D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Spell Focus gives only +1 to DCs

[mmu1]

If the wizard preps a narrowly tailored spell to deal with a specific kind of threat, you are darn tooting I expect he can handle it with very minimal resources expended.

What about those wizards who did not prep Dismissal? What they be expected to expend? 100% of their resources? 200%?

If they have the bad luck to be unprepared for an encounter, I expect them to die - just like I expect a rogue running into a bunch of ghouls to die, or a fighter without a magical wapon running into a shadow, etc.

I have no sympathy for anyone crying because outsiders are mean - there are so many enemies that'll rip a tank to shreds that are at a wizard's mercy, or that will never even be able to lay a hand on a wizard if he's determined to stay out of reach, it's just absurd to complain about them getting nerfed.

The main result of this change will be that some poor bastards will now see their chance of saving against a spell increase three times, from 5 to 15%, and some already tough enemies will get marginally tougher...

 

[mmu1]

Rav: Give the wizard SF and Greater SF (Enchantment/Illusion) since its a will spell and not give the saving maxing fighter at least Iron Will ? SF and GSF represent 2/12 of a 20th level human Wizards feats, Iron Will makes up 1/19 of a 20th level human fighters feats. Not to mention FIGHTERS ARE SUPPOSED TO FAIL WILL SAVES when in equal circumstances (save buffing vs spell DC buffing) more than 50/50. One of the first articles in Dragon after 3e came out suggested a good save should be made slightly more often than 50/50 and a bad save around 33% of the time.

We're talking about fighters making their bad saves 5-10% of the time, not 33%...

Besides, WIZARDS ARE ALSO SUPPOSED TO RUN INTO THINGS THEY CAN'T HANDLE ONCE IN A WHILE.

 

[Kalanyr]

If they have the bad luck to be unprepared for an encounter, I expect them to die - just like I expect a rogue running into a bunch of ghouls to die, or a fighter without a magical wapon running into a shadow, etc.

Wizard without Maze (and even this is debatable) aginst oh say Golems for example ? Specific encounters where the monsters are immune to that particular character type already exist for wizards in this format no ? Oh and the rogue can still damage the ghouls at least, so the proliferation of undead vs constructs or even vs incorporeal creatures (such as your shadows) isn't exactly going to be a fair comparison.

 

[Ravellion]

Rav: Give the wizard SF and Greater SF (Enchantment/Illusion) since its a will spell and not give the saving maxing fighter at least Iron Will ? SF and GSF represent 2/12 of a 20th level human Wizards feats, Iron Will makes up 1/19 of a 20th level human fighters feats. Not to mention FIGHTERS ARE SUPPOSED TO FAIL WILL SAVES when in equal circumstances (save buffing vs spell DC buffing) more than 50/50. One of the first articles in Dragon after 3e came out suggested a good save should be made slightly more often than 50/50 and a bad save around 33% of the time.

Nice shouting. I think you read over parts of my post though. Let's stay civil.

A) The wizards Wasn't maxed at all. A starting INT of 15? Please! That is not min maxed at all. No Books of Intelligence raising either, which at 20th level is somewhat rare. Also no new spell level had been gained between 17 and 20th.

B) Even though the wizard wasn't maxed, and the fighter pretty much was (iron will and cloak, reasonable wis, and you can make it a ranger or a rogue if you want to talk about feat value), the Fighter had at best a 20% chance of saving, and at worst a 5% chance of saving - against a hardly maxed wizard.

C) You complety fail to take into account my Good save argument as well, which both in this example and in my experience shows that a good save actually means 'slightly less bad than the bad ones' instead.

Perhaps some 10th level examples will demonstrate it better for you. We will use the following wizard:

Wizard Level 10, 20 INT (2 stat Increases and a +2 headband), 3e SF and GSF: DC highest level spell: 24.

Ranger, 14 WIS, Cloak of resistance +2. Reasonable right? Will Save +7. Chances: 15%

Fighter, 12 WIS, Cloak +2, Iron Will +2. Reasonable right? Will Save +8. Chances: 20%

Rogue, 10 WIS, Cloak +2. Reasonable right? Will Save +4. Chances: 5% (20 only)

For a 35% chance on a weak save we would need to have for instance:
10th level Paladin: Cha 16, Wis 14, Cloak of Charisma +2 (+1 to save), Iron Will: Save total +11: Chances 35%. But this a freaking saving throw monster with very impressive stats (if he has strength as well, that is)!

I'm sorry, but to me, everyone who says that Wizards are too weak just have problems with their DMs: They like using devils and golems against you. Most creatures do not have SR, and if they do, that is a big sign saying: This creature is resistant to spells! Work around it! Feel challenged! It is like people expecting to use Piercing weapons against skeletons and be 100% effective: it is just silly!

To sum up: GSF: Good riddance! You never fitted into the system anyway.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Funny how all of the "wizards are too powerful" examples use 16th-20th level comparisons. Rav claims this problem persists across all levels, but I've yet to hear anyone complaining about low level wizards overshadowing anything more menacing than their own familiars. And I've yet to hear any examples about 6-8th level wizards overshadowing anyone either. And if level 9+ wizards are overshadowing anyone, I've yet to see it in any game I've played. (Of course, I've yet to see many wizards survive to those levels either).

Originally posted by Ravellion Also, I think that using an osyluth is a bad example. Might as well use a Magic Immune golem and claim that wizards are underpowered. Most creatures you fight at that level are not that resistant to spells. If you find they are, your DM is just using those creatures constantly for a reason... because normal challenges get their arse handed to them with a flick of the wizard's wrist perhaps?

Most creatures at high levels aren't as immune to spells as golems are but most do have some kind of SR, hordes of resistances, or enough hit points to take 80d6 damage before blinking. I've yet to meet a high level encounter that could be resolved with "a flick of the wizard's wrist."

The Ossyluth is being used as an example because it's one of the few revised creatures we have available. For its saves aren't too unusual either. (Take a look at the dire animals' saves some time). The only thing that is unusual for a CR 9 creature is it's SR but by CR 9, a lot of creatures have that too.

Good Riddance I say!

Int 26 Wizard at 20th level (starting Int of 15!), using a will save spell agaisnt a fighter with a cloak of resistance +5, Iron WIll and 12 WIS.

Wizards DC 27. Fighter save +11. Needs a 16 to make it.

You're miscalculating the fighter's will save. 6 (base) + 5 (resistance) +1 (wisdom) +2 (iron will)= +14 not +11. While that still only saves on a 13 against your non-maximized wizard it is about in line with making weak saves 1/3 the time.

However, you're also missing out a number of possibilities for the fighter. A truly save-maximized 20th level fighter would also have a stone of good luck (+1) and a Pale Green Ioun stone (+2) and would probably have multiclassed a bit to improve other saves. (Actually, I'm pretty sure that a save maximized character would have a few other items too but not having played anything but Neverwinter Nights past 14th level, I can't say for sure).

Same schmoe of a wizard with Spell Focus and Greater Spell focus, 3.0 style: Fighter stands no chance, can only save on a 20, even though he invested heavily in save boosting. With the new Spell Focus being +1 and +2, his chances go up by 300%.

Fort Save: +17... Now there we have a 50/50 chance without the focus feats. Witht hem, we suddenly get a 30% chance for your good save! perhaps a bit higher due to good con, but 40% chance then perhaps?

Any 20th level fighter worth his vorpal sword will also have a constitution bonus. 14 con (original) plus 6 (bracers)= 20 con (modified).

So the fort save should be +22 before stones of good luck or Ioun Stones figure in.

This problem isn't just true at high level either. It is throighout the levels taht thios problem persists: Hurrah for Sp & GSF to be nerfed. Normal Wizards will still be effective, and maxed wizards won't be invincible.

If you think maxed wizards are invincible at the moment, you're not playing the same game I am. IME, maxed wizards, are, at best, competitive with maxed fighters.

Rav: Give the wizard SF and Greater SF (Enchantment/Illusion) since its a will spell and not give the saving maxing fighter at least Iron Will ? SF and GSF represent 2/12 of a 20th level human Wizards feats, Iron Will makes up 1/19 of a 20th level human fighters feats. Not to mention FIGHTERS ARE SUPPOSED TO FAIL WILL SAVES when in equal circumstances (save buffing vs spell DC buffing) more than 50/50. One of the first articles in Dragon after 3e came out suggested a good save should be made slightly more often than 50/50 and a bad save around 33% of the time.

Funny, when you revise Rav's statistics to account for feats and attributes, the figures come out a good deal better for the fighter than even your Dragon magazine targets would suggest.

To sum up: GSF: Good riddance! You never fitted into the system anyway.

If they were just getting rid of greater spell focus, nobody would be complaining. However, unless you missed a large portion of the thread to this point, you should know that greater spell focus is still in the system. Now, however, it takes wizards two feats (Spell focus and GSF) to get the benefit they got from one in 3e.

 

[Technik4]

I think part of the party composition goes back to the basics. All encounters are playtested via 4 iconics: Redgar (dwarf fighter), Mialee (elven wizard), Lidda (halfling rogue), and Jozan (human cleric). Now, no single character is supposed to totally rape a given encounter, at any level, although the rules allow this to happen via certain spells/abilities.

Having said that, almost every monster that was playtested involves the core 4 party. Would a party of 4 fighters go far? Possibly, but they may have difficulty with some of the parts of adventures that require magic, for instance assuming PCs can fly to a certain part. There are of course, potions of fly for the fighter party to take advantage of, but depending on the game it may be difficult to come across anything they need to optimize themselves.

Which is where a wizard comes in handy. With 5 bonus feats which can buy item creation feats, the wizard gives the rest of the party a chance to customize the party. A cleric offers the same advantage, but has less feats to do this with, of course a cleric offers many other advantages.

What is my point? Well, I guess I just can't picture an obsolete character that is built soundly (not necessarily well, just equally built with relation to the other PCs). One thing that doesn't seem to come up is how much more vulnerable fighters are compared to wizards. Huh? Yeah, fighters are on the front line, most monsters in the MM are fairly stupid and a mage behind front lines, invisibled, concealed, covered, or just out of the way is usually ignored by monsters. Of course, the fighter is getting the snot beaten out of him, making multiple saves against monster's various abilities, and trying to kill the dang thing with his weapon.

In the games I have played my wizards have ruled the battlemap, with proper spell placement often being the difference between a TPK and going back to revive the rest of the party (not much difference, I admit). At level 5 a wizard starts to truly shine over the half-orc barbs and human fighters with a nice solid 5d6 fireball or lightning bolt. Many encounters are much more difficult without a nice dispel magic (which is not necessarily wizard-reliant) and in general wizards have the most utility spells.

Basically, I just don't understand wizards not being powerful enough. Monsters making their saves is always irritating, but its just the way the game plays out. Perhaps we will see more combo-spellcasting, trying to weaken a monster's save before hitting it with a zap spell or a save-or-die spell.

Technik

 

[Ravellion]

Funny how all of the "wizards are too powerful" examples use 16th-20th level comparisons.

Hey, I just gave several 10th level examples. You chose to ignore them why? Because they do not mesh with your arguments?

GSF good riddance should have read: Max SF modification lowered to +2 instead of +4, fair enough. Just trying to say what I thought about the whole deal.

I'd like to see you perform an analysis on my 10th level examples though. AFAIK I didn't make any calculation errors there.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Ahh the 10th level examples; sorry I missed them the first time around:

Perhaps some 10th level examples will demonstrate it better for you. We will use the following wizard:

Wizard Level 10, 20 INT (2 stat Increases and a +2 headband), 3e SF and GSF: DC highest level spell: 24.

Ranger, 14 WIS, Cloak of resistance +2. Reasonable right? Will Save +7. Chances: 15%

+2 resistance is pretty low for a 10th level character. I'd expect at least +3 (my Living Greyhawk character had a +3 resistance item at 10th level and LG is a very item poor campaign (he has slightly more than 1/2 the gold recommended for a character of his level)), quite possibly +4 (going by DMG standard treasures).

That would give the 10th level ranger a will save of +8 or +9. 20% or 25% chance of success on a weak save against a greater spell focussed wizard isn't bad. Against a wizard without any 3e spell focusses, that amounts to a 45-50% success chance for a weak save. Again, that's well above the Dragon standards.

Fighter, 12 WIS, Cloak +2, Iron Will +2. Reasonable right? Will Save +8. Chances: 20%

Again, +3 or +4 cloak. Make that +9 or +10. 25-30% chance of succeeding on the weak save against a character with greater spell focus. 35-40% with only 3e spell focus (or 3.5e GSF). And 45-50% against a character without either feat. This is still within the Dragon magazine expectations.

Rogue, 10 WIS, Cloak +2. Reasonable right? Will Save +4. Chances: 5% (20 only)

Assuming no slippery mind, halfling bonus or anything similar. Still, the character is likely to have a +3 or +4 cloak which will result in a 10-15% chance of success. Rogues tend to be weak against save or consequences spells. That's why they have slippery mind as a possible class feature. Of course, they're pretty much immune to save or damage area effects. . . .

For a 35% chance on a weak save we would need to have for instance:
10th level Paladin: Cha 16, Wis 14, Cloak of Charisma +2 (+1 to save), Iron Will: Save total +11: Chances 35%. But this a freaking saving throw monster with very impressive stats (if he has strength as well, that is)!

My impression of a typical 10th level 28 point buy/4d6 paladin:
Str 14, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14
Increases either strength or charisma at level 4 and 8
+3 vest of resistance, +4 cloak of charisma, +2 sword, +2 shield, +2 fullplate, +2 periapt of wisdom, 5k in backup weapons and consumables. (He relies upon Bull's strength for his strength; alternately, he could have increased strength at levels 4 & 8 for the low end of the saves listed.

Human: feats: Power attack, cleave, divine might, weapon focus, improved critical

Saves: Fort +14/15, Ref +11/12, Will +12/13

Chances of saving a will save: 45-50% against 3e GSF, 55-60% against 3e Spell Focus/3.5e GSG, 65-70% against nonfocussed spells. (Plus various immunities (fear) and resistances (charm, dominate--there's a whole lot that's against any Lawful Good character's nature and most anything a villain would want them to do is against a paladin's nature)).

OK, I'll admit that I'm using a builder book item for the paladin but if GSF is in play (3e) we're using builder book material already and both GSF and vests of resistance come from the same place (Tome and Blood).

I'm sorry, but to me, everyone who says that Wizards are too weak just have problems with their DMs: They like using devils and golems against you. Most creatures do not have SR, and if they do, that is a big sign saying: This creature is resistant to spells! Work around it! Feel challenged! It is like people expecting to use Piercing weapons against skeletons and be 100% effective: it is just silly!

In any event, the above comparison is really between an average-stat optimized wizard and an average-stat save-optimized character. The normal Dragon magazine figures, IMO, should be for wizards without SF or GSF against slightly less save optimized characters. SF and GSF should improve the wizard's chances just as Iron Will, and the various strategies employed by the characters above improve theirs. Tooled up 20 starting int spellcasting prodigy sun elf FRCS archmage characters blow the lid off of this but they're supposed to be dramatically more powerful than the system assumes characters to be. (They're the kind of characters that DMs break out max HD advanced half-fiend athachs or Girallons with above average stats and monk levels to deal with).

IME, the current effectiveness of an offensively focussed wizard against a no SR, poor saves creature is nowhere near the effectiveness of a high level fighter against a sub AC 20 creature. And this is especially true when dealing with the damage spells that seem to be unmolested in the 3.5e revision. (Since the other spells are being toned down/nerfed, reducing the effectiveness of SF and GSF (by requiring two 3.5e feats for the benefit of one 3e feat) is gilding the lily).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Highly unlikely. It might be a possibility if nearly all of the save-reducing spells didn't themselves have saves. (If I'm trying to get the paladin to fail a will save against Mind Fog so I can dominate him next round, couldn't I just try to dominate him this round instead? If it works, the results will be better and if it doesn't the mind fog wouldn't have worked either).

Another problem with combo-spellcasting is that eliminating the 2 spells/round haste makes the opportunity cost of casting a spell primarily to set yourself up for another spell much higher. It's now even more important that every spell effect combat on its own merits rather than on the merits of the spell that's going to follow it.

Topping it all off, the reduced emphasis on saves in 3.5e (what with spells like the holds and disintegrate being dramatically toned down in their "failed save" effect) means that the benefits of actually pulling off such a combo are also reduced.

Perhaps we will see more combo-spellcasting, trying to weaken a monster's save before hitting it with a zap spell or a save-or-die spell.

Technik

 

[Li Shenron]

Also, the concept that feat Usage is somehow proportional to it's Overpowerdness is total bollocks.

...sorry I don't understand... I meant that they should nerf abusable choices, not popular choices. And usually COMBOS are abusable and overpowered, not the single choice. A Wizard with SF is not going to be an unstoppable devastating machine, but if you start taking all possible boosts to DC, including 2-3 PrCl, the problem arises. A keen weapon or spell is not breaking the game, but if you then have a keen vorpal mercurial greatsword - or whatever deadly combination I never wanted to know- that becomes annoying.

Every archer takes Point Blank Shot, just about every fighter takes Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization if they can. This doesn't mean that the feats are overpowered, just that their function is so fundamental to the concept that choosing them is a no-brainer. Ditto SF and (if allowed) GSF.

Exactly... every archer takes PBS - also because otherwise he can't get other archery feats - but it doesn't brake the game, even if it's quite better than WF to the bow.

Anyway, let's also remember what someone from WotC said few week ago: that they had to nerf Haste because otherwise no one would take Quicken Spell. Sounds like a firm that sells 2 products: the 1st is sold well and the 2nd less well, so instead of making the latter more attractive, they spoil the good one so that now the sales will be more balanced