I think that you are experiencing the power creep that all published games go through over the years. I should say successful, published games. Unless it is a non-profit company, the name of the game is supplements, supplements, supplements! And with each one, they try to appeal to the munchkin out there that's looking for that all-powerful tweak that will put their character over the top.
I for one, loved most of the editions of D&D (Except 4 Ed., which seemed to be a straight money grab, IMO), but they all would eventually wander down the same power-gaming path. The worst being 2nd Ed. (I'm looking at you "brown books").
So, I think no matter how pure a game starts off being, creep will always show up eventually. If that company wants to continue to sell products, that is. I think that Paizo just cut out the middle man and beefed it up from the get go!
I treat all RPGs like a salad bar, take what you like, leave the rest.
I have run for years in the "classic" rules set. It is my favorite setting for any game by far! I find that once the "silly," or "goofy" aspects of some of the content are taken out, The Weird West stands as tall as many of the other classic RPGs out there.
I too like the SW rules, but my players and I prefer the classic 2nd Ed. rule set for complexity and flavor (although a few house rules and modifications make it run a bit smoother).
I also combine Cthulhu Mythos in with the standard "Reckoners" as antagonists for a more intense horror atmosphere.
If I had to rate my favorites in order (setting combined with system):
Also, I didn't notice the Fame and Infamy scores on the kingdom page either. Are you going to include them with feeder links to the buildings that modify them?
First of all, let me say, BRAVO! I (and my Kingmaker players) are very appreciative of your work. A small request if at all possible. Would you be able to add in an "ad-hoc" consumption line that will add in with the total on the overall kingdom page.
In my game, the PCs are loaning BPs to Varnhold at a rate of 4 per turn. I would like to be able to just add in random consumption increases for various reasons such as this loan, or any other random, non-RAW instances.
If this is not something that everyone could use, we could just keep a note on the sheet somewhere, but if you think is could be useful, please have at it.
Again, you are one of the reasons the Pathfinder community is head-and-shoulders above the rest! Keep up the good work!
Also, StrangeDoc, regarding my comments on Laurel, I am responding in general to online commentary; your remark just kind of sparked it but I'm not directing all that straight back to you. Rereading I realized I sound a little more adversarial than I intended.
Set, I think your theories may well have a good deal of validity.
Also, is it September yet?
No offence taken. I actually like Katie Cassidy, especially from her Supernatural run as Ruby. I was actually just expressing a aesthetic preference for the actresses as opposed to character. It didn't come off as I intended. And I agree, she is an atypical CW character.
As for the Ollie/Laurel issue, I am very familiar with their comic history and was actually refering to the writers' penchant for having one of them decide to persue the other, then the other pulling away and then flipping the dynamic around the next week (or at least that's how I perseive it)!
As for Diggle, it is awesome to have a character that could easilly have been a "sidekick" stereotype become Ollie's compass and an integral member of the team.
Thanks for responding and I appreciate your point of view.
The Season Finale on last night was excellent, in my personal opinion of course. While the season overall had its rough patches, the last several episodes have been each better than the last. I'd definitely suggest catching up. You should be able to see the last few episodes at least on the CW website.
What I am especially enjoying is seeing how everyone's heroic journeys is coming together, Ollie's but also his friends and family as well.
Serious spoilers follow.
** spoiler omitted **...
I completely agree with your opinion DeathQuaker, the finale was excellent!
While I don't believe this is the best genre show on TV, it is more than competently done. Whether it is called "Green Arrow" or not is irrelevant. I believe the writers are taking us there, but slowly as the character develops from revenge minded "serial killer," as Tommy so eloquently put it, into a true hero wanting to do the right thing.
As far as the finale:
Spoiler:
1) Loved, loved, loooooooved Merlyn being a smart evil megalomaniac and having a backup device so the hero couldn't show up in the nick of time! Quote of the episode "Redundancy."
2) Team Arrow is definitely shaping up with great chemistry. Diggle pulling Felicity's bacon out of the fire was EPIC!
3) I am getting a little tired of the "will they or won't they get together" Ollie/Laurel merry-go-round. (Yes, I know they slept together, but still haven't pulled it together for a relationship)
4) It's nice to have a strong (moral/intelligent/funny) female character like Felicity. And IMHO, Emily Bett Rickards is 10x hotter than Katie Cassidy!
And finally...
5) If any of you out there thinks we've seen the last of Merlyn (either one), you don't know anything about comic books!
All i really need is flip mats with different environmental textures on them. I use erasable markers to draw on dungeons, and it just doesn't have the necessary punch, when your Cave full of Outer-Gods-worshipping Skum and eldritch monstrosities is covered in a happy green meadow. Or your vampire infested dungeon is covered in a happy green meadow. Or your erupted volcano side on which the PCs are having the showdown against that ancient red dragon is covered in a happy green meadow. Or barren, opressively hot and dry desert is covered in a happy green meadow. Or your frozen wasteland is... well you get the picture.
So really all i need are plain textures of:
Rocky earth, cobbled stone, dry plains, sand, snow and maybe something jungle-y looking all on coated, gridded flip mats.
All those flip-mats paizo made so far are awesome, but they have a specific layut already, and when you have that, you can only use it once per campaign, otherwise it just seems cheap. Even moreso than just hastily drawing the building with a marker.
I agree with you Threeshades! Variations of all basic land types are to me, more important than another "mysterious dungeon."
1) High desert/Badlands.
2) Mountainous with narrow trails.
3) Glacier/Deep snow drifts.
4) Remote crossroads/Outpost/Tower.
5) Seafloor/Underwater terrain.
6) Third vote for the Sky/Clouds.
7) Volcanic/Geyser field.
8) Astral Plane/Ethereal Plane.
9) Infernal/Heavenly Planes.
-Strange Doc
P.S. By the way, Jason Engle is in my gaming group, so I'll try to pass on some of these suggestions. Unfortunately, he doesn't control the basic theme of these maps, but he might throw in some "flavor."
I now have a use for that Cthulhu model I got from the Horror Clix line from Wiz Kids! Thank you James Jacobs for tipping me off about that monstrosity. My players will be cursing your name and mine of course.
It’s a squeezer, not a biter!: Loves to launch itself at an enemy an hold on tight, causing distraction and limiting movement. Gets +4 to CMB for all grappling related activities and on top of usual penalties for being grappled, the victim also suffers from the shaken condition due to the ferocity of the assault. This is the only form of attack and is does provoke an AoO.
Lurker: Creepy little git who skulks around and tries to scare everyone with a piercing little screech when it pops out of hiding. All beings within 10 ft. of the lurker (including allies) must make a Willpower save DC 10 + lurker’s Charisma bonus or be shaken for 1 round.
Bendy: Flexible runt who is triple jointed and can twist out of any situation. Gets +4 to any CMD related to escaping a grapple or pin. Also +2 to saves vs. AoE attacks.
Death from above!: Loves to drop on unsuspecting victims from upon high (Trees, walls, overhangs, stalactites, etc…). In addition to the +1 to hit for higher ground, it also adds whatever falling damage it takes to the damage it deals to the target. Its attack is modified by Dexterity. If possible, the first attack in any combat must be this type of attack.
Hey, looks like there was a bug that prevented it from shipping it out with your subscription. We have caught this bug however it wasn't in time for the item to make it into your subscription package.
Currently the item is in your sidecart to be shipped out with your next subscription, but if you would like we can set it to ship immediately. Let us know which you would prefer, and we can assist you further.
~Justin Riddler
Customer Service
Yes, please ship it immediately. I need it by the first week in April. That is why I put it to ship with March's subscription. Is there any way I could get a discount on the shipping cost, since there was a bug?
I am wondering why the campaign coins I ordered in February didn't ship with my March subscription shipment? When checking out I chose to combine the order with my next subscription shipment, which was March 11th, to cut down on shipping costs. If I had known I would have to wait til April, I would have shipped it.
My order #2488713 seems to be hung up in Orlando, FL. The order lists as shipped on March 11th with a 4 to 8 business day ship time. The UPS tracking #32256PZO00000517288 shows the last entry is "Ready for Post Office Entry" as of March 14th and nothing after that. Could someone track down my shipment please?
At least now I have a few options that should work. I'm leaning toward the BBEG and minions as you get better action economy, but also get the satisfaction of taking out something more substantial. I've got a few weeks to hammer it out, so keep the suggestions coming, they are appreciated.
I was in a game with 8 players, built from scratch by the GM. It didn't last long. Getting that many people together on the same day was extremely tough and the gameplay was, for the most part, slow-moving. Too many conflicting personalities, battles were difficult to balance, etc.
If at all possible, maybe you could split it into two parallel campaigns. Party A has 5 members, Party B has 4 members. Do the campaigns separately on different nights and, at some point, they come together, perhaps as allies, perhaps as adversaries.
This is my problem n00bxqb, several friends are coming in from out of town for a short time only. They wanted me to run for everyone at once, but your suggestion to run with two parties could work. Kind of a "capture the flag" type of scenario...
This question is for the GMs out there. I am running a special, one-time adventure with nine PCs taking part! The most I have ever run at one time is seven (and that was in 2nd Edition D&D). Has anyone out there regularly run adventures with that many characters, and if so, how did you do it? Specifically, since challenge ratings are usually based on four PCs, how did you scale something with more than twice the PCs? Also, did you tend to build your encounters with a bunch of minion fodder to whittle down the party, or do you just beef up one or two baddies in each encounter?
I have used the fantastic adaptions of the Kingmaker AP for a six player party, but it just seems that it will reach the law of diminishing returns at some point. I have a feeling that ramping up the encounter strength by 125% will not end well for the party, or my sanity.
Please give actual examples that have worked in this situation, not “Try <blank> and it should work.”
Thanks in advance!
-Strange Doc
Edit: By the way, it will be first level. I know that definitely makes a difference.
Edit, Edit: I already have the plot, I just need the mechanics.
This is just one of the reasons I love Hero Lab. I've had players leave, and I still need their characters to finish a narrative arc. With Hero Lab I just print a new sheet, and away we go.
A few people have said it, but I'll echo. This whole scenario smacks of people behaving like children. Speak to each other like adults, tell each other exactly what you want and why you want it. I'm guessing the whole fiasco could be ended quickly with a little civil discourse.
That is definitely a GM interpretation. If I were ruling (and have ruled), it would depend on the creature gated in and their motivation. If I ruled they would act first and bargain later, I would say they would get a full round of actions based on the mounted combat rules that say the mount can get their actions and so can the rider in the same round. However, if the GM felt that the creature wanted to take stock of the situation, you could have them wait until the following round just to figure out what they should do.
I think that this spell is a big GM interpretation spell in that there are many variables that could be influencing the situation.
These work for me, but I created them. I'll check back every couple days, let me know if they work or not.
Shieldknight,
I was checking through the messageboards and discovered I never responded to you! I apologize! Yes, it did work and I greatly appriciate the work you have done.
Well, I guess no one has this app. I got it and it seems to have most everything up to and including many of the URG races. I have not checked all the functionality out yet though.
I currently use Combat Manager from Kyle Olson and LOVE it! However, I need something that I can create NPCs easily for my Pathfinder game. I bought Hero Lab and even though it's very nice, to get all the Pathfinder content, you have to buy module after module which adds up pretty quickly.
I heard about CharacterFolio as an app for my iPad, but can't seem to figure out what is included as far as content. Is it only Core, or do they add all the supplements as they come out? Can you create non-traditional PC races, a la URG?
Please, if anyone out there has this app, can you tell me what it can do?
Remember, this is in 3.5 Ed., so a little conversion is needed. Also, some feats and abilities were taken from other sources, but those are noted. If you have questions, please reply to my post.
Enjoy!
-Strange Doc
PS. If you have problems with the balance and/or power level of these classes, just change them. Not a lot of playtesting went into them.
Edit: Oh, and one of the orders was the Order of the Stone Hand, not Order of the Open Palm (bad memory:).
A while back, when I was running a Greyhawk campaign in 3.5 Ed., I had a PC monk who was establishing a monastery in the Free City. He wanted to make his different from the base class and offer specialty "kits." So we worked on four orders of monks in the school:
1) Order of the Cat; based on the movement, grace and attack routines of felines. Strengths were stealth, acrobatics and quick, powerful attacks. Weakness was hardiness.
2) Order of the Tree; based on the protection and vitality of the great oak. Strengths were ki manipulation and ability in natural surroundings. Weakness was social interaction.
3) Order of the Open Palm; this is a hard style with focus on striking and brutal attack routines. Strengths were offensive and damage dealing. Weakness was defense.
4) Order of the Pool; based on the serenity and healing aspect of a spring-fed pond. Strengths were healing and defensive routines. Weakness was offense.
I designed them as 10 level prestige classes, but if a monk of the school wished to be well rounded, I created a 5th class called Master of the Yun Tao(doesn't mean anything, but sounds cool)Temple. The prerequisites called for the monk to gain one master ability from each of the 4 orders.
I have the styles written up (for 3.5 Ed.), but will post them if people are interested.
Similar to redcelt, I pretty much require the cohorts to stay home and not adventure with the party. However, they did have to use a feat to get them, but I do give them a +2 bonus to their kingdom rolls if they have the feat depending on the office they fill.
I do allow them to come along with the PCs if the party is light for that evening’s adventure (we are in the 40 year old range with jobs and kids, so sometimes family commitments get in the way of a full party).
I run the cohorts in RP sessions and let the PCs run them in combat. I let the players design the backstory (which I tweak for plot purposes) and use the heroic NPC stat array. I also encourage them to write a one or two sentence description of the rest of their followers (including class, race, sex and personality). I usually mine this for future plot threads to make the PCs more invested.
My PC's and their cohorts are as follows:
Duke(human cavalier, order of dragon): Female battle herald prestige class who is head of the royal guard. Followers are mostly cavaliers or fighters that fill the role of personal guard/castle guards.
"Holy Father" (High Priest, human cleric of Sarenrae): Male paladin of Sarenrae, leader of the "Redeemer Knights"(military arm of the church). Followers are mostly clerics, oracles and paladins.
"Master of Lands" (Warden, 1/2 orc ranger/guide): Owlbear cub (young template, raised since RRR, soon to be full grown). Followers are rangers, rogues and druids sprinkled throughout the duchy.
Marshall (human inquisitor of Ragathiel): Female rogue/investigator. Followers are inquisitors, fighters and rogues who make up the capital city's constabulary.
"Master of Whispers" (Spymaster, human rogue/spy): Female rogue(spy)/wizard. Followers are mostly rogues and fighters. I borrowed someone's (sorry, can't remember which thread to give proper credit) domestic and international spying rules which is how these followers are assigned.
Magister (elven wizard, invoker): Will o' the wisp/sorcerer (don't ask, very complicated, but sufice it to say, this is a major plot thread which will shake the foundations of the burgeoning kingdom when it's revealed!). Followers are mostly wizards, fighters and clerics.
Normally because the base stats modify so many things in the app, I wait til the end of inputting the PCs sheet info to put in their STR, DEX, etc. Most everything adjusts correctly, except the skill numbers. Most all of them are off. The most common error is a +1 on a lot of skills, but sometimes it is as much as +4. It is always high however, not low.
Am I entering the stats wrong? Should I put them in first, or should it not matter?
What's happening, if I read this correctly, is that you enter the stats after entering the skills. What happens is that changing the stats automatically causes the skills to adjust by the modifier of the new stat (from a modifier of +0 for 10). If you enter the stats first you should generally get the skills correct.
Kyle,
Sorry, I really did not word that well.
What I did was enter all ranks and modifiers NOT including the stats, so that when I entered the stats, I expected to get the final adjusted number. For example, Acrobatics; 6 ranks, +5 for "boots of elvenkind", +3 for class skill, and -2 for armor check penalty = +12 modifier without DEX. Now, I go and add the DEX, which is 16 for a +3 modifier. As I look at it, it correctly adjusts to +15 total. That's fine. However, when I save the character and try to open it back up, the Acrobatics shows +16 to +19! I can't really find a consistent error, but it happens a lot.
It's not a terrible problem, because once I correct it on the skills tab, it saves fine.
Thanks again for responding and also for making this AWESOME app!
On another subject, I know everyone at Paizo is Cthulhu freaks, so when will we get the gargantuan Great Cthulhu pre-painted figure (licensing not withstanding) as the incentive for an upcoming Pathfinder Battles set?
Strange Doc
Edit: Not entirely joking about this.
Actually... not everyone at Paizo are fans of Cthulhu. Certainly not to the extent I am.
And Wizkids already did a cthulhu pre-painted mini, anyway...
On another subject, I know everyone at Paizo is Cthulhu freaks, so when will we get the gargantuan Great Cthulhu pre-painted figure (licensing not withstanding) as the incentive for an upcoming Pathfinder Battles set?
Why have the AP map folios gone to just a couple of big, large area maps? For example, the original RotR had a bunch of the smaller encounter maps included, which is invaluable to GMs like me. Is this something you guys are ever going back to?
Thanks,
Strange Doc
Because customer feedback on the earlier version of the map folios was pretty much, "I love the poster maps, but the pages of reprinted maps from the Adventure Path are useless." Folks, on the whole, did NOT like those maps, and felt like they were getting cheated and were being tricked into buying the same maps they'd already gotten in the adventure path, and so we transitioned to using this product as pretty much our only method of getting big poster maps published.
Why have the AP map folios gone to just a couple of big, large area maps? For example, the original RotR had a bunch of the smaller encounter maps included, which is invaluable to GMs like me. Is this something you guys are ever going back to?
No matter what arguments anyone uses, regardless of the math, the only thing that matters is that the group is enjoying themselves. If the group wants to use fumbles and they find it fun, then that's great. If the group does not want to use fumbles for whatever reason, then that's great too. Neither way is wrong.
I use the Fumble deck and used it for an Age of Wyrms campaign that was martial-heavy. They didn't fumble all that often. When they did, it wasn't all that bad. My players had a great time and that's what was important. If they had asked that I don't use the deck, it would have sat on my shelf collecting dust (as it is now because I'm not in a game currently).
Even if you sound like a raccoon with Tourettes caught in a blender, I would have no problem listening to your tutorial! Pleeeeese!
Be careful what you wish for
Strange Doc wrote:
On a more serious note. For some reason, every time I enter skills and then add, or change base stats, the numbers are off. It's not really consistent in the discrepancies, but usually the numbers are high.
Any ideas?
Can I get a better idea what you are entering and what you are expecting?
I'm at work now so I don't have my pad with me, but I'll explain my steps.
Normally because the base stats modify so many things in the app, I wait til the end of inputting the PCs sheet info to put in their STR, DEX, etc. Most everything adjusts correctly, except the skill numbers. Most all of them are off. The most common error is a +1 on a lot of skills, but sometimes it is as much as +4. It is always high however, not low.
Am I entering the stats wrong? Should I put them in first, or should it not matter?
If you want, I can try more and write down concrete examples (skills, numbers and specifics). Let me know.
Thanks again for a great app and the responsive help!
What amazes me is that so many people on these messageboards have a black and white opinion on what constitutes a "good" or "bad" GM! Really, a GM that uses fumbles is automatically a bad one?!? Jeez, GMs need to get more of a break (and yes, I am a GM). They spend a whole bunch of their free time preparing to run games for their players! There is no leveling up or rewards for them.
That being said, I do use both the critical and fumble decks in my games. When they came out, I picked them up and thought they looked fun. I allowed my players to check them out and vote on using them. They unanimously approved the use and have been loving them ever since. They as well as I feel they add a ton of flavor to the combats and have never caused (directly or indirectly) the death of a PC. Maybe inconvenience, but never death. I do use Hero Points and allow players to use them to alter or negate fumbles.
I just found out about this app (got an iPad) from the Pathfinder OGC site and downloaded it last night for our game... Fan-effing-tastic! I love it! My only issue is I am flying blind. I figuring out the functionalities by trial and error. I can't seem to find any tutorials anywhere on the interwebs! If someone could point me in the direction of a video tutorial, or a document of some kind that tells me how to do everything this amazing tool can do, I would be appreciative.
I just got this for my new iPad, and I'd like to echo Strange Doc's comment - I'd love to see a 10 minute tutorial to get me started.
I'm working on one now.
I know everyone says this, but I really hate hearing the sound of my own voice.
Kyle,
Even if you sound like a raccoon with Tourettes caught in a blender, I would have no problem listening to your tutorial! Pleeeeese!
On a more serious note. For some reason, every time I enter skills and then add, or change base stats, the numbers are off. It's not really consistent in the discrepancies, but usually the numbers are high.
Quick answer: definitely mats, maps and minis. Hex over squares (See the threaten or charging through diagonal square threads).
Long answer: As a kid, I loved model trains and dioramas. Miniature representation of terrain and figures has always looked cool to me. The rules application is secondary to me, but I do feel it makes adjudicating easier IMHO. Also, I disagree with those who feel it takes away from the description aspect. I now have more time to put colorful descriptions together instead of explaining the set-up of the room.
Also, I wish that all the mats and map packs that Paizo makes would be in hexes, but it's not a deal breaker.
I try to GM in a way that uses common sense and rule on things based on the "smell test" and this spell stinks!
Wow does this sentence ever ring alarm bells for me. "Common sense" and "smell test" sound an awful lot like code for "I make arbitrary rulings which are not based on any sort of logic, consistency, or well-reasoned considerations of balance".
Other people have laid out a lot of good arguments in favor of blessing of fervor; I'm just going to say that basing your rulings on what's allowed and what isn't on a gut feeling about whether a thing is balanced, makes for arbitrary, unpredictable rulings, an inevitable patchwork of allowed/banned material, and unhappy players.
One of the great sources of fun in D&D/PF is being able to plan your character advancement, and having justified expectations of what your character can do. This is a special case of a much broader psychological principle: a feeling of control over one's future leads to satisfaction; a feeling of a lack of control, of unpredictability, leads to dissatisfaction.
If I'm playing in a game where I have no idea what spells are going to be available to me, because maybe I level up, start casting a spell, and out of nowhere this spell happens to fail the DM's "smell test" for no good reason that the DM can articulate to me... then I simply won't be as invested in my character.
Don't let this happen to you!
Quote:
he has been beating me over the head with this spell!
The answer to this is usually playing smarter, having your monsters/NPCs counter the tactic, etc., rather than banning/nerfing the spell. I'm not saying bans/nerfs are never warranted, only that they rarely are (and certainly not in the case of blessing of fervor).
Incidentally, as a player I find nerfs to my favorite spells/abilities/tactics to be far more insulting than bans. A ban, I can live with; you limit my array of options, I reformulate my tactics to deal with the options I have left. But a nerf...
Just got back to the messageboards now. By the way, I DO NOT arbitrarily take or change rules for my players. In fact, in the 20+ years I've been GMing, I have only outlawed one spell, and that was 2nd Edition polymorph.
The reason I put this thread up on the messageboards was to get reasons why I should NOT ban or nerf this spell. And there have been many well-reasoned arguments in support of BoF. My goal is not to insult my players, but to make the game enjoyable to both them and myself.
I have spoken to all my players about this and got their feedback. All of them agree that the spell RAW doesn't work for us. They all agreed (including the player who plays the cleric in question) that changes are warranted. We have agreed to a few small changes (all haven't been decided), but I WILL NOT do so if all my players don't agree. I WILL and DO listen to my players and if their enjoyment is compromised, I can't and won't make changes.
I came to the boards to get opinions and maybe change my view. I believe it has and I appreciate the feedback from everyone.
In my mind, the biggest advantages of throwing up a Blessings of Fervor is that it does the following for the duration of the spell:
-negates all AoO from trip attacks
-negates the effects of silence and grappling against your spellcasters
-grants either a bonus to saves or an extra attack as gravy
Im not saying its the best buff every single situation, but stopping those first two items is huge against a lot of opponents down the line. Most importantly, this spell provides free metamagic feat usage to casters who otherwise might not bother, but which can be very convenient. As an added bonus, your non-spellcasters get either to bolster their attack rolls and saves or get an extra attack. What is not to like?
Apart from the spellcasting benefit it's almost strictly inferior to Haste.
There are three use cases for Blessing of Fervor excluding spellcasting.
1) You are full attacking. You are down +1 to hit, +1 to AC, and +1 to reflex saves relative to Haste.
2) You need the +30' movement. You are down +1 to hit, +1 to AC, and +1 to reflex saves relative to Haste. If you are pouncing you are also down an extra attack.
3) You are moving, but not using the extra movement, and do not have pounce. You have +1 to hit, AC, and reflex relative to Haste.
It's weaker than a third level spell except in case 3. Yes it's being compared to an arcane spell, but that still makes it a waste of a spell in a party with any arcane caster other than witch or maybe bard, and bard is only going to forgo haste because of Good Hope's bonus to saving throws.
The spellcasting benefit is pathetic.
It is, again, weaker than a third level bard spell. The metamagics offered are situational enough that having to choose just one for Arcane Concordance is little worse and Arcane Concordance increases arcane spell DCs. Being arcane only removes most of the extend spell value, but being a 4th level combat spell also removes most of the extend spell value.
Enlarge is so weak a metamagic that Paizo obsoleted it with Reach. Still is only useful for armored caster builds who prepare still spells anyways. Armored sorcerers would benefit, but they also don't work because of the action economy penalty of metamagic for spontaneous casters. Silent is only useful if someone casts silence on you or for stealth casters. Extend is not a complete waste if it stretches out some buffs, but it's not worth using in combat normally.
This is not threatening. It's a minor side benefit but at level 7 in a 4 person party you'd leave the wizard out of the spell without hesitation and wind up with an inferior haste.
I agree with your argument except for the fact that you can change the benefits every round based on your situation. The flexibility is the most important aspect of the spell.
Again, great argument, but I still think it's a pretty useful spell.
I'm not a very tech-savy guy. I made copies of the players guide pdf and had them lamenated. I then cut out the buildings and glue them on to the district sheet with rubber cement. When the players upgrade a building, I just peel the cement off and put the new one on.
It seems to work really well and looks cool when I hang the city maps up next to the Stolen Lands poster maps!
If you need more of the houses, you can use an older version of Acrobat (I believe it's 8) to take out the image of the house from the buildings page of the players guide and replicate. I made one whole 8.5 x 11 page of houses.
I don't know if a swift action is "excessive." Your able to get one swift action a round for free. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a ton of swift actions being used in my games.
It depend strongly on your class. As an example a magus has a ton of options for his swift actions. A fighter generally don't use them.
As the effect of that change is strongly class dependent I don't like it much. You can try it and see how it work.
That makes more sense to me. I don't have any magi in my campaigns. I guess if there was a class that used swift actions more, it would be more limiting.
The only thing annoying about this spell is trying to keep track of its potentially every changing effects. GMing a party of 9 means at 7th lvl, that is potentially 63 things this spell does. Our combat is chaotic enough as it is, so I can understand if you want to change it for this reason.
Powerwise, it is strong, mostly because its the universal buff that fills in whatever gaps are needed, but not overpowering IMHO.
I suggest either adding a material component to it of substantial enough value that it limits the casting or restrict the variations. For instance, in my game, I would probably make each player choose their 1 effect and thats what it did for the entire casting. If I thought my players could handle keeping track of changing bonuses (outside of my inquisitor that is), I might leave it alone. As it is, they have not discovered this spell yet :P
When I started this post, I don't think I really understood what irritated me about this spell, but I think you have pretty much nailed it! It's so dang useful! However, the bookkeeping aspect and the too variable effects of it are maddening for a GM.
You're right about nerfing this spell. I think maybe I should try just making it a swift action to switch applications and see how it affects use before coming in with the hammer.
I think it is too much.
BoF drawback is that you have to choose what effect you want to use at the start of your turn, so it do nothing after it has been cast till the next turn of each recipient.
So:
- it do nothing for the cleric in the round in which it is cast;
- the cleric allies need to wait till their round to get the spell benefits.
That is a big difference between this spell and Haste. having uit burning a swift action is a bit excessive I think.
I don't know if a swift action is "excessive." Your able to get one swift action a round for free. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a ton of swift actions being used in my games.
You all have perfectly good arguments. I agree, haste is powerful as well, but where the difference lies is in the flexibility, spellcasting benefit, and the instant stand feat (I know, I know, this is minor for a 4th level spell, but I was surprised how much this aspect has been used).
You're right about nerfing this spell. I think maybe I should try just making it a swift action to switch applications and see how it affects use before coming in with the hammer.
Perfect. A small change that doesn't gut the spell, but gives it a distinct weakness that brings it more in line with what you want.
Now, if your players complain, you can tell them to thank the Paizo forums, because if you'd had your way, they'd be lucky to have reason to ever cast the spell ever again. ;)
This is the reason I came to the forums to air my frustration. I feel that a majority of the opinions expressed here are measured and thoughtful (not always). I want to hear good arguments and not make a knee-jerk reaction. Thank you all for this!
chaoseffect, I disagree. To me, one of the most balancing effects of blessing of fervor is that it has to compete against other great "no brainer" spells at the same level. Every blessing of fervor is one less freedom of movement, air walk, death ward, or greater magic weapon, all of which are very desirable.
To the OP, what about a slight reduction? For example, making switching the benefit type a move action? Or removing the ability to switch a type at all (that is, each time the cleric casts it, he gives all targets the same benefit for the entire duration)?
My thought exactly! Maybe locking it in (honestly, this is probably the biggest reason the spell bothers me) is the answer. Tell me wouldn't you still take it as a 4th level spell if the recipient had to choose the benefit at time of casting?
chaoseffect, I disagree. To me, one of the most balancing effects of blessing of fervor is that it has to compete against other great "no brainer" spells at the same level. Every blessing of fervor is one less freedom of movement, air walk, death ward, or greater magic weapon, all of which are very desirable.
To the OP, what about a slight reduction? For example, making switching the benefit type a move action? Or removing the ability to switch a type at all (that is, each time the cleric casts it, he gives all targets the same benefit for the entire duration)?
My thought exactly! Maybe locking it in (honestly, this is probably the biggest reason the spell bothers me) is the answer. Tell me wouldn't you still take it as a 4th level spell if the recipient had to choose the benefit at time of casting?
You all have perfectly good arguments. I agree, haste is powerful as well, but where the difference lies is in the flexibility, spellcasting benefit, and the instant stand feat (I know, I know, this is minor for a 4th level spell, but I was surprised how much this aspect has been used).
You're right about nerfing this spell. I think maybe I should try just making it a swift action to switch applications and see how it affects use before coming in with the hammer.
