Spell Focus - Still Worth It?

[Skinwalker]

My 2cp

My 2cp...

I did not consider SF a must-have in 3.0, but then again I favor Buffing, Movement, and No-Save spells and *really* don't like to limit myself to a particular school of magic. I play my wizards as generalists and tacticians. For example, I always figured I could deal more raw damage (in most situations) by Hasting a Buffed fighter than by unleashing a Fireball.

My tactics will have to change substantially when my group finally goes over to 3.5, but from what I've seen so far I doubt SF will look any more appealing to me then than it does now.

 

[Dreeble]

Heya:

Another thought on comparing Spell Focus to Weapon Focus is to consider what each leads to. Spell Focus leads to Greater Spell Focus. A whole 'nuther +1 bonus (essentially). Weapon Focus (for fighters at least) leads to the _very_ nice Weapon Specialization and +2 damage. That +2 damage in and of itself is extremely nice, but it also "stacks" with Weapon Focus since both can be used at the same time. GSF sorta renders SF irrelevant. Unless you want to think of it (as I sorta do) as a 'nuther stackable +1. Not too exciting.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[Plane Sailing]

My point is that a less used feat should grant a greater benefit than a more used feat. Nobody would pick up a feat that only granted a +1 bonus to attack rolls with double-weapons when scaling tulip hills in Acheron. Had the bonus been +16, or just +8, it might have been a possibility, even though tulip hills are more than rare in Acheron.

I just wanted to back up this as it is a fundamental point about feat design - a cursory glance at the list of feats shows that their bonus is related primarily to how often they will see use in the game. Improved Init +4 seems high until you realise that it will only appear once per combat. Combat Casting at +4 similarly is not required lots and lots of the time.

It seems to me that the rate of use of SF would strongly suggest that it remains at +2. I think the only problem was the +4 that GSF introduced in Forgotten Realms - and frankly they should have not bothered with that and just left SF as it was. I don't buy the idea that they didn't want to "break" a FR feat, considering the wholesale slaughter of the spell lists

 

[bensei]

As most seem to think, that +2 (+4 with greater) is too strong, and +1 (+2 with greater) is too weak, there has to be some good solution in beetween.

Ideas (just briefly, knowing that such things should go to House Rules):
1.) SF gives +1 to all spells with save, GSF further +2 to one single school.
2.) SF gives +1 to two schools (may be taken multiple times for different schools), GSF further +1 to two schools, which have already SF applied.

Solution 1.) may seem powerful, but for all spellcasters who concentrate on one school it is not that powerful.
Solution 2.) fits somehow into the concept of the two-skill-buffing feats.

 

[EPRock]

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...

Yeah but say that you only get to do 10 attacks at +1
Or you only get +1 when attacking goblinoids

 

[Cyraneth]

Yeah but say that you only get to do 10 attacks at +1
Or you only get +1 when attacking goblinoids

I think what EPRock wanted to say is that while Weapon Focus is limited to one weapon (unlike Epic Prowess), most fighters only use one, two, or possibly three different weapons, making their Weapon Focus bonus apply almost all the time (or at least 33% of the time, talking worst case scenario). The Spell Focus feat is applied less often than that even, being limited to when a wizard cast one of his few spells, if the spell is of the chosen school, and if the spell calls for a save. That is three limitations, not just one.

- Cyraneth

 

[Rashak Mani]

Wow... hadnt noticed the Spell Focus changed to +1... at +2 in 3.0 it was a very rare feat to be chosen... mostly taken by specialists.

At +1... its gone from bad to useless then. The comparison to wpn focus being totally skewed. Wpn Focus isnt that great a feat either... except for specialists again. Still its way more useful than SF even at +2 SF.

 

[Vurt]

As a DM, my offensive NPC's often take SF and GSF to help punch their spells past the PC's saving throws. So far, I'm happy with the lower values and think that they are fair and that these are still reasonable feats to take.

-- Vurt

 

[Knowledge Sinkhole]

Spell focus and Greater spell focus no longer make spell casters good--they are able however, to keep them from being utterly worthless.

Well, if casters are worthless unless they take two specific feats, then there are some bigger problems here. I frankly don't think that it is nearly as bad as you think; it just means that casters will be forced to use no-save spells more often. Considering the relatively small number of useful combat spells without saves, this just means that we're apt to see much less variety in spells. Or, as you mentioned, much weakened casters.

But hey, I suppose it's not all bad; with spell focus and greater spell focus nerfed, NPC casters won't be nearly as dangerous.

 

[Limper]

Nerfing Feats because they stacked to well with Optional Rules is just silly.


Now as to whether its good or not... no its wasn't usefull before and it sure the hell isn't now. I have never seen it taken since the start of the d20 incursion unless it was needed for a Pres Class.


As to Weapon Focus... unless you need it for a prereq to something it to is a waste.