities for particular designs of a class. Fighters, wizards, and sorcerors are not like bards, rogues, rangers, paladins, or barbarians who have the vast majority of their needed class features spelled out for them. They have more flexibility. That's why every fighting class doesn't have weapon focus as a class ability for instance, even though it's very nearly a must have feat for many designs--some characters will want it but others won't. Similarly, some wizards want Augment Summoning but not Spell Penetration and others would want a different feat. By being feats instead of class abilities they preserve the flexibility of the classes.
Spell focus fits that category exactly. It's just as must have for a focussed wizard as weapon focus is for a focussed fighter. However, it's not a class feature since some fighters and some wizards are designed so as to make it unnecessary and making it a class feature would make such designs more difficult to pull off. Thus the Dancey was missapplying the "no must have feats" principle. There are plenty of "must have" feats and Spell Focus exactly fits the description of what other "must have" feats have in common.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Also somthing to consier: Hieghten Spell.
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.
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.
Practical experience has shown that no matter how high the save DC, they will still make their first save, and that includes critters with "bad" saves. Or maybe my DMs have always fudged in their favor.
Nerfing SF and GSF means that spellcasters that would like to focus on using offensive spells from the Enchantment, Illusion, or (new) Transmutation schools will need to think twice about doing so. Every spell slot or learned spell represents a valuable non-renewable resource to the caster. Why prepare Suggestion when a Lightning Bolt is sure to deal damage? In some ways the nerf makes sense, because a spellcaster has to carry more than one version of a "save-or-die" spell in order to be effective, one for when it fails the first time and another to try again. (When it fails for the second time, hope you're a sorcerer. Well, heck, at that point, just go to Magic Missile.) This means that a spellcaster has to use more of his resources to take out a foe. This was the idea, I guess. The question remains: Are you going to devote resources to spells that may or may not be very effective, or to spells that will always have some effect, namely Evocations and Conjurations? A fighter doesn't lose access to his weapon after using it a certain number of times - a spellcaster does.
With the advent of creatures with spell resistance at higher levels, it is just pointless to prepare or learn some of these spells. DM: "You got through spell resistance." Player of Enchanter: "Great" DM: "But it made it save" Player: "But it made its save the last time I got through spell resistance, three rounds ago! I don't have anymore offensive spells left - I wish I had just prepared all Cones of Cold"
The school of Illusion was especially hard hit by this change. If even one member of a group sees through an illusion, that means everyone in the group will likely see through it. Low level image are just incredibly easy to save against - and they don't even deal damage.
Nerfing SF and GSF means that spellcasters that would like to focus on using offensive spells from the Enchantment, Illusion, or (new) Transmutation schools will need to think twice about doing so. Every spell slot or learned spell represents a valuable non-renewable resource to the caster. Why prepare Suggestion when a Lightning Bolt is sure to deal damage? In some ways the nerf makes sense, because a spellcaster has to carry more than one version of a "save-or-die" spell in order to be effective, one for when it fails the first time and another to try again. (When it fails for the second time, hope you're a sorcerer. Well, heck, at that point, just go to Magic Missile.) This means that a spellcaster has to use more of his resources to take out a foe. This was the idea, I guess. The question remains: Are you going to devote resources to spells that may or may not be very effective, or to spells that will always have some effect, namely Evocations and Conjurations? A fighter doesn't lose access to his weapon after using it a certain number of times - a spellcaster does.
With the advent of creatures with spell resistance at higher levels, it is just pointless to prepare or learn some of these spells. DM: "You got through spell resistance." Player of Enchanter: "Great" DM: "But it made it save" Player: "But it made its save the last time I got through spell resistance, three rounds ago! I don't have anymore offensive spells left - I wish I had just prepared all Cones of Cold"
The school of Illusion was especially hard hit by this change. If even one member of a group sees through an illusion, that means everyone in the group will likely see through it. Low level image are just incredibly easy to save against - and they don't even deal damage.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I don't know what copy of the rulebooks you have, but mine don't say anything about Heighten Spell helping against SR. SR is a straight up caster level check. The level of the spell (which is what Heighten Spell changes) has nothing to do with that. All Heighten spell does is increase the spell level (useful for getting past globes of invulnerability or spell turning) and consequently increase the DC.
Kamikaze Midget said:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Urbannen said:
That's statistically impossible. The creature has an equal chance of making every save unless he has access to the Protection domain or Moment of Prescience.
It takes only one successful suggestion to remove an opponent from the fight ... provided you use the proper suggestion.
Suggestion isn't the best example, since the PHB is not clear on it's effects, just like the illusion effects. You would be better off discussing a more useful spell.
Almost ... this assumes your DM isn't cheating, however.
Sounds like your DM is cheating.
Yes. You're supposed to use the same amount of resources most of the time whether you use save-or-consequences or direct damage.
It's a gamble. If the battle ends on round one, that means less risk to yourself. Of course, you can't count on the spell working, either. Even Evocations have limits, however - there are lots of creatures that are resistant or immune to an element. In 3.5 these elemental resistances have, for the most part, been reduced. However, a 2nd-level spell can nearly trump meteor swarm.
He loses hit points instead - these come back more slowly than wizard spell slots (more likely, they take away the cleric's spell slots instead).
You can try that, but those high-CR/high-SR monsters often have more hit points now - even some of the celestials - so you're still going to be sitting there tossing spells at them for several rounds. While you're tossing those AoE evocations, the other party members (fighters and rogues, maybe clerics) can't engage the creature in melee. AoE becomes a lot better when your opponent is capable of flying.
If you ask me the image spells were weak to begin with. I have found displacement and mirror image, along with the invisiblity spells to be far more useful than major-"hey Mr. DM what does this spell do again?"-image.
Kamikaze Midget
The spell level has no effect on SR.
Balgus
True ... but a 10th-level cleric doesn't have that many save-or-consequences spells in any event. S-o-C spells don't become "the king" until 13th-level or so.
How does he know the NPC saves? Sometimes it's hard to tell their character class. In any event, it's often (but not always) easy to tell a creature's saves. If it's an unintelligent beast, like a dire tiger, use a Will-save-or-consequences spell. If it's a giant, do the same thing. If it's a spellweaver, try slay living.
Note that cleric save-or-consequences spells are usually only Fortitude-save-or-die spells. Mass command has a language and complexity restriction that reduces the range of creatures it will work on. (I wonder - can you command a trained dog to "sit"?
)This is why wizards have better spellcasting ability than clerics - I have found Otiluke's resilient sphere, hold monster and flesh to stone to be very useful, for instance.
I think they were focusing on wizards for this feat ... however, the cleric should only take Spell Focus (Necromancy), whereas a wizard might take two or three Spell Focus feats.
If it's a monk, even your lightning bolt probably won't work... Actually, every class has a bad save, even the monk! A monk's "bad" save is Fortitude. It's just usually higher than a wizard's Fortitude save.
Wizards have access to a lot of spells that don't even allow saves, especially at higher levels. Or just use web, which is plain amazing. Or summon monster if that's your style. A cleric who runs into a brute monster probably can't use slay living effectively on it, but he can still "buff-n-bash" which is something a wizard can't do until at least 11th-level (and then pay through the nose for that option).
Elder Basilisk posted a nice rebuttal to the "Feats/class features" discussion, but what about the "poor saving throw" discussion? I believe that was the main point of Ryan Dancey's statement.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
