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

[Pax]

I don't know what to call it when people continuously insist that a wizard not having a 50/50 chance of taking out an equal-CR outsider with a single spell is somehow horribly unfair, except spoiled brats whining...

My god ... I don't believe I'm reading whatyou're posting!

A 9th level Abjuration specialist Wizard, with SF/GSF Abjuration and three Dismissal's readied, should be able to cut a swath through multiple outsiders!

You sound susp[iciously like an old L5R(AEG) GM I had -- who hated that the various schools got Techniques (at all!) ... he was of the opinion noone should be better than anyone else, except (apparently) the GM's NPCs.

Yes, a 9th level caster getting to dismiss an enemy that's supposed to use up 25% of the party's resources by only using three 5th level spells sounds reasonable to me. Those are much better chances of taking it out alone than any non-spellcaster is going to have - a fighter taking one on is likely going to end up using 100% of his resources...

For a 10th (not 9th) level Specialist wizard, 22 net Intelligence, raw weight is, about 20% of his spell-based resources for teh day have been consumed casting those three spells (I haven't even looked at material component costs, if any).

Weighted to take into account the psychological impact of one's best spells being used up completely, it's closer to 35%.

And it takes, in 3.5E, at least 3 rounds to cast those spells -- during which I hardly think the Osyluth is standing there waxing it's horns, or whatever. So i the Wizard is ALONE, then, he's also going to be losing bucketsful of HP, and probably had to put up some defensive spells, just to stay alive long enough to be able to cast those spells.

Or else, the Wizard isn't alone, has other party members around, who are spendign THEIR hitpoints and so on, keeping the Osyluth occupied until the wizard can punch through a dismissal.

Either way, it's not the sort of "yawn and flick of the wrist" nonsense you seem to be insisting it would be.

Much more reasonable than people inventing horribly contrived characters to prove that characters with weak saves have a good chance of saving against fairly standard wizards with SF and GSF...

Horribly contrived? OMG ... are you the "school techniques suck, noone should EVER be center-stage-in-the-spotlight" idiot of a GM I had in that not-long-enough-ago L5R game ... ?!?

WTH is wrong with the Abjuration-specialist wizard (who, given his school, probably DOES spend 99% of his career buffing and protecting the OTHER party members, then sitting back to make popcorn while they go out and cover themselves in glory (and gore)) ... wth is wrong with him grabbing the spotlight once or twice, when he's optimally loaded for he particular opponent (who in their right mind would memorise nothing but Dismissal in their only three 5th level spell slots, unless they were EXPECTING to face outsiders) ... ?

Should the Rogue be held back WRT disarming traps, just because sometimes, an adventure might involve a lot of traps, and for that adventure, she was clearly the party's MVP?

Should the cleric be penalised becuase of a darned lucky roll to Turn Undead, with the Sun domain, which vaporises the BBEG? (And yes, as a matter of fact, I've -been- that cleric, in a Ravenloft campaign ... pulled an Indiana Jones -- about to cast Searing Light, thought better, whipped out the holy symbol, declared use of my Greater Turning for the day ... and rolled natural 20, giving me JUST enough to turn the sucker ... which means, <i>destroy</i> it).

Should characters be penalised because there are some situations in which THEY are clearly and unquestionably the "man of the moment", full in the spotlight on center stage?

HELL NO!!!!!

Only if and when that characetr is ALWAYS in the spotlight, is there a problem.

9th level abjurer, with three dismissals, 3.0 SF/GSF, even Spellcasting Prodigy and a 24 INT (18 start, +4 item, +2 from levels) ... against a Fire Giant. WTH good are those dismissals now, hmm? Answer: none. None whatsoever.

When someone is perfectly prepared for a given situation, not only by dint of which spells they have prepared that day, but by dint of the result of their entire career aiming at moments just like that situation ... you had darned well best EXPECT that person to walk away without even having worked up a sweat.

To expect anything else is IMO patently ludicrous.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You continue to miss the fact that this is a wizard with four optimized feats for getting rid of outsiders and three copies of a spell that's good for nothing else.

The example of Ossyluth vs. wizard with GSF: Abjuration, greater spell penetration, and three dismissals prepared is only slightly less stacked than if the example were CR 18 demon vs. Rgr 4 (Favored enemy Demons)/Pal 4/Knight of the Chalice 10 and we gave the knight a pair of holy, evil outsiderbane sunblades and perfect Two Weapon Fighting and then assumed that the demon was dumb enough to stand still for a round while the knight beat on him (full attack action--featuring 8 attacks for 2d10+20+8d6 before bonusses from strength or anything but weapon and class features--of course). It shouldn't be anything close to a contest. But it is. Each Dismissal has only a 20% chance of working. (It only just barely edges up to 50/50 after three spells).

It's not as if we're talking about an Ossyluth v an Evoker with evocation spells and one dismissal, or an Ossyluth v an Illusionist with Shadow Spells and phantasmal Killer or an Ossyluth v a conjurer with lots of summons. It's an Ossyluth v. an Abjurer with as many Dismissals as he can prepare.

I don't know what to call it when people continuously insist that a wizard not having a 50/50 chance of taking out an equal-CR outsider with a single spell is somehow horribly unfair, except spoiled brats whining...

Yes, a 9th level caster getting to dismiss an enemy that's supposed to use up 25% of the party's resources by only using three 5th level spells sounds reasonable to me. Those are much better chances of taking it out alone than any non-spellcaster is going to have - a fighter taking one on is likely going to end up using 100% of his resources...

Much more reasonable than people inventing horribly contrived characters to prove that characters with weak saves have a good chance of saving against fairly standard wizards with SF and GSF...

 

[maddman75]

Why disintegrates only on guys not in armour???

because they are invariably rogues or wizards, and as such have crap fort saves.

Unless they're monks, in which case the spell you need is 'teleport'.

 

[mmu1]

A lot of highly emotional nonsense completely missing the point.

You know, I might be confused, but I don't think you're allowed to call me an idiot in pretty direct fashion like that... We generally try to be a little more creative and circumspect than that around here.

I don't care what that encounter is going to do to the Wizard's psyche... As long as just about any other character (well, aside from a Cleric) acting alone is guaranteed to get shredded in a situation like this(Yeah... A multi-classed fighter-type with a PrC and God knows how many specialized magical items is exactly like a wizard with SF and GSF and some of appropriate spells memorized. Please. Why don't you try "specializing" an actual Fighter to have a chance against an outsider.), I have no problem with his chances.

In fact, I'm glad that at 9th level, it's now harder to make an over-specialized character capable of short-circuiting encounters with a single spell, without having to give up much in the way of versatility...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't care what that encounter is going to do to the Wizard's psyche... As long as just about any other character (well, aside from a Cleric) acting alone is guaranteed to get shredded in a situation like this(Yeah... A multi-classed fighter-type with a PrC and God knows how many specialized magical items is exactly like a wizard with SF and GSF and some of appropriate spells memorized.

That would be two specialized magic items. Count them. Two. I don't think it takes God to count that high. And before you start mocking again, I can imagine seeing a Knight of the Chalice character like that as a PC in a campaign. I can't imagine seeing any character with GSF abjuration in any campaign.

Please. Why don't you try "specializing" an actual Fighter to have a chance against an outsider.), I have no problem with his chances.

Well a single classed fighter doesn't have any abilities that only work on outsiders (like the Dismissal spell) so it's impossible to tailor a single classed fighter as specifically to the Ossyluth situation as the abjurer is tailored. That said, a 9th level ranger with improved TWF, favored enemy Devil (stacked all the way up 3.5e style for a +6 (if I'm adding the bonus properly) bonus) and a double headed +1 Evil Outsider Bane quarterstaff (too much cash for a 9th level character to have as a primary weapon but he's supposed to be stacked for fighting devils just like the wizard is) has four attacks at +10 +str/+10 +str/+5 +str/+5 +str for 1d6+9+2d6+str (or .5 str) damage per hit and will almost certainly take the Ossyluth down in two full attack actions. (And probably has a better chance of taking the Ossyluth down in one than the wizard has). Given a means of flying and seeing invisible (both easily within the reach of a 9th level character), I'd give the ranger much better odds against an Ossyluth than the wizard.

Heck, I'd give an unspecialized 9th level fighter with a +1 good aligned sword, a potion of fly, a potion of see invisibility and some clean underwear better odds against the Ossyluth than the wizard.

In fact, I'm glad that at 9th level, it's now harder to make an over-specialized character capable of short-circuiting encounters with a single spell, without having to give up much in the way of versatility...

Overspecialized...without giving up much in the way of versatitility. Well in that case, he isn't overspecialized is he? But enough quibbles with wording--by selecting 3 dismissal spells and GSF abjuration, the wizard has given up more versatility than any sane wizard would ever do. (It's only good for fighting outsiders and, as the numbers here show, no matter how specialized he gets, he won't ever be very good at that without taking Sacred Exorcist levels to get cleric spells like Holy Word). The basic point you seem to be making is: "A wizard should never be able to be effective enough to win any encounter without a party; he should never be able to end any encounter with a single spell--or even have a 50/50 chance of ending an encounter with three spells."

Presumably in your games, bad guys all have more than 53 hit points and +5 reflex saves at 5th level because otherwise the wizard would have better than a 50/50 chance of defeating them with three fireballs. And first level bad guys all have 13 hit points so that wizards don't have a 50/50 chance of killing them with three magic missiles and +11 will saves so that wizards don't have a 50/50 chance of ending an encounter with three sleep spells.

I mean that would be even more objectionable because a wizard with fireball at 5th level, and sleep or magic missile at first is prepared for the majority of situations he comes across and thus gives up nothing in versatility. In order to get the kind of effectiveness the optimized 9th level abjurer has against an evil outsider, the wizard shouldn't be able to do anything against anything else. Maybe there should be a different fireball spell for each humanoid type. That way, wizards would have to choose between orc fireball and gnoll fireball and, even if they picked orc fireball on a day they were facing orcs, all of the orcs would have 53 hit points and +5 reflex saves so that there wasn't more than a 50/50 chance of the wizard's three fireball orc spells actually ending the encounter.

 

[Pax]

You know, I might be confused, but I don't think you're allowed to call me an idiot in pretty direct fashion like that... We generally try to be a little more creative and circumspect than that around here.

You know, I called the GM of that old L5R game an idiot. Unless you're saying you ARE him, then, I didn't call you ANYthing directly.

I don't care what that encounter is going to do to the Wizard's psyche... As long as just about any other character (well, aside from a Cleric) acting alone is guaranteed to get shredded in a situation like this

Any other character than one inherently specialised for that specific sort of character, should be MORe likely to be turned to pulp, not less, nor the same.

(Yeah... A multi-classed fighter-type with a PrC and God knows how many specialized magical items is exactly like a wizard with SF and GSF and some of appropriate spells memorized. Please. Why don't you try "specializing" an actual Fighter to have a chance against an outsider.), I have no problem with his chances.

See the above post byElder-Basilisk for that.

My point was, you don't penalise someone for shining within their specialty. You applaud them, and move on ... because no characetr is specialised in EVERYthing (the very concept of specialisation means, you give up many things, to get better in ONE).

In fact, I'm glad that at 9th level, it's now harder to make an over-specialized character capable of short-circuiting encounters with a single spell, without having to give up much in the way of versatility...

But the Abjurer cannot short-circuit the encounter with a single spell with any degree of certainty. In fact, a single dismissal has so small a chance of working, as to be a waste of time even casting it.

Whereas, if the Osyluth was napping, and the rogue got to Coup-de-Grace it, he might nail the sucker with one action ANYway.

 

[Metalsmith]

Talking about Nonsense

You know, I might be confused, but I don't think you're allowed to call me an idiot in pretty direct fashion like that... We generally try to be a little more creative and circumspect than that around here.

He didn't.
Please try to seem like you are paying attention rather than trying to confuse the issue with alot of hand-waving dismissals about emotional nonsense and inventing supposed personal attacks against you.

(changed sig)

 

[Al]

Yes, a 9th level caster getting to dismiss an enemy that's supposed to use up 25% of the party's resources by only using three 5th level spells sounds reasonable to me. Those are much better chances of taking it out alone than any non-spellcaster is going to have - a fighter taking one on is likely going to end up using 100% of his resources...

But the point is that the abjurer is not just a wizard, he's an outsider-bashing-optimised-abjurer, who's good at virtually nothing else.

Taking a counterexample, I'm sure you would have absolutely no problem with a barbarian with Fortification armour and a spiked chain taking out a rogue. How about a forsaker-monk taking out a wizard? Or a Sun-domain cleric with half his feats in turning taking out undead?

The point is this- not every encounter is balanced against every character. There are some encounters when, yes, a single character can dominate.

Does anyone complaining about this actually understand how the CR system is supposed to work? All this bitching about not being able to get rid of a devil with one or two spells...

The osyluth is not a CR9 though. It's a CR6 for goodness' sake!

Answer me the following questions:
Is it reasonable for a 9th level optimised-anti-rogue barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker with a spiked chain to have a 50/50 or greater chance of being a 6th level rogue?
Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that an optimised character three CR points higher than his opponent should be able to beat said opponent?
It is therefore reasonable that an optimised 9th level abjurer should be able to beat a CR6 devil?

Edit: Put the fact that an osyluth is CR6 in BOLD.

 

[Darklone]

because they are invariably rogues or wizards, and as such have crap fort saves.

Unless they're monks, in which case the spell you need is 'teleport'.

Uih... watching my spellcasters DCs, even the dwarven fighter multiclass fort saves won't help.... I think the rogue and wizards in our group have a better chance to evade any ranged touch thingies

 

[mmu1]

The osyluth is not a CR9 though. It's a CR6 for goodness' sake!

The new 3.5 Osyluth most certainly is CR 9...