Spell Focus - Still Worth It?
- Thread starter Methos
- Start date
Darklone
Registered User
I don't really understand why everyone seems to be complaining so much about the "low DCs for spellcasters". It's the fault of the DM if he only brings high save monsters in the game.
In my games, the spellcasters usually have a 80% chance to succeed against most given monsters.
In my games, the spellcasters usually have a 80% chance to succeed against most given monsters.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Thankyou Ms. Dowd. If you selectively edit you can make stuff say what you want to say and the selective editing in this case made it appear that I said that a character with a low score and no spell focus could get a 50% chance of effecting opponents on a strong save (which any specialist will regularly have to target). Not likely past level 8. The 50% figure is for a character with a 17+ starting prime stat, the best int or cha enhancing item he can afford, and greater spell focus in the appropriate school. (And apparently, even then it's something of an exaggeration).
Really, there are some monsters that show up at CR 10-12 with saves like +17/+10/+6. A lot of giants (the fire giant has an achilles heel for instance (CR 10, +14/+4+/9 as does the frost giant CR 9 +14/+3/+6), Hydras (at CR 9, +12/+8/+3) and the frost worm are in that category. But a lot more foes are like golems (immune to magic so their saves don't matter much), the hill giant dire weaboar (+17/+8/+12 or +20/+8/+12) the athach with +9/+5/+10 at CR 8 (an consequently much higher if advanced), demons (at CR 20, SR 28 and +22/+19/+19 saves, at CR 13, the Glazebru has SR 21 and +18/+8/+11 saves, the Tyranosaurus (CR 8, +16/+12/+8), dire animals (all good saves; the CR 7 dire bear has +12/+9/+9 and the CR 8 dire tiger has +13/+12/+11), dragons (very good saves all around--CR 13 red dragon is +16/+11/+13 with SR 19), efreeti (CR 8 with +9/+10/+9), Kraken (CR 12, +21/+12/+13), Mohrg (CR 8 and +4 (not that they're vulnerable to much here/+10/+9), night hags (CR 9, SR 21 and +12/+9/+10), nightwing (+9/+11/+17), vampires (lots of resistances, fort save immunity, +4 dex and lightning reflexes, +2 wis)
Overall, the typical level good save for CR 8-12 seems to be +14 or above and the typical non-good save (is +9-+10); if it's as low as +6, it's a really bad "glass-jaw" type save.
So, starting a wizard off with a 14 or 15 int, by 10th level (when he'd be facing monsters throughout that challenge rating), he'd probably have an int of 19 (+2 item, +2 stat increases). Consequently, without spell focus feats, his DCs will range from 15 to 20. That means that his most powerful spells have a 65% chance of working when targetted against a glass-jaw type save, a 45-50% chance of working when targetted against a typical non-good save, and a 25-30% chance of working when targetted against a strong save. (Not forgetting that something like 1/3 of these creatures have SR. . . .) Of course he only has 2 spells (unless he's a specialist) at his highest level castable; the spells he'll spend the bulk of his time working with (3rd and 4th levels) have even less chance of working. (For the 3rd level spell like fireball it's 50% chance against a glass jaw save, 35% chance against a typical save, or 15% chance against a strong save.
So, how about the high int spell focus guy? Starting with an 18 int, and the same items, he has a 22 int at 10th level. With Greater Spell Focus, the DCs for his highest level focussed schools are 23. So, he has an 80% chance of success against the glass jaw save, a 60-65% chance of success against a typical save, and a 45% chance of success against a strong save. That's with his highest level spell. With his fireball spells (whether actual fireballs, Suggestion, Hold Persons, or Rays of Exhaustion), he has a 70% chance against glass jaw saves, a 50-55% chance against normal saves, and a 35% chance against strong saves.
Now, the big difference is that the high-int focussed guy is always in the position of having a reasonable shot at success. The other guy isn't. A 35% chance is still worth taking if it's the best you can do. If your choice is expending a very limited resource (spells) for a 15% chance of accomplishing anything, options like "I throw my dagger to Aid Other on the fighter's attack (or AC)" and "I pull out that clvl 1 wand of magic missiles to do 1d4+1 damage to the critter--it's not much but it's something" start to look really attractive. When the average int wizard comes across the 50-60% of monsters that seem to have no weak saves, he runs the risk of being a glorified commoner.
Of course, there's a big difference when facing the glass-jaw saves too. Mr. Average int, no spell focus has about a 50% chance of success with his bread and butter spells. A 65% chance of success translates into significantly better results. (For instance, if you catch 6 targets in the fireball, it's the difference between 3 targets failing the save and 2 targets failing the save--the amount of extra damage from that 15% adds up pretty quickly).
Really, there are some monsters that show up at CR 10-12 with saves like +17/+10/+6. A lot of giants (the fire giant has an achilles heel for instance (CR 10, +14/+4+/9 as does the frost giant CR 9 +14/+3/+6), Hydras (at CR 9, +12/+8/+3) and the frost worm are in that category. But a lot more foes are like golems (immune to magic so their saves don't matter much), the hill giant dire weaboar (+17/+8/+12 or +20/+8/+12) the athach with +9/+5/+10 at CR 8 (an consequently much higher if advanced), demons (at CR 20, SR 28 and +22/+19/+19 saves, at CR 13, the Glazebru has SR 21 and +18/+8/+11 saves, the Tyranosaurus (CR 8, +16/+12/+8), dire animals (all good saves; the CR 7 dire bear has +12/+9/+9 and the CR 8 dire tiger has +13/+12/+11), dragons (very good saves all around--CR 13 red dragon is +16/+11/+13 with SR 19), efreeti (CR 8 with +9/+10/+9), Kraken (CR 12, +21/+12/+13), Mohrg (CR 8 and +4 (not that they're vulnerable to much here/+10/+9), night hags (CR 9, SR 21 and +12/+9/+10), nightwing (+9/+11/+17), vampires (lots of resistances, fort save immunity, +4 dex and lightning reflexes, +2 wis)
Overall, the typical level good save for CR 8-12 seems to be +14 or above and the typical non-good save (is +9-+10); if it's as low as +6, it's a really bad "glass-jaw" type save.
So, starting a wizard off with a 14 or 15 int, by 10th level (when he'd be facing monsters throughout that challenge rating), he'd probably have an int of 19 (+2 item, +2 stat increases). Consequently, without spell focus feats, his DCs will range from 15 to 20. That means that his most powerful spells have a 65% chance of working when targetted against a glass-jaw type save, a 45-50% chance of working when targetted against a typical non-good save, and a 25-30% chance of working when targetted against a strong save. (Not forgetting that something like 1/3 of these creatures have SR. . . .) Of course he only has 2 spells (unless he's a specialist) at his highest level castable; the spells he'll spend the bulk of his time working with (3rd and 4th levels) have even less chance of working. (For the 3rd level spell like fireball it's 50% chance against a glass jaw save, 35% chance against a typical save, or 15% chance against a strong save.
So, how about the high int spell focus guy? Starting with an 18 int, and the same items, he has a 22 int at 10th level. With Greater Spell Focus, the DCs for his highest level focussed schools are 23. So, he has an 80% chance of success against the glass jaw save, a 60-65% chance of success against a typical save, and a 45% chance of success against a strong save. That's with his highest level spell. With his fireball spells (whether actual fireballs, Suggestion, Hold Persons, or Rays of Exhaustion), he has a 70% chance against glass jaw saves, a 50-55% chance against normal saves, and a 35% chance against strong saves.
Now, the big difference is that the high-int focussed guy is always in the position of having a reasonable shot at success. The other guy isn't. A 35% chance is still worth taking if it's the best you can do. If your choice is expending a very limited resource (spells) for a 15% chance of accomplishing anything, options like "I throw my dagger to Aid Other on the fighter's attack (or AC)" and "I pull out that clvl 1 wand of magic missiles to do 1d4+1 damage to the critter--it's not much but it's something" start to look really attractive. When the average int wizard comes across the 50-60% of monsters that seem to have no weak saves, he runs the risk of being a glorified commoner.
Of course, there's a big difference when facing the glass-jaw saves too. Mr. Average int, no spell focus has about a 50% chance of success with his bread and butter spells. A 65% chance of success translates into significantly better results. (For instance, if you catch 6 targets in the fireball, it's the difference between 3 targets failing the save and 2 targets failing the save--the amount of extra damage from that 15% adds up pretty quickly).
Li Shenron said:
Elder-Basilisk said:
Well, well, well, I will selectively edit out most of your post. No offense, but really in the interest of space. Your analysis is very strong analysis, IMO. I have come to similar conclusions myself about the efficacy of spellcasters at the higher levels, after reviewing many of the monster saves in the MM.
As a result, I think a person would have to be nuts to want to specialize in certain schools. Perhaps only Evocation (generally still cause damage), Conjuration, and Transmutation are truly worth specializing in. I tend to play generalist wizards anyway; but I do appreciate the finer, more subtle schools that are out there. In fact, I've recently taken a bit more of a fancy to Illusion spells. I will restate my opinion that I posted sometime last week that the rules changes to SF and GSF probably have created a situation whereby, you may as well simply play a wizard/sorcerer who can hurl around Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Meteor Swarms, Cone of Cold.....you get the idea since at high levels you may not be as effective if you play a subtler school, which I think is a bit of shame.
Perhaps the game designers don't like the idea of a PC potentially stopping a Balor cold with a Hold Monster spell, but really wanted to emphasize combat a bit more.
I also agree that the Spell Power of the Red Wizard may have had something to do with the reduction of SF and GSF. What the h..... is the Red Wizard doing in the DMG anyway?
cheers
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Except that it was never a "no brainer" for all arcanists. (Generalists--wizards and sorcerors who cherry picked the best spells from every school, conjurers, abjurers, and buffing transmuters didn't have too much use for it in 3.0 either). That's the kind of feat that is appropriately a "no brainer"--one that is essential for a particular concept but not for a particular class. (And spell focus was never as much of a "no-brainer" as weapon focus and specialization are for most fighters since fighters are able to do 80+% of their fighting with their focussed weapon but wizards and sorcerors strain to make 50% of their spells benefit from spell focus).
The only characters for whom it was a "no brainer" are the characters for whom it still is a "no brainer": characters who specialize in a particular school of magic that allows saves. And it will always be a "no brainer" for such characters as long as they are viable in any form. Why? Because they regularly have to toss spells at their foes' strong saves and need all the DC boosting abilities they can get--no matter how weak or cost ineffective they are.
What really happened with the revision is that the feat went from being a "sometimes brainer" for non-specialists to a "what kind of a moron are you?/Shooting for the x prestige class aren't you?" feat.
The only characters for whom it was a "no brainer" are the characters for whom it still is a "no brainer": characters who specialize in a particular school of magic that allows saves. And it will always be a "no brainer" for such characters as long as they are viable in any form. Why? Because they regularly have to toss spells at their foes' strong saves and need all the DC boosting abilities they can get--no matter how weak or cost ineffective they are.
What really happened with the revision is that the feat went from being a "sometimes brainer" for non-specialists to a "what kind of a moron are you?/Shooting for the x prestige class aren't you?" feat.
NPC said:This usually gets brought up in feat debates so I'll be the one this time.
The fact that opinion is so divided on the matter probably means the feat is a bit more balanced now.
Spell Focus went from a "no brainer" to a "somtimes brainer".
Last edited:
Garboshnik
First Post
I think the big thing people disagree over is what percentage of saves people should be making. IMHO a character should make about 80+% of their good saves and 50+% of their bad ones.
Spell focus is still pretty nasty in those terms, take a 1st level human wizard with both focus feats and a 16 int and his save DC's will be 16. That's pretty tough for anyone to make (even with their good save) at that level.
Spell focus is still pretty nasty in those terms, take a 1st level human wizard with both focus feats and a 16 int and his save DC's will be 16. That's pretty tough for anyone to make (even with their good save) at that level.
Kalanyr
Explorer
Okay, lets say that a fighters unlimited attacks, compensates him for decreased damage compared to a spellcaster. What you're saying is that a fighter should (miss or be negated by DR or some other special quality) 50% of the time against foes that are weak to meleer's and miss or be negated 80% of the time against foes that are strong against meleers.
Garboshnik
First Post
Not until a fighter gets a sword that kills opponents in one hit.
