Spell Focus - Still Worth It?

[Methos]

Ok. It has been awhile since I posted anything, however, the question says it all.

While I personally think that this feat was one of the must haves for any wizard with its +2 to DC's for the spell school chosen, my question is whether it still is worth taking?

Any thoughts on this? I'm personally not as positive that it is really as big a must have.

Cheers

 

[Zogg]

It is, under almost every circumstance, not worth taking.

This is why our DM kept the feat at +2 (though she did get rid of Greater Spell Focus).

I guess if your DM is really adamant about going "by the book" the only SF I personally would take is conjuration in order to obtain the "augment summoning" feat. Of course you'd have to be content with using lots of summoning spells....but otherwise I would just take a metamagic and focus on boosting your primary stat.

 

[Grog]

While I personally think that this feat was one of the must haves for any wizard with its +2 to DC's for the spell school chosen, my question is whether it still is worth taking?

Absolutely not. It now falls into the category of "worthless feats you never even consider taking unless you need it to qualify for a prestige class."

 

[Methos]

Yep. that was my sense of it. Essentially a worthless feat now.

 

[Knowledge Sinkhole]

Well, the nerfing of spell focus has certainly made me unlikely to play a non-damage based spellcaster ever again. Heck, even back when sf + gsf would give you +4, and I was able to boost my spellcasting stat to 30, it was still incredibly rare for my enchanter to succeed on any of his enchants. Ah well.

 

[Skaros]

Well, the nerfing of spell focus has certainly made me unlikely to play a non-damage based spellcaster ever again. Heck, even back when sf + gsf would give you +4, and I was able to boost my spellcasting stat to 30, it was still incredibly rare for my enchanter to succeed on any of his enchants. Ah well.

I'll definitely disagree with that. An enchanter succeeds against low-will-save classes a lot of the time even without the feats.

I will, however, chime in with the general consensus...spell focus is worthless now, except as a burdensome pre-requisiste for prestige classes or feats.

Skaros

 

[Number47]

I am flabbergasted. If a benefit from one feat is "must-have", then isn't it too good? If the same benefit becomes two feats, it's worthless? A sure sign that a feat is balanced is if you are just as likely to take something else half the time. So far, I think people have rated it so poorly from the backlash of having their cookie taken away.

I think 3.5 spell focus is just fine. Like any +1 bonus, it will help most when the target either needs a really high number to save (making the save near impossible), or a really low one (to give you a better hope of getting any spell through).

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

So wait...by this logic, Weapon Focus isn't worth taking because its "only a +1 bonus". Huh???
+1 to a save DC is just as good(arguably better) than a +1 to attack. If it just being +1 is so worthless, then what makes +2 so much better? Its only +1 better...can't be worth much. Right? According to the logic I seem to see, yep. Which is really confusing me here...

 

[coyote6]

I think SF + GSF was too much. Spell Focus by itself was fine, though. SF now -- I wouldn't take it. Nor would I take it and GSF.

I was thinking about changing SF back to giving a +2, and making GSF give a +1. Or maybe GSF will give +1 caster level.

 

[burnrate]

It's worth it for enchantment, illusion, and evocation. +1 to the spell DC is very nice if you're casting many spells from one of these schools. It isn't as good as +2 of course, but still worth the feat.