d20radio.com

Hi guys need some advice is the APG a splat book? I feel that some of the spellls in this book are BROKEN

Bl essing of Fervor
School transmutation; Level cleric 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than
30 ft. apart
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (harmless); Spell Resistance
yes (harmless)
With this blessing, you call your allies to move forth and
empower them to conquer and become victorious. Each round
for the duration of this spell, each of your allies can choose one
of the following bonuses for that round at the beginning of its
turn (their choice).
• Increase its speed by 30 feet.
• Stand up as a swift action without provoking an attack of
opportunity.
• Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its
highest base attack bonus.
• Gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls and a +2 dodge bonus to AC
and Reflex saves.
• Cast a single spell of 2nd level or lower as if it were an
enlarged, extended, silent, or still spell.
These effects are not cumulative with similar effects, such as
those provided by haste or a speed weapon, nor do they actually
grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell
or otherwise take an extra action in the round. Blessing of fervor
does not stack with haste.

I had this one pulled on me on tuesday and it put the dwarf clerics AC up to 35 or 36 now how the hell do i hit that kind of ac.
+2 full plate, +2 hvy steel shield, +1 dex bonus, barkskin and sheld of faith.

and then this spells +2 to ac.

what do you think about it. It feels to me it gives the PCs an unfair adventage, because the monsters and NPCs dont have stuff from this book

_________________
Long Live the Empire

Splat-book, not really. I agree there a few over the top spells, but not enough to deserve calling the whole book a Splat...

Of all the areas in the APG that requires the closest inspection by a GM, it is the spells!
Your example doesn't seem to crazy to me, since it is a 4th level spell.
If it were any lower level, I'd throw a flag on the field as well...

I disagree strongly that the spell is broken. If I understand your point here, your primary complaint is that a 4th level cleric spell that essentially does a variation of a *3rd* level wizard spell gives your player +2 AC... ?

I'm assuming your party is at 7th level to have access to a 4th level spell, so +2 armor and shield is more or less on par if you're a tank/cleric (seems a bit monty haul to my table taste, but whatever floats your boat. The armor and shield is 42% of the average character wealth at 7th level, so if that's the majority of their equipment it is pretty balanced)... 21 with the armor, 25 with the shield, 26 with the dex, 29 with the shield of faith (+3 at 7th)... +3 with Barkskin if cast so 32, and +2 for this spell, so 35. Yep, that's gonna take anything with a +20 to hit, which should be a goodly amount of Ogres, Giants or anything really strong.

OR

You could have a bunch of enemies enjoy the 17 Touch AC (which is still respectible, but much easier) that guy just blew three spells to achieve.

OR

You could see how they deal with any sort of battlefield that moves, shifts, holds water, or otherwise causes them to fight while making checks which take into account the -8 Armor Penalty Check modifier that suit of armor demands.

There has to be variety if they are going to be challenged. Otherwise they'll all just buy a bunch of armor and you'll end up in a GM/Player arms race that never ends well.



I mean, you can run it the way you like, but anything I bring to the table from sourcebooks for players to use are all fair game for anything in the GM stable... sometimes players request Core Book only for that reason.

Turnabout is *always* fair play.

If your problem is that you're running a module and it doesn't use those spells/feats/whatever... swap them out! Don't be afraid to rebuild a monster or challenge using new content!

_________________
Acetaminophen
aka - GMDom; @GMDom (twitter)

Feel free to use my SAGA GM screen!

The good thing (and the bad thing as well) with the APG is that it gives *everyone* more options.

The archetypes alone allow you, as I tell n00b gamers trying to come up with character ideas, to create pretty much any character you've ever read or seen in a fantasy novel or movie.

However, to your point, if you don't use the book then yes the PCs will have more options/spells then your NPCs or monsters. That does give them an advantage.

Any book that a GM allows in their campaign requires *some* familiarity with. APG is not a splat book like some of the stuff a certain non-Paizo company put out in its last days of its old edition, generally Paizo stuff is pretty well balanced, because of their extensive play test process.

If you don't feel like having to incorporate the APG stuff in the NPCs and monsters the PCs face, then you are perfectly within your rights to tell them that you are not going to allow the book in your campaign (though that might be a tad difficult at this point in an ongoing campaign).

I completely agree with GM Dom about the armor check penalty. Dwarves in full plate are slow, and can't climb, jump, or swim well (if at all). Against mobile opponents they are weak, and against opponents that use touch AC attacks they are weak.

Ray of Enfeeblement against a Cleric with full plate usually leaves the Cleric unable to move as their new strength is insufficient to their encumbrance. (This isn't always true with a Fighter in full plate with high strength, but I digress).

Personally, I've always thought that Blessing of Fervor was a bit much as it is significantly better than Haste and its on the *other side* (i.e. Divine Magic). But generally I consider the APG to be very well done.

- Zaknaefin