Spell Focus - Still Worth It?

[Zogg]

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.

Melee fighters swing their weapons around FAR more than a spellcaster will cast a spell from their "spell focused" school. At the end of any given session, I would say a fighter would utilize his weapon focus at least 5 times more than a spellcaster would use their spell focus...if not more. Even if EVERY spell a spellcaster memorized fell under the "spell focused" school (highly unlikely) the fighter would STILL see more use from his feat.

And please try to stay on topic - weapon focus is another feat entirely and does not serve as an appropriate analogy to the spell focus feat.

 

[Snipehunt]

Well, you could argue that a well-designed spellcaster would cast most of its attack spells from the focused school. Spell focus was never very useful if the caster cast spells from all the different schools routinely.

And fighters generally have to to take weapon focus at least twice - once for melee, once for ranged.

As for the amount of swings a fighter uses v. the number of spells a wiz casts, of course there's no comparison. But the effect of the spell equals many swings of the fighter, generally - one bad save, and the dragons a bug.

I still like spell focus. It still helps the spell get through. But it now means the low-will PC isn't necessarily toast the minute dominate person is cast.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Melee fighters swing their weapons around FAR more than a spellcaster will cast a spell from their "spell focused" school. At the end of any given session, I would say a fighter would utilize his weapon focus at least 5 times more than a spellcaster would use their spell focus...if not more. Even if EVERY spell a spellcaster memorized fell under the "spell focused" school (highly unlikely) the fighter would STILL see more use from his feat.

And please try to stay on topic - weapon focus is another feat entirely and does not serve as an appropriate analogy to the spell focus feat.

Ah, right. I'll remember not to try to make comparisons at all.
Sorry, but I just see this all as a bunch of whinning because a little +1 bonus was taken away. I play spellcasters too, and I liked Spell Focus at +2...but as both a player and a DM, I've seen no real power drops and horrible failures because a +1 was lost. My players did complain a bit when they first heard about it, but once we converted...not a problem at all. What's the point of giving monsters save bonuses if they always fail them?

 

[Zogg]

If a DM is concerned about monsters forever failing their saves (which I'm sure we all know has never been the case except for the powergamers who insist on playing the arcane spellcaster or Red Wizard, a group of which I'm proud to say I don't belong to) then just give the monsters a feat to account for this.

Each Spell Focus feat improves a DC by +1, yet the "Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, etc." feats increase saves by +2. So basically it's EASIER to improve your weak save than it is to enhance a spellcasters spell DCs. Some people think this is as it should be, but I think it would be nice if all feats were created equal.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If a DM is concerned about monsters forever failing their saves (which I'm sure we all know has never been the case except for the powergamers who insist on playing the arcane spellcaster or Red Wizard, a group of which I'm proud to say I don't belong to) then just give the monsters a feat to account for this.

Each Spell Focus feat improves a DC by +1, yet the "Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, etc." feats increase saves by +2. So basically it's EASIER to improve your weak save than it is to enhance a spellcasters spell DCs. Some people think this is as it should be, but I think it would be nice if all feats were created equal.

Yes, but what about high ability scores? The +2 to the saves seems more NEEDED for the weak save because(usually) the ability that corresponds to the weak save won't be a very high one. So that STILL puts the caster up on top.

Another way to look at it is this...a +1 bonus to DC is like a(limited in use) +2 to an ability score. So, a +2 is like a +4 to an ability. In my opinion, this seems to show that a +2 is a bit stronger than it looks at first glance.

Oh, and any caster that doesn't make good use of thier Spell Focus school needs to rethink the need for Spell Focus. If you take the feat, no matter WHAT the bonus is at, you SHOULD be casting a good amount of your spells in that school.

 

[Spatula]

And fighters generally have to to take weapon focus at least twice - once for melee, once for ranged.

Haven't seen many fighters specialize in more than one weapon. Every fighter that I've seen specializes in a single weapon and use the rest of the feats to pick up combat style chains (power attack chain, etc.).

As for the amount of swings a fighter uses v. the number of spells a wiz casts, of course there's no comparison. But the effect of the spell equals many swings of the fighter, generally - one bad save, and the dragons a bug.

You're going to need more than a +2 DC to have any chance of affecting a dragon with a Fort negates spell. Or with any spell, really.

A fighter will generally only be using one type of weapon for the majority of his attacks - whichever weapon he's specialized in. He's able to attack with a melee weapon (if an archery specialist) or a ranged weapon (if a melee specialist) but will only do so if cirsumstances prevent him from using his preferred weapon. Spellcasters don't have that luxury. An enchanter, for example, has many spells that only affect humanoids, and the rest of her spells can't affect several types of creatures at all.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Spellcasters don't have that luxury. An enchanter, for example, has many spells that only affect humanoids, and the rest of her spells can't affect several types of creatures at all.

Well, putting it bluntly, that's what you get for being a caster. You can't have everything. The Fighter has his own disadvantages to deal with, and so does the caster. I've found that comparing classes is hard to do because the game is not geared for one on one combat, and the comparison usually comes to that.

...which is why I was only comparing feats.

((Oh, and I've never seen a Fighter take Weapon Focus more than once. I HAVE seen Spellcasters take Spell Focus a few times...even WITH ths +1 bonus, I've still seen it taken twice just recently.))

 

[thalmin]

<snip>
Another way to look at it is this...a +1 bonus to DC is like a(limited in use) +2 to an ability score. So, a +2 is like a +4 to an ability. In my opinion, this seems to show that a +2 is a bit stronger than it looks at first glance.
<snip>

What about the feats like Iron Will. +2 to save is like a (limited in use) +4 to an ability score. Same thing.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

What about the feats like Iron Will. +2 to save is like a (limited in use) +4 to an ability score. Same thing.

And I'll agree. I should have mentioned that it does go both ways...but I, personally, think its good to give the Saves a higher bonus than the attack for the sole reason that(when only looking at the Weak save...my arguement completely dies when looking at Good saves), a Spellcaster should have a good ability score in thier primary stat. A +1 to that actually DOES help the DC. A creature usually will have a lower stat corresponding to its Weak save...so even with a +2 from one of those feats, the spellcaster is still on top.

 

[thundershot]

My own personal house rule? Spell Focus is +2, but there is no Greater Spell Focus...



Chris