Li Shenron said:
I hope you don't mean that with one feat only they would be ineffective, unless you think that such a spellcaster without an 18 in his primary score is unplayable.
I used to consider the 3e SF and GSF more useful for spellcaster with low spellcasting ability score.
Under 3.5, a spellcaster focussed on spells that allow saves without a 17 or 18 prime stat does seem like he'd approach unplayability. (Or at least the playability level of a halfling monk or any other character who's starting with a severe handicap. This is not saying anything about characters focussed on buffing, summoning, and casting spells without saves). In 3.0, a character with GSF could use that to make up for a low score (14 or 15). In 3.5, that character will find that he doesn't have a slim chance of effecting foes on their strong save, he has next to no chance.
Originally posted by Numion
I really don't get this. Total of +2 to DCs comes in to play 10% of time with spells that allow saves. Why should that 10% be decisive in evaluating whether sorcerers or wizards are effective at all?
Surely 10% doesn't meant the difference between no useful at all and effective characters?
You're right, 10% isn't much. Unfortunately, it's nearly all that a spellcaster can do to improve his save DCs in 3.5 And for spellcasters who want to focus their spell selection and actually be enchanters or necromancers (or specialists in any other area that allows saves) increased DCs are necessary because they will often be tossing their spells against a foe's strong save. (Sure, they could change their spell selection to include lots of spells without saves and lots of spells targetting different saves but then they'd be generalists rather than enchanters or necromancers, etc).
And, a spellcaster is rather ineffective if his best spells are only going to have a 50% chance of doing anything. (And that's generous--at high levels, a 36 int character tossing a non-spell focussed 9th level spell against a Balor's strong saves has, IIRC something like a 15-20% chance of getting the Balor to fail his save (assuming he gets past SR). The situation is similar for an 8th level wizard against a dire tiger, etc). In those situations, a 60% chance looks a lot better than 50% (that's a 86% chance of getting the target with one of two spells instead of a 75% chance) and a 25-30% chance looks a lot better than a 15-20% chance. (That's a 50% chance of effecting the target with at least one spell out of two instead of a 30% chance).
It also makes a very significant difference when tossing spells that opponents have trouble saving against. A foe with a +0 will save will usually (58%+) escape a DC 16 hold person spell on the second round (and has a 40+% chance of not being held by the end of his first turn). If the DC is 18, there's better than a 50% chance that the target will not escape the hold until his fourth round. Similarly, a DC 19 slow spell has a significantly better chance of effecting every target than a DC 17 slow spell.
A character focussed in one area of spellcasting can only compete with a generalist if he makes up for the fact that he'll often be using suboptimal spells against his opponents (will saves against wizards and clerics, fort saves against fighters, etc) if he increases his effectiveness in his specialty area to the point that he's devastating where the generalist is merely helpful (fireballs against fighters, glitterdust against rogues, etc) and is still marginally effective in suboptimal conditions (dominate against clerics, etc). If that's not possible (and in 3.5 it isn't without GSF) then specializing in an area that allows saves is a sucker's bet.
