Spell Focus - Still Worth It?

[Knowledge Sinkhole]

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...

If wizards had as many feats as fighters, then maybe you'd be hearing less bellyaching. When you get fifteen feats, spending one for "only a +1 bonus" isn't very painful. When you get less than half of that, it becomes much more so.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If wizards had as many feats as fighters, then maybe you'd be hearing less bellyaching. When you get fifteen feats, spending one for "only a +1 bonus" isn't very painful. When you get less than half of that, it becomes much more so.

Well, if you want lots of feats, why are you playing a Wizard?

I think what kind of gets me is seeing so many people just houserule it back to +2 without even seeing how it does at +1. It really has presented no difference in my games, and I'm just trying to point that out.

 

[Corlon]

I guess I'm speaking from only having one player who can really munchkize a spellcaster, but I don't like the +1 change, I say keep it at +2 and if big DCs are a problem, kill GSF or something.

plus, 2 is just such a cooler number than 1, no matter what you're talking about


my 2 cents
-Peaches

 

[Jhyrryl]

plus, 2 is just such a cooler number than 1, no matter what you're talking about

Singing, "One is the loneliest number..."

 

[Saeviomagy]

If +1 is so insignificant, then why is +2 (ie - +1 +1) so much different to +1?

 

[Knowledge Sinkhole]

Well, if you want lots of feats, why are you playing a Wizard?

I didn't say that wizards should have more feats. I said that because they have less, one feat is more important to them than to a fighter.

 

[Snipehunt]

((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.))

Well, YMMV. But IME fighters want something to do when they can't use their swords/axes/whatever, and something to do when they can't use their bow/crossbow/whatever. Campaigns I'm in tend not to be friendly to the high-munch, specialized builds, it's better to be have multiple tricks.

I've also seen the multiple spell focus, but more rarely and usually when the wiz is pretty high level already.

My basic feeling is, +1 is better than +0.

 

[Technik4]

I think its still decent. It still remains not a very good feat for many types of spellcasters (buffers, summoners, defensive types, etc) but it has its niche group that doesn't really have anything better to spend their feats on, like NPC spellcasters

Technik

 

[Black Omega]

It seems like the best solution here is the best of both worlds. Leave SF giving a +2. And raise the saves of everything in your game by +1. The players who hate SF: with only +1 are happy, and the end result is the same.

 

[Khorod]

From a design perspective, I seem to remember the bonus was reduced to +1 because of Greater Weapon Focus and several other things in the game (not just core rules), not because Spell Focus at +2 was itself all that bad.

I think that +2 is better than +1 fpr psychological reasons. Two feats for a +2 is certainly not worth it compared to the options. Maybe if GSF gave +3?

IMO