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

[Shard O'Glase]

I think part of the reason GSF isn't seen as too good be some is that when you have GSF everything you see seems like it can be solved by your specialty. Not that it can but after dropping two feats into enchantment your going to throw enchantments at everything that isn't flat out immune to them.

And this is part of the problem with the look at the low save reasoning. You wont only be casting your enchantments at 6 wisdom fighters, you also will be throwing them at wizards, clerics, demons, dragons etc. While the effects on the low save are important so are the effects on the high save. I've seen way too many situations where the target fails its asave on a 1 even for a semi(non FR) min maxed save DC guy.

Problem is some other targets then only save on a 20. Instead of fixing the root problem which is a massive disparity betweem high and low saves they instead poorly patched a symptom of the problem.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

Perhaps ... but the fighter isn't boosting his Wisdom to the extent that a wizard is boosting his Intelligence. Hence the arms race

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.

And now the wizard thinks of the fighter as "dead wight" since he has to constantly boost the fighter and rogue. Plus he has to give up two 8th-level spells a day - this isn't taken lightly by the wizard.

Only Fort saves of the true save-or-die variety were unpleasant, and there were a myriad of spells and items to defuse this.

All except Disintegrate - hence the nerf OF course, the poor wizard has a bad Fortitude save, reinforcing the feeling that wizards are always one step away from death I wish they would boost wizard's defenses.

Let's not forget Dispel Magic to take off defenses - I'm so glad the scarab of protection exists.

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.

Which is why direct-damage is seen as weaker than save-or-die.

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.

See above...

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.

I'd like to point that NPCs have less money to spend than PCs. Furthermore, players seem to whine if all those fighters they face at 13th-level+ carry scarabs of protections. Something about a hidden nerf...

Shard O'Glase

I think part of the reason GSF isn't seen as too good be some is that when you have GSF everything you see seems like it can be solved by your specialty. Not that it can but after dropping two feats into enchantment your going to throw enchantments at everything that isn't flat out immune to them.

That's a bad idea! If a wizard prepares only Enchantment spells for offensive purposes then they're going to get hurt.

And this is part of the problem with the look at the low save reasoning. You wont only be casting your enchantments at 6 wisdom fighters, you also will be throwing them at wizards, clerics, demons, dragons etc.

No I won't. Have you actually seen this in practice?

While the effects on the low save are important so are the effects on the high save. I've seen way too many situations where the target fails its asave on a 1 even for a semi(non FR) min maxed save DC guy.

I have rarely seen this, even for dragons. Can you show me some stats?

After all, a dragon has a weak saving throw, too (Will). (Actually it has a weak Reflex save, too, compared to it's Fort save, but it's too big to fit in an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere and has loads of hit points.)

Problem is some other targets then only save on a 20. Instead of fixing the root problem which is a massive disparity betweem high and low saves they instead poorly patched a symptom of the problem.

Yeah, they should have fixed that ... but that won't happen until 4e.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

A top-level party is well advised to Mind Blank their fighter and rogue, lest they face a former ally under a Dominate.

Nah. Just have a Dominate Person of your own on-hand to take back control.

 

[Urbannen]

I agree with Al's comments.

Dimwhit is also right - at higher levels creatures still make their saves against spellcasters with GSF +4.

Case in point: I once ran a two-shot in which the characters encountered a Rakshasa sorcerer with a 20 Charisma and Greater Spell Focus (Illusion). Base save vs. illusion: 19+spell level. His big thing was to confuse people with his illusions to get them to fight each other (yes, Rappan Athuk). Well, the cleric/paladin and wizard/rogue made every save vs. major image. The rakshasa didn't get a chance to try his seeming spell.

The only will save that the party failed was a suggestion against the fighter/purple dragon knight, who had foolishly spent money on a powerful keen weapon rather than saving buffs (foolish especially because the dungeon was known to be inhabited by lots of undead and a powerful wizard). The suggestion turned out to be a save-or-die spell for the cleric/paladin, but only because of the rakshasa's clever use of impersonation.

 

[Al]

Perhaps ... but the fighter isn't boosting his Wisdom to the extent that a wizard is boosting his Intelligence. Hence the arms race

No, but his Cloak of Resistance +5 trumps the Headband of Intellect +6...and his Luckstone and Pale Green Ioun Stone are simply supplementary boosters.

And now the wizard thinks of the fighter as "dead wight" since he has to constantly boost the fighter and rogue. Plus he has to give up two 8th-level spells a day - this isn't taken lightly by the wizard.

Not really. It's a team game, after all. The cleric doesn't think of the party as "dead weight" when he has to heal them. The rogue doesn't think of the party as "dead weight" when he defuses trap. The fighter doesn't think of the back line as "dead weight" when he plays the meat shield. Party resources have to be pooled for best effect...and in any case, clerics can cast Mind Blank .

I wish they would boost wizard's defenses.

Here's the trick though- the better a character's offensive capabilities, the worse his defensive capabilities. A full sneak-attacking rogue can probably pull off more damage than a tank, but is more vulnerable. The wizard rules the roost at dishing out the damage, but can't take much. Unfortunately, 3.5 wizards dish out less but still don't have as good defenses

I'd like to point that NPCs have less money to spend than PCs

And a good thing too! PCs face far more battles than NPCs (who normally face...er...one). This does of course mean that the NPCs can go full throttle on potions, scrolls and other limited-use items, and can burn all their top spells and limited use feats (Power Critical?) in the one combat. PCs have to budget.

That's a bad idea! If a wizard prepares only Enchantment spells for offensive purposes then they're going to get hurt.

Shard O'Glase had a very good point. The notion of 'conspicuous' targetting works only if the caster has GSF for a Will save school like enchantment, a Reflex save school like evocation and a Fort save school like necromancy. Otherwise, against certain opponents, he will have suboptimal DCs and/or face good saves. An enchanter with GSF, for example, has just as good a chance at throwing an Will save enchantment against a 12th level wizard as a Fort save spell.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

I posted them above.

Shard O'Glase had a very good point. The notion of 'conspicuous' targetting works only if the caster has GSF for a Will save school like enchantment, a Reflex save school like evocation and a Fort save school like necromancy.

Or schools with all three saves Frankly I have no problem taking Spell Focus two or three times. (And Reflex is rarely important IME.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps ... but the fighter isn't boosting his Wisdom to the extent that a wizard is boosting his Intelligence. Hence the arms race
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, but his Cloak of Resistance +5 trumps the Headband of Intellect +6...and his Luckstone and Pale Green Ioun Stone are simply supplementary boosters.

The wizard is boosting his Intelligence every four levels. The fighter is not boosting his Wisdom every four levels - certainly he can't boost his Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution by a like amount. The cloak of resistance is filling in the gap, but not completely.

 

[MadScientist]

I posted them above.

Sorry about that I don't know how I missed it when I first read through the thread....

The Ryan Dancy quote I actually caught was very much lacking the context.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually it's not so much of a bad idea as an inevitable consequence of the way the D&D magic system works.

Let's say an enchanter went out of his way to mitigate his vulnerabilities by adding a few spells that work on mindless and undead critters. So at 1st level, he has magic missile, at 2nd level, he has Blindness/Deafness, at 4th level he has Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, and at 5th level, he has Summon Monster V.

Now, when he's a first level character with spell focus: enchantment and improved initiative, odds are his spell selection looks like this:
Lvl 0: Daze Person x2, Dancing Lights, Detect Magic
Lvl 1: Sleep x2, Magic Missile

So, if his party runs into a tough combat with creatures that have good will saves, he casts his one magic missile spell and then his options are:
1. Cower and fire his crossbow inefectually--contributing very little to a combat that looks like it could end in death for all the PCs.
2. Cast will save spells at anything that isn't immune to them and hope that the DM rolls a 5 or below on the saves.

When he hits 9th level, he'll have a little more versatility but not much. He'll have a few magic missiles, a blindness, and a Resilient Sphere. His intelligence is only 19 (pity the iconic spread wizard limited to a +2 headband at 9th level) so he only has two 5th level spells. He chose dominate Person twice (not unreasonable--it is his biggest gun).

Now, let's say this wizard runs into a terrifying group of foes with good will saves. He can contribute his magic missiles but he doesn't have an infinite number--and while helpful, 5d4+5 damage isn't a huge effect on combat. He can try blinding one. However, it's a low low level spell (with a DC 5 points lower than his Dominate Person DC), so even if he knows the critter has a weak fort save, he might have just as good a shot at success with Dominate Person. He could also try using the Resilient Sphere but plenty of creatures have two good saves (and lots are too large for the sphere to work too).

So event thought the Enchanter prepared a variety of spells, he will still often end up casting spells at creatures' favored saves. The same is true of evokers, necromancers, illusionists, and other specialists. Unless they really split their feats and have multiple GSFs (and prepare a 50/50 split of spells), they'll spend a lot of time casting spells at strong saves.

Spontaneous casters like sorcerors can avoid that somewhat but with very few feats to work with, they have trouble mustering the 4 feats necessary to have GSF in even two schools (a human sorceror could pull it off by lvl 6 but he'd have no other feats). Sorcerors are also very limited by their spells known. An enchantment focussed 10th level sorceror might know Charm Monster, Confusion, Hold Person, and Dominate Person--if he did, any other spells he knew would be 3rd level or lower. Thus he's in the same position as the wizard when faced with a strong will save monster. All of his non-will save spells have DCs at least 4 points lower than his Dominate Person spell so in a lot of cases, he might as well just cast Dominate. At least it could end combat if it works. (The same can't be said of his Scorching Ray).

That's a bad idea! If a wizard prepares only Enchantment spells for offensive purposes then they're going to get hurt.
[/B]

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Actually it's not so much of a bad idea as an inevitable consequence of the way the D&D magic system works.

Let's say an enchanter went out of his way to mitigate his vulnerabilities by adding a few spells that work on mindless and undead critters. So at 1st level, he has magic missile, at 2nd level, he has Blindness/Deafness, at 4th level he has Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, and at 5th level, he has Summon Monster V.

That seems pretty decent - but did he only prepare one non-mind-affecting offense spell for each spell level? It seems like he prepared two or more mind-affecting spells for each spell level - putting all the eggs into one basket, so to speak.

Now, when he's a first level character with spell focus: enchantment and improved initiative, odds are his spell selection looks like this:
Lvl 0: Daze Person x2, Dancing Lights, Detect Magic
Lvl 1: Sleep x2, Magic Missile

This is a bad idea if you ask me. [OT digression] This reminds me of the 1st-level Hennet's progression in the PHB. Did he not take Mage Armor? What happens if enemies attack him from both ways, and the fighter can't save his behind?

Besides, Magic Missile is useless until 3rd-level (IME) and Sleep is less useful than Color Spray, especially for a sorcerer. [/Digression]

If you ask me, he should trade a Sleep spell for somthing else.

So, if his party runs into a tough combat with creatures that have good will saves, he casts his one magic missile spell and then his options are:
1. Cower and fire his crossbow inefectually--contributing very little to a combat that looks like it could end in death for all the PCs.
2. Cast will save spells at anything that isn't immune to them and hope that the DM rolls a 5 or below on the saves.

This is a 1st-level wizard. It's a serious bug of 3e (and 2e) that 1st-level wizards are very weak. It wouldn't matter how many spells the sorcerer knows ... with only three or so spells per day he is going to run out anyway.

When he hits 9th level, he'll have a little more versatility but not much. He'll have a few magic missiles, a blindness, and a Resilient Sphere. His intelligence is only 19 (pity the iconic spread wizard limited to a +2 headband at 9th level) so he only has two 5th level spells.

I feel your pain, too. I have an 8th-level wizard with very few spell slots.

He chose dominate Person twice (not unreasonable--it is his biggest gun).

I think this is a bad idea. This is just my XP, but my wizard (a 8th-level gnome) has Spell Focus (Conjuration) and Spell Focus (Necromancy). My only big gun is fear and I only prepare it once per day. (I also have Dimension Door and Greater Invisibility.)

As you can see, I've focused somewhat (overly?) on defense. If I hadn't done so, I would trade out Dimension Door for Otiluke's Resilient Sphere. I would definitely not prepare fear twice.

Fear is also more useful than dominate person because it works on nearly any creature I run into that has a mind, whereas Dominate Person won't even work on a tiefling!

There are many way to keep out fear including remove fear but protection from good is a more likely spell to be known/prepared by an opponent, since it has uses other than preventing mind control. In other words, I picked a spell with worse defenses against it that is also more useful than Dominate Person

Let's say this wizard runs into a terrifying group of foes with good will saves. He can contribute his magic missiles but he doesn't have an infinite number--and while helpful, 5d4+5 damage isn't a huge effect on combat. He can try blinding one. However, it's a low low level spell (with a DC 5 points lower than his Dominate Person DC), so even if he knows the critter has a weak fort save, he might have just as good a shot at success with Dominate Person. He could also try using the Resilient Sphere but plenty of creatures have two good saves (and lots are too large for the sphere to work too).

He should have used Web

Even thought the Enchanter prepared a variety of spells, he will still often end up casting spells at creatures' favored saves. The same is true of evokers, necromancers, illusionists, and other specialists. Unless they really split their feats and have multiple GSFs (and prepare a 50/50 split of spells), they'll spend a lot of time casting spells at strong saves.

They could still take multiple Spell Focus and not take Greater Spell Focus. It's never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket (see the 3.0 ranger's favored enemy). The sample wizard has put his eggs in very few baskets. Instead of taking Greater Spell Focus, he should have taken another Spell Focus instead.

Spontaneous casters like sorcerors can avoid that somewhat but with very few feats to work with, they have trouble mustering the 4 feats necessary to have GSF in even two schools (a human sorceror could pull it off by lvl 6 but he'd have no other feats). Sorcerors are also very limited by their spells known. An enchantment focussed 10th level sorceror might know Charm Monster, Confusion, Hold Person, and Dominate Person--if he did, any other spells he knew would be 3rd level or lower. Thus he's in the same position as the wizard when faced with a strong will save monster. All of his non-will save spells have DCs at least 4 points lower than his Dominate Person spell so in a lot of cases, he might as well just cast Dominate. At least it could end combat if it works. (The same can't be said of his Scorching Ray).

[/B]

First of all ... that's a bad idea again. Just because a sorcerer take Spell Focus doesn't mean he should take so many Enchantment spells.

[OT digression] Charm Monster is not a combat spell, Dominate Person is nearly useless due to the target restrictions, and Hold Person is useless for the same reason.

Confusion and Hold Monster are the good ones. [/OT digression]

Indeed, I can't picture a wizard or sorcerer taking Spell Focus (Enchantment) until 9th-level. Of course, that's just my XP.

To make matters worse, he has hosed himself if he faces opponents with high Will saves. Even if he doesn't have Spell Focus (Necromancy) he will still find his Blindness/Deafness spell more useful against a high-Will save opponent than Confusion. At least this is my XP ... at low levels the saving throw spread isn't as great and depends more on stats than on levels.

PS if you ask me, if your DM doesn't change Spell Focus and ban Greater Spell Focus, you should wait until the higher levels to take Greater Spell Focus. I can't picture what a sorcerer is doing trying to take GSF twice at 9th-level. He doesn't have the feat slots, he knows he doesn't have the feat slots ... he should try another tactic.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That seems pretty decent - but did he only prepare one non-mind-affecting offense spell for each spell level? It seems like he prepared two or more mind-affecting spells for each spell level - putting all the eggs into one basket, so to speak.

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.

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

This is a bad idea if you ask me. [OT digression] This reminds me of the 1st-level Hennet's progression in the PHB. Did he not take Mage Armor? What happens if enemies attack him from both ways, and the fighter can't save his behind?

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.

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.

If you ask me, he should trade a Sleep spell for somthing else.

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.

This is a 1st-level wizard. It's a serious bug of 3e (and 2e) that 1st-level wizards are very weak. It wouldn't matter how many spells the sorcerer knows ... with only three or so spells per day he is going to run out anyway.

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.

I think this is a bad idea. This is just my XP, but my wizard (a 8th-level gnome) has Spell Focus (Conjuration) and Spell Focus (Necromancy). My only big gun is fear and I only prepare it once per day. (I also have Dimension Door and Greater Invisibility.)

As you can see, I've focused somewhat (overly?) on defense. If I hadn't done so, I would trade out Dimension Door for Otiluke's Resilient Sphere. I would definitely not prepare fear twice.

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.

They could still take multiple Spell Focus and not take Greater Spell Focus. It's never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket (see the 3.0 ranger's favored enemy). The sample wizard has put his eggs in very few baskets. Instead of taking Greater Spell Focus, he should have taken another Spell Focus instead.

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.

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

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.