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

[cable]

Considering that a character going up against a monster with equal CR should have, on average (assuming CRs are more or less equivalent) a 50% chance of dying (it's actually a lot worse than that for non-casters...) I don't think that's too bad. Those 3 dismissals aren't even 25% of the wizard's resources, never mind the party's.

Wasting 3 5th lvl spells on 1 creature is not even 25% of the wizards's resources? What weight do you put on the most powerful capability of the wizard for the day? These spells represent the best the wizard can do and they are all utilised in this 1 encounter and that is not enough of a resource expenditure? Not to mentioned that they may not even work.

 

[cable]

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.

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

The feats you are expending for the wizard represents 1/3 of the wizard's feat expenditure so you should give the same consideration to the fighter. So we if add Luck of the Heros (+1 to all saves), Bull Headed (+1 to will saves and +2 to intimidate checks) and Strong Soul (+1 to Fort and Will saves) you increase the fighter's survival chance to about ~35%. If the fighter has a +4 cloak (well within the wealth levels of a 10th lvl character) the fighter's chances to survive increases to 45%. So basically nearly half the time the wizard's strongest spell will fail agains the fighter's weakest save.

 

[Ravellion]

The feats you are expending for the wizard represents 1/3 of the wizard's feat expenditure so you should give the same consideration to the fighter. So we if add Luck of the Heros (+1 to all saves), Bull Headed (+1 to will saves and +2 to intimidate checks) and Strong Soul (+1 to Fort and Will saves) you increase the fighter's survival chance to about ~35%. If the fighter has a +4 cloak (well within the wealth levels of a 10th lvl character) the fighter's chances to survive increases to 45%. So basically nearly half the time the wizard's strongest spell will fail agains the fighter's weakest save.

Where do you guys all get +4 cloaks from? I am a DM who up to a few months ago worked strictly according to the wealth tables and random treasure, and +4 cloaks are definitley not soemthign that all the party will ahve, unless you start them at 10th level. Starting at 1st, and selling useless found items for 50% of the cost means +2 cloaks at 10th level. If your cloak of resistance is already at 80% strength at 10th level, you are doing something wrong.

Then the feats: that is just preposterous. I don't even know half of them! My examples so far are all core except for the Greater Spell Focus, which is the subject of the discussion.

Also If you think A wizard expending 2 feats on DCs has the same odds as happening as a fighter selecting 4 feats to boost his will save, you are very much mistaken.

 

[cable]

Where do you guys all get +4 cloaks from? I am a DM who up to a few months ago worked strictly according to the wealth tables and random treasure, and +4 cloaks are definitley not soemthign that all the party will ahve, unless you start them at 10th level. Starting at 1st, and selling useless found items for 50% of the cost means +2 cloaks at 10th level. If your cloak of resistance is already at 80% strength at 10th level, you are doing something wrong.

Then the feats: that is just preposterous. I don't even know half of them! My examples so far are all core except for the Greater Spell Focus, which is the subject of the discussion.

Also If you think A wizard expending 2 feats on DCs has the same odds as happening as a fighter selecting 4 feats to boost his will save, you are very much mistaken.

You're using a non core feat yes? Would you deny the fighter access to the same? The feats I am using are all from FR, where incidently Greater Spell Focus originally came from. The +4 item is well within the wealth guidelines of a 10th lvl character. The wizard's expenditure of 2 feats out of 6 at 10th lvl represents around 33% feat expenditure to achieve the wizard's potency. To be fair to the fighter you need the same proportian of feat expenditure. So 4 feats out of the fighter's 10 dedicated to defences I think is appropriately proportionate.

Whilst all these number crunching may seem theoritical I have actually developed and played a fighter character that uses these feats and she has proved remarkably resiliant. Still able to fight even when the other characters classes are in varius states of incapacitation. Much to the delight of my party members and the chargin of my DM. As it stands now fighters stand a chance to resist the most powerful spell a wizard can throw at their weakest save. How arcane casters in 3.5e be considered viable when a wizard/sorc will fail most of the time instead of some of the time when using their most powerful spell against a fighter's weakest save?

 

[mmu1]

Wasting 3 5th lvl spells on 1 creature is not even 25% of the wizards's resources? What weight do you put on the most powerful capability of the wizard for the day? These spells represent the best the wizard can do and they are all utilised in this 1 encounter and that is not enough of a resource expenditure? Not to mentioned that they may not even work.

First of all, I was assuming a 10th level caster if he was going to throw around 3 5th level spells... Second, how much weight you assign to them is fairly subjective, but a 9th level wizard with 4 3rd level and 3 4th level spells remaining isn't close to to being done for the day, and like I said, two or three 5th level spells don't begin to come close to being 25% of the resources of the party - which is what the encounter is supposed to use up. 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...

I'm getting really sick of people who play wizards and are so spoiled that they're not only not grateful that by and large the can do damage from the distance or support the other members while they get rended and poisoned in melee, they're whiny because they can't just blast everything they come up against to ash while hiding behind the cleric...

 

[Numion]

I'm getting really sick of people who play wizards and are so spoiled that they're not only not grateful that by and large the can do damage from the distance or support the other members while they get rended and poisoned in melee, they're whiny because they can't just blast everything they come up against to ash while hiding behind the cleric...

It isn't a new phenomenon by any means. I remember when I was about 11, and we changed the wizard rules so that they couldn't cast every spell they know during the day (yep, we were a bit mistaken - wizards casted every spell from their spell book during any day), and the player of the wizard argued that it's wrong: "What if I encounter a mature dragon, what then, I'll be out of spells!?!"

Us: "You're going to do what the fighter does, and die"

Anyway, some people just seem to think that the highest level spells should be some kind of guaranteed kill against any high-threat (say CR = wizards level + 2) opponent, as if the wizard somehow was useless in a fight if that wasn't true.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Sorry but you're not making much sense.

Either you feel you are "Normal Wizard" or you Feel you are a "Wierd Cleric Variant". You can't be both.

I am playing a "normal wizard" insofar as I am playing by core rules (no exotic DC pumping PrCs and feats).

I am a "weird cleric variant" because, in actual play, I spend 90+% of my spells buffing. Even during combat, the vast majority of spells I cast are defensive. That is more consistent with what we usually think of as a cleric style of play, not for the wizard.

What I am suggesting is that a character constructed as a "normal wizard" does not play very well using what we usually consider "normal wizard" style.

 

[Pax]

Where do you guys all get +4 cloaks from? I am a DM who up to a few months ago worked strictly according to the wealth tables and random treasure, and +4 cloaks are definitley not soemthign that all the party will ahve, unless you start them at 10th level. Starting at 1st, and selling useless found items for 50% of the cost means +2 cloaks at 10th level. If your cloak of resistance is already at 80% strength at 10th level, you are doing something wrong.

A Cloak of Resistance +4 costs 16,000gp, and I agree, that seems a bit steep for a 10th level character.

OTOH, a cloak +3 is only 9,000gp, out of the 49,000gp the 10th level character should have -- so is perfectly reasonable and fair. Plus, it's about right for a 10th level character; non-Epic games END when everyone hits 20th level; +1 per 3 levels lets you actually USE that +5 vest for more than a level or two.

Those wealth levels, by the way, are ABSOLUTE, not "before factoring in the half-off sale of unwanted items". Those are levels of wealth you shoudl have AFTER selling off unwanted items, rather than before.

Then the feats: that is just preposterous. I don't even know half of them! My examples so far are all core except for the Greater Spell Focus, which is the subject of the discussion.

No, the discussion is how SF/GSF in 3.5 will be the same benefit, for double the cost, of SF alone in 3.0; it is also a comparison of DC to Save Bonus, for both twinked and nontwinked characters.

Most DC twinks are (currently) non-core -- Archmage, Red Wizard, GSF.

Most save twinks are, likewise, non-core -- Bull Headed, Luck of Heroes, etc.

Here's an idea, though: let the Fighter simply take Leadership, and pick up a Cleric or Wizard cohort. Now we can benefit form close-proximity Antimagic Field spells, etc.

Also If you think A wizard expending 2 feats on DCs has the same odds as happening as a fighter selecting 4 feats to boost his will save, you are very much mistaken.

2 feats out of (for a Human wizard) 12 choices (13 including the chosen-for-you Scribe Scroll). 4 feats out of (for a Human fighter) 19 choices.

Okay, you've got him by one (!!) feat. So, drop Luck of Heroes, and buy a Luckstone (same +1 luck bonus). Now it's 1/6 (2 of 12) to 1/6 (3 of 19).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That sounds a bit strong for noting that a 9th level abjuration specialist with a 22 int (IIRC), and four feats specifically optimized for getting rid of outsiders (GSF Abjuration is not exactly common) using a spell that is only good for one thing ever (Dismissal does nothing other than get rid of outsiders) has to cast it three times to have better than a 50% chance of having it work. That doesn't sound very reasonable to me.

Your reaction is not even close to reasonable. And your characterization of the opposing position is so dramatically different from anything that has been said, that one has to wonder whether you're discussing this in good faith.

I'm getting really sick of people who play wizards and are so spoiled that they're not only not grateful that by and large the can do damage from the distance or support the other members while they get rended and poisoned in melee, they're whiny because they can't just blast everything they come up against to ash while hiding behind the cleric...

 

[mmu1]

That sounds a bit strong for noting that a 9th level abjuration specialist with a 22 int (IIRC), and four feats specifically optimized for getting rid of outsiders (GSF Abjuration is not exactly common) using a spell that is only good for one thing ever (Dismissal does nothing other than get rid of outsiders) has to cast it three times to have better than a 50% chance of having it work. That doesn't sound very reasonable to me.

Your reaction is not even close to reasonable. And your characterization of the opposing position is so dramatically different from anything that has been said, that one has to wonder whether you're discussing this in good faith.

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...