I have been told that in PFS an inquisitor can not take the druidic animal and terrain domains. The druidic animal and terrain domains are allowed, but not for inquisitors.
.
Specifically I want an inquisitor of the nature god Gozreh with the monkey domain.
.
Is it true that this is not allowed in PFS? If so, where is that ruling, I haven't been able to find it?
.
Thanks muchly.
Ah good, then I can do that.
Thanks.
|
Here is the problem...
Inquisitors must pick a deity and none of the deities have those domains on their list. So strictly by the rules no you can't pick them.
However the animal and terrain domains do open themselves to other classes.
Other nature-themed classes with access to domains may select an animal or terrain domain in place of a regular domain.
The inquisitor is definitely not a nature-themed class and I would not allow it. That said I can't make that call only Mike can but I would lean on the side of no you can't.
I am picking a deity. It is Gozreh.
.
Since nature is very much in Gozreh's portfolio I thought it was acceptable.
.
But it sounds like there is enough disagreement that it at least would not be a safe choice. It would be very aggravating to not be able to play my PC depending upon which GM was running the table.
.
Guess I will have to rethink the build.
|
There are sacred animals listed for deities in inner sea gods. This would be a good basis to allow specific animal domains for deities that match. For example, an Inquisitor or Cleric of Sun Wukong should be able to take the monkey domain. An Inquisitor or Cleric of Sobek should be able to take the crocodile domain.
|
|
I think there's definitely room for "how does this work in pfs..." here, since this seems like something that would be settled with a board post.
at this moment, there's no official ruling. Without that, your character would probably be deemed illegal by about half the dms that looked into it, which is waaaay to high unless you have a binder full of other characters you could play, and even if you did would be skirting a gray area of the rules (which you probably shouldn't)
|
My understanding is that there is no PFS specific ruling required. Druid Domains can be picked by other classes that get access to Domains, just like with other Domains, Inquisitions, etc. . .
It was a while ago, so I don't know where to find it, but the ruling was that yes, if it doesn't specify a god, it's okay as long as it's not against a god's overall focus or philosophy. This is true for Varient Channeling, Domains, Inquisitions, etc. . . You literally just switch out "Cleric", "Druid", or whatever for what class you are using, and otherwise uses that class's specifics (such as you get a Domain as a Cleric of your level -3 or something).
So Oracle that gets Channel Energy somehow, if they served a deity (a requirement for Variant Channeling itself), would have the entire list of Variant Channeling options open, restricted by their religion's tenets.
Druid Domains itself specifies 2 things, though, that works a bit differently:
1.) "Presented in the section below are new rules for animal and terrain domains—domains for druids whose focus is more specific than the Animal, Plant, Weather, or elemental domains."
2.) "Other nature-themed classes with access to domains may select an animal or terrain domain in place of a regular domain."
To me that kind of says "if you are a "nature-themed" class or would normally have access to any of Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, and/or Weather Domains, you can choose an Animal or a Terrain Domain instead.
Nothing really needs to change for PFS that I see, though I can see an issue for a PFS DM that wasn't really aware of the general PF rule.
|
|
The deity needs to specifically offer the sub domain. But this isn't about subdomains. This is about the druid specific animal and terrain domains.
I would say your deity would determine whether you can take those domains. Many classes aren't specifically nature based until you pick your domains. So I would say that if a deity offers a specific domain on the Druid list from the Core Rulebook, then that worshiper could choose a druid animal or terrain specific domain.
|
|
I thought if you had access to a domain, you had access to its subdomains automatically?With the Subdomain listings in the Inner Sea Gods, I believe you can not have any variation on your subdomain for PFS anymore.
I would need something other than a line of reasoning to see that a source that some people don't have removed a legal option from their character and allowed a re write.
|
|
I would need something other than a line of reasoning to see that a source that some people don't have removed a legal option from their character and allowed a re write.How about the fact that it was never the case?
A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity (see Table 2–12).
THAT might work.
|
|
I don't believe sub domains were ever allowed as you suggest.There were specific subdomains per deity before ISG.
Yup. I'm not sure if you are refuting what I've said, or agreeing with me though. If you are refuting, then not sure how what I said is in conflict with that blog you linked.
I can't quite tell.
Are you all still agreeing that an inquisitor may NOT select a druid animal or terrain domain for PFS?
Drat!
Ok, will have to take the nature god and eldritch heritage arcane to get the concept I had for my inquisitor. Definitely not optimal, but should still be fine for PFS usage.
|
|
No deities specifically grant the Animal or Terrain domains, so they can't be taken by non-druids.
I wish it were otherwise, but them's the rules.
That isn't strictly true.
There is the clause in those domains that says other nature based classes can take those domains.
The question then becomes what constitutes a nature-based class?
Ranger and Druid are obvious choices (although some archetypes make those classes not so nature-ish--Urban Ranger, etc.)
But what about a Sylvan Sorcerer or Nature Oracle?
A Cleric of Erastil or Gozreh that get some of the nature-themed domains from the Core Rulebook?
If an archetype or choice of deity can suddenly make you a nature-based class (and I see no reason why they woudln't), then the same could be said for an Inquisitor.
That being said, you couldn't take any of those animal and terrain domains if you don't at least qualify for the Druid domains from the Core Rulebook.
|
|
You are absolutely correct that there is a clause for nature-based classes that can take domains can take the animal & terrain domains.
Unfortunately, it's a GM call as to what those classes are right now. While Torag should grant access to the cave terrain domain and Sobek should grant access to the Crocodile domain is clear by reading their portfolios, Inquisitors and Clerics of those deities cannot take them without a clear FAQ from the devs, or a ruling from the campaign leadership.
Otherwise, you will run into table variation.
|
|
My particular table variation would be this: if the deity allows you to select the Animal domain, you can pick specific animal domains from the Druid list (like Monkey). The terrain-based ones, however, would not be available to non-Druids unless they specifically chose domains based on Druid-like availability.
That said, I don't see sufficient support to rule one way or another, just like you'd see in terms of open-ended lists (ex. Wrist Sheath).
|
I would need something other than a line of reasoning to see that a source that some people don't have removed a legal option from their character and allowed a re write.How about the fact that it was never the case?
A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity (see Table 2–12).Note that Empyreal Lords (and ONLY Empyreal Lords) used to grant access to all subdomains for their domains, but that was changed (by Inner Sea Gods, I believe).
Several other deities were "updated" with Inner Sea Gods as well.
Kelizandri lost the Ice subdomain, which impacted one of my characters.
I think there's a changelog around here somewhere (and probably created by Dragnmoon, too).
