[D&D 3.5] The Unconventional Wisdom of the Den

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:59 am

Is there any reason, ruleswise, a spellcaster could not take "Ability Focus: Spells" and get a +2 DC bonus to everything? I seem to see "spellcasting" or some variant under "special attack" about a zillion times...

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:31 pm

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Is there any reason, ruleswise, a spellcaster could not take "Ability Focus: Spells" and get a +2 DC bonus to everything? I seem to see "spellcasting" or some variant under "special attack" about a zillion times...

Well, the rakshasa has spells under Special Attacks. There's nothing in the rules that I can find that indicates whether "spells" is a single ability, or a collection of separate abilities. Ability Focus makes you pick them one at a time.

By RAW, it seems you could at a minimum use AF to boost the DC of a single spell for sure, and you might be able to craft an argument that you can do this for all spells. In an actual game, I doubt the DM would let that fly.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:58 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
CapnTthePirateG wrote:Is there any reason, ruleswise, a spellcaster could not take "Ability Focus: Spells" and get a +2 DC bonus to everything? I seem to see "spellcasting" or some variant under "special attack" about a zillion times...
Well, the rakshasa has spells under Special Attacks. There's nothing in the rules that I can find that indicates whether "spells" is a single ability, or a collection of separate abilities. Ability Focus makes you pick them one at a time.

By RAW, it seems you could at a minimum use AF to boost the DC of a single spell for sure, and you might be able to craft an argument that you can do this for all spells. In an actual game, I doubt the DM would let that fly.

RAI, I think not.
(apparently) there is some debate as to where spells fall in to the "special attack" thing. As a matter of fact, here's 17 pages of such a debate.
Yeah, you really gotta dig through that one to get to the relevant info you're looking for.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:40 pm

IIRC, that was the whole Su/Sp/Ex/Natural debate that was basically JaronK trying to justify why factotums are teh koolest!

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:34 pm

yeah it was.
but there was, IMO, some good discussion hidden in between the asininity.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:39 pm

Well, Spell Focus exists, which improves DCs by 1 for a chosen school of magic, and then Gtr Spell Focus does so again. So I think Ability Focus just boosting all spells is... a bit more powerful than it should be (it'd be a better choice than SF at all times), but maybe not so powerful that you couldn't just say "Ok, Spell Focus is out, you can just take Ability Focus and increase all your spell DCs by 2"

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:46 pm

The feats in the Monster Manuals aren't balanced or designed for players to take. They should have been, but they aren't.

Ability Focus applying to Spellcasting is a lot like gaining Spellcasting with polymorph.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:27 pm

Well, yes. From an "Unconventional Wisdom of the Den" approach, it wouldn't work. I was just curious if this is one of many oversights by the designers, or if I missed something that explicitly says it doesn't work.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:39 pm

Yes, it'd be another designer oversight. Sort of like, well, everything worth doing in D&D. *shrug*

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:21 am

I was looking it up today, and every special attack example lists "spells", as a group. Even the back of the MM.

Also, it doesn't seem to define special attacks, and I think the term fell out of usage in later MMs

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:52 am

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Also, it doesn't seem to define special attacks, and I think the term fell out of usage in later MMs

It's a useless distinction when you have spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities. Pretty much a 2e hold-over. Although spell casting isn't spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary...

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:33 am

I have seen some stat blocks in later Monster Manuals that give certain creatures spellcasting as an extraordinary ability. 2 critters from MM5 off the top of my head, a Hobgoblin and a Kuo Toa. Not really relevant to this discussion, as most creatures with spellcasting do not have a tag on their casting ability (spell-like and supernatural effects excepted).

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:17 am

I think that, technically, every class feature is supposed to be either Ex, Sp, or Su. It's just that there are a few abilities that for some reason don't have a tag, like sneak attack, and as a result they're presumed to be Ex. I've heard it argued that Spellcasting is an (Ex) ability, but I also don't think it's legal to polymorph into, say, "a 20th-level human wizard," so that doesn't really help you much.

K · Post by K » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:42 am

The monster tags for abilities are all messed up. I mean, there are Sp, Ex, Su, then "natural" ones that are listed as abilities that have no tags, class abilities, and then abilities that are listed in the flavor text (like how Aboleth can absorb memories). That's before you start tagging things as special attacks or defenses.

Basically, the whole way monsters are done needs a full revision.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:11 am

I've got to bring up the psionics thing just one more time:

An actual power from CPsi wrote:SLOW BREATHING
Psychometabolism
Level: Psion/wilder 1, psychic warrior 1
Display: Visual
Manifesting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 hour/level
Power Points: 1
You concentrate, and your shin radiates a healthy, rosy glow.
You reduce the need for oxygen in your body, increasing your ability to become acclimated to the thin air of high altitudes. You gain a +4 competence bonus on saving throws against altitude sickness (DMG 90).
Augment: If you spend 4 additional power points, you become immune to altitude sickness.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:15 am

I'm sure that comes up a lot.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:25 am

CPsi is sort of notorious for that kind of thing. There's a feat in there that lets Elans go without food or water. The problem? They can already do that by spending a single power point. So the feat is significant worse than Psionic Talent - which is not a great feat itself.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:07 am

There is nothing that says an ability has to be Ex, Su or Sp. It could be none of the above (Ordinary abilities: they take the Extra out of Extraordinary!) You could argue that "Spells" is a separate type as well, based on things like the chart that shows which of Spell/Sp/Su/Ex provoke, need components, work in an AMF etc.

I believe "Everything has to be one of those three, it couldn't possibly be otherwise!" is one of the (many) assumptions behind the old Pun-Pun routine.

K wrote: Basically, the whole way monsters are done needs a full revision.

Well fucking get writing then! :3c

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:07 am

Actually, it's only slightly less useful than Wild Talent is for a psionic character, as it results in a net 1 pp instead of 2.

But that makes sense, they didn't really do "flavour abilities" in WotC books the way we do them here. Though they could have said "A 3rd level Elan does not eat or drink, sustaining themselves on ambient psychic energy" or just given it to them from the start.

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:11 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:But that makes sense, they didn't really do "flavour abilities" in WotC books the way we do them here.

WotC design, contrary to Den wisdom, seems to be "if you get an ability other people don't have, no matter how likely it is to have a significant effect over the course of the game, you have to pay something for it."

Den wisdom rightly notes that an ability like "Fire Resist 5" or "you don't need to eat" doesn't actually make your character significantly more powerful and suggests giving away such abilities more or less for free as part of racial or class packages in addition to real class abilities.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:42 am

Koumei wrote:There is nothing that says an ability has to be Ex, Su or Sp. It could be none of the above (Ordinary abilities: they take the Extra out of Extraordinary!) You could argue that "Spells" is a separate type as well, based on things like the chart that shows which of Spell/Sp/Su/Ex provoke, need components, work in an AMF etc.

I believe "Everything has to be one of those three, it couldn't possibly be otherwise!" is one of the (many) assumptions behind the old Pun-Pun routine.

No, everything is either one of those three or a Natural Ability, as stated in the SRD.

Ability Focus specifies only a "special attack", though.

Catharz wrote:It's a useless distinction when you have spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities. Pretty much a 2e hold-over. Although spell casting isn't spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary...

Special Attacks versus Special Qualities is still a useful distinction due almost solely to the shapechanging rules.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:27 am

Special attacks, according to my MM, seem to be any abilities that aren't weapons/natural weapons but damage or hinder an opponent.

Really should have left the SA/SQ divide in the later statblocks, except by that point no one knew what the hell was up with polymorph and friends anyways.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:05 am

I think that they should have divided the abilities up into 'body', 'mind', and 'external' or something to make ability replacement work in a manner that at least makes sense, even if it doesn't address the balance problems...

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:41 am

NineInchNall wrote:Special Attacks versus Special Qualities is still a useful distinction due almost solely to the shapechanging rules.

Or would be if shapechanging rules weren't so fucking awful...

K · Post by K » Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:42 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
NineInchNall wrote:Special Attacks versus Special Qualities is still a useful distinction due almost solely to the shapechanging rules.
Or would be if shapechanging rules weren't so fucking awful...

Changing the shapechanging rules to not be awful means you need to change the monster rules to not be awful. I mean, 3e monsters are still made like 2e monsters where someone randomly assigns all the stats and the makes up new powers and then eyeballs the overall power level.

That's a recipe for failure.