Just want opinions on the cleric/oracle spell, Blessing of Fervor. I GM a Kingmaker game where one of my players runs a cleric of Serenrae. Once he reached 7th level, he has been beating me over the head with this spell! I understand it is a 4th level spell, and its duration is 1 rnd/level, but it affects the entire party (7 targets minimum), helps spellcasters as well as martial combatants, it lasts the entire combat (I very rarely have one go longer than the 7 rounds minimum for the spell) and each recipient can change its benefits each round without even costing an action! I try to GM in a way that uses common sense and rule on things based on the "smell test" and this spell stinks!
Now don't flame me if you're a player and LOVE this spell, but try to take an impartial look at it from a GM perspective. I just want well-reasoned arguments for and against this spell. I am probably going to change the spell or disallow it, but maybe someone can convince me of its validity.
Thanks in advance for the responses!
Strange Doc
PS. I don't get to look at these message boards very often. Sorry if I don't respond to your posts quickly.
Oh you have my support on that. Spells like haste and blessings of fervor should just go away. Or reduce to 1 person every 4 CL. Or last 1 round. Or any number of other things that make them at most half-as-good as they are now. I consider them heavily overpowered - or under-spell-leveled.
Unfortunately no well-reasoned arguments (for or against) from me.
It sounds like you've already made up your mind on the spell.
Just try not to neuter it too badly when you change it, as players never enjoy having their toys broken in front of them.
Yes, I need to do something about this spell because it has become a problem.
To me, if a spell is written is ink on a character sheet, it's too powerful. This cleric takes it every time, no matter the situation! It is an automatic cast if he ever thinks there is going to be combat. If a spell becomes a no-brainer, it is unbalancing IMHO.
|
It sounds like you've already made up your mind on the spell.
Just try not to neuter it too badly when you change it, as players never enjoy having their toys broken in front of them.
Yes, I need to do something about this spell because it has become a problem.
To me, if a spell is written is ink on a character sheet, it's too powerful. This cleric takes it every time, no matter the situation! It is an automatic cast if he ever thinks there is going to be combat. If a spell becomes a no-brainer, it is unbalancing IMHO.
That's totally fine, man. You're the DM, after all.
Just saying, make it less strong, don't make it worthless. Slapping the ice cream cone out of the Cleric's hand when you can replace it with nonfat yogurt doesn't not make for a happy camper.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only argument is that Haste is just as good and a level lower. If you have a problem with Blessing of Fervor (and I can't blame you for having one), then just make sure you also get rid of Haste, Allegro (a bard spell that is self only haste), the Speed enchantment, Boots of Speed, and whatever else is based on Haste.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to GM in a way that uses common sense and rule on things based on the "smell test" and this spell stinks!
Ever consider that your smeller might be broke?
Compare it to other combat spells:
Black tentacles is a huge AoE that completely wrecks any encounter that uses multiple creatures.
Dismissal is a save-or-die against any outsider.
Confusion can end encounters all on its own.
Enervation grants 1d4 negative levels.
Haste is less versatile, but gives more effects at once; and it's a level lower.
Deeper Darkness is something every adventurer has to be prepared for if they intend to survive very long, and it's a level lower.
Honestly, how is blessing of fervor an issue? It's right on target for what a 4th-level spell should be doing.
It sounds like you've already made up your mind on the spell.
Just try not to neuter it too badly when you change it, as players never enjoy having their toys broken in front of them.
Yes, I need to do something about this spell because it has become a problem.
To me, if a spell is written is ink on a character sheet, it's too powerful. This cleric takes it every time, no matter the situation! It is an automatic cast if he ever thinks there is going to be combat. If a spell becomes a no-brainer, it is unbalancing IMHO.
I'd call it worse than Haste for the most part, and as for it being a no-brainer, have you looked at the Cleric's 4th level spells? There's practically nothing of value there, so it would kind of make sense that most people would take the one that is kind of useful if they didn't already have someone with Haste.
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.
|
The only part of that spell with which I have a problem is the ability to extend the duration of a spell. That power (from the spell, not the feat) is fine if you use it with 1 round level spells, it isn't when you use it to extend hours. Getting 7 extra hours for a armor spell from a spell that last 7 rounds seem wrong to me.
My solution was to change how the ability of Blessing of Fervor to extend other spells work: instead of adding the effect of the extend metamagic it add the BoF duration to the duration of the spells cast under its effects.
So, the summoner cast Haste while under the effect of a BoF cast by a 7th level cleric? his spell last an extra 7 rounds from it.
The wizard cast Shield ?his spell last an extra 7 rounds from it.
The wizard cast Mage Armor? his spell last an extra 7 rounds from it.
That way the extend effect is useful for 1 combat, maybe it can extend the spell till the next encounter in the adjacent room (but generally that would be part of the same fight from my point of view) but it will not allow a caster to add several hours to a spell duration.
The other effects of the spell are in line with haste. The targets don't get the full effects of Haste but they get a couple of alternate effects that are more useful for people that isn't running around or attacking. If you allow haste this spell is balanced (with the aforementioned change to the extend effect).
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.
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. ;)
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 point exactly about the spellcasting benefits!
Edit: sorry, trying to respond to Diego.
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.
I don't see most of those being must have spells to be honest. I agree with you that Air Walk is a very good spell, and could be considered as such. Death Ward is incredibly situational. Greater Magic Weapon is also a good spell, but if I remember correctly it doesn't stack with any enhancement that is already on the weapon, and when you pick it up at 7th it can only give you a +1 weapon (though that becomes +2 at 8th); you'd probably already have that by that level tbh. Freedom of Movement can also be quite useful, but I rarely find myself in situations where I think "oh man, if only I had Freedom of Movement prepared right now"; still pretty situational.
|
|
...
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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!
...
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 get a Standard and a Move each round for "free" too; doesn't make them any less useful ;p
|
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
For instance, in any given combat, we might have these buffs going:
- bardsong
- cavalier challenge (dragon)
- haste
- bless or prayer
- other variable bonuses based on combat feats and class abilities
We write them all down on the edge of our battlemat so there are no addition issues and math challenged players can remember them all. Having an ever changing buff would be a PITA using this method.
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
Freedom of Movement and Death Ward are no-brainer spells to have in scroll format, certainly. But Blessing of Fervor is almost always somewhat useful, whereas those two are rarely extremely useful, if you get my drift.
|
|
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.
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 gravyIm 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?
Ditto!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen clerics prepare blessing of fervor but then abandon it once they discovered the party wizard or bard can cast haste. Haste's static benefits are easier to track and, if they had to choose, I can see fighty types prefering haste over blessing of fervor for this reason.
Blessing of fervor's extend spell buff is nice, especially in a party with many casters with lots of low level buffs to cast (mage armor, false life, longstrider). Whether or not to nerf this aspect of the spell really depends on party composition. Is the group really getting too much mileage because their mage armors last 14 hours instead of 7 hours? The cleric is still out a 4th level spell and the non-casters probably didn't see any benefit from the spell when it's used to buff the casters at the beginning of the day.
|
|
I've seen clerics prepare blessing of fervor but then abandon it once they discovered the party wizard or bard can cast haste. Haste's static benefits are easier to track and, if they had to choose, I can see fighty types prefering haste over blessing of fervor for this reason.
Blessing of fervor's extend spell buff is nice, especially in a party with many casters with lots of low level buffs to cast (mage armor, false life, longstrider). Whether or not to nerf this aspect of the spell really depends on party composition. Is the group really getting too much mileage because their mage armors last 14 hours instead of 7 hours? The cleric is still out a 4th level spell and the non-casters probably didn't see any benefit from the spell when it's used to buff the casters at the beginning of the day.
It get annoying when the casters go "the fight has ended and BoF is still running, let's cast our 1st - 2nd level spells, so they will get extended for free", especially if you have a large group with multiple casters.
As a "haste like" spell I see it as something made to buff the group for a small tiemframe, not for hours.
I've seen clerics prepare blessing of fervor but then abandon it once they discovered the party wizard or bard can cast haste. Haste's static benefits are easier to track and, if they had to choose, I can see fighty types prefering haste over blessing of fervor for this reason.
Blessing of fervor's extend spell buff is nice, especially in a party with many casters with lots of low level buffs to cast (mage armor, false life, longstrider). Whether or not to nerf this aspect of the spell really depends on party composition. Is the group really getting too much mileage because their mage armors last 14 hours instead of 7 hours? The cleric is still out a 4th level spell and the non-casters probably didn't see any benefit from the spell when it's used to buff the casters at the beginning of the day.
It get annoying when the casters go "the fight has ended and BoF is still running, let's cast our 1st - 2nd level spells, so they will get extended for free", especially if you have a large group with multiple casters.
As a "haste like" spell I see it as something made to buff the group for a small tiemframe, not for hours.
I understand that you may be annoyed by the practice---and possibly concerned about the precedent this practice set---but are there really any hour/level or day/level spells that become overpowered when they are occasionally extended?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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!
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 — it feels like the DM saying "I'll allow you to use this tactic that you've discovered or come up with, but only on MY terms. Because I'm in control here."
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!
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.
|
I'd call it worse than Haste for the most part, and as for it being a no-brainer, have you looked at the Cleric's 4th level spells? There's practically nothing of value there, so it would kind of make sense that most people would take the one that is kind of useful if they didn't already have someone with Haste.It sounds like you've already made up your mind on the spell.
Just try not to neuter it too badly when you change it, as players never enjoy having their toys broken in front of them.
Yes, I need to do something about this spell because it has become a problem.
To me, if a spell is written is ink on a character sheet, it's too powerful. This cleric takes it every time, no matter the situation! It is an automatic cast if he ever thinks there is going to be combat. If a spell becomes a no-brainer, it is unbalancing IMHO.
there are easily some good 4th level spells...freedom of movement, terrible remorse, holy smite...
Mainly because it seems more likely to be a rules oversight than rules-as-intended. Granting additional oomph to win that one fight is the "point" of blessings of fervor based on the name, fluff, and remainder of the spell's mechanics: granting tons of extra hours for water breathing is what, say, Extend Spell is for.
Mage armor, delay poison, and darkvision are valid targets. Water breathing isn't.