If you are the gm, naw most of them are fine mechanically without worship.
If you're a player check with your gm.
It makes no sense and I was wondering if there would be any balance issue if I simply just took off the "deity worship" prerequisite?
No, it won't imbalance the game, and no, it didn't make sense in the first place.
As for the making sense part, my understanding is that flavor wise you don't 'know' how to do these things, instead your Deity is granting you power/miracles/etc that allow them to happen. They are powered by Faith, you lose the faith, you lose the power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the making sense part, my understanding is that flavor wise you don't 'know' how to do these things, instead your Deity is granting you power/miracles/etc that allow them to happen. They are powered by Faith, you lose the faith, you lose the power.
They aren't magical, so that explanation is out.
Faith isn't precisely magic. Gods pass normal limits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see campaign specific crunch, I assume it is just to maximize copyright on a game inherited through OGL.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. Every time I see a campaign setting book, I expect to see campaign specific crunch.
I have come to expect it also, but it seems for entirely different reasons. For example, I have never read a spell, feat, etc.. and thought "Man this would be really cool if it were only limited to X."
Faith isn't precisely magic. Gods pass normal limits.
No, I mean, its literally not magic. Magic follows rules in the game like shutting down in an AMF, so does supernatural and spell like, even if they're divine. These abilities would be noted if they were magical in effect.
And amazingly enough, some classes, spells or abilities are designed to have specific limitations and not just be an all you can eat buffet... have to make choices and sacrifices.
Well, there's "You need to choose a class that fits your style" and there's "You can use an axe or a sword" but there's also "but the sword is totally awesome and there's no good reason to choose the axe because the sword is Axe+2" and "And you need to arbitrarily worship this one setting specific deity to do this totally mundane but flavorful thing" and there's "And I won't work with you to do anything flavorful unless it was already in the book and if the book didn't say that in the first place I'd totally let you do it".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"And you need to arbitrarily worship this one setting specific deity to do this totally mundane but flavorful thing"
To be fair, Butterfly's Sting makes no sense at all as a mundane ability. You hit extra hard but don't do anything, and instead let the next person to hit hit extra hard using the critical hit with their weapon, completely ignoring the physics of how swinging impact weapons work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"And you need to arbitrarily worship this one setting specific deity to do this totally mundane but flavorful thing"To be fair, Butterfly's Sting makes no sense at all as a mundane ability. You hit extra hard but don't do anything, and instead let the next person to hit hit extra hard using the critical hit with their weapon, completely ignoring the physics of how swinging impact weapons work.
I always thought it was a tactical set up. That tends to be what (Combat) means.
There's a lot of weird restrictions. I have no idea why "well prepared" requires-halfling.
Only half orcs can be Caravan drivers. Only elves can stab people with an arrow as part of shooting a bow, and only under certain circumstances. Only gnomes can pretend to be helpless prisoners and only after taking this feat and the guy taking you as a prisoner actually gets bonuses.
This game is weird sometimes.
Faith isn't precisely magic. Gods pass normal limits.No, I mean, its literally not magic. Magic follows rules in the game like shutting down in an AMF, so does supernatural and spell like, even if they're divine. These abilities would be noted if they were magical in effect.
It doesn't have to be magic. For precedent, paladins lose their abilities when they violate their code of conduct, and some of those abilities are non-magical (e.g., divine health (ex)). The only thing they retain is proficiencies.
And amazingly enough, some classes, spells or abilities are designed to have specific limitations and not just be an all you can eat buffet... have to make choices and sacrifices.Well, there's "You need to choose a class that fits your style" and there's "You can use an axe or a sword" but there's also "but the sword is totally awesome and there's no good reason to choose the axe because the sword is Axe+2" and "And you need to arbitrarily worship this one setting specific deity to do this totally mundane but flavorful thing" and there's "And I won't work with you to do anything flavorful unless it was already in the book and if the book didn't say that in the first place I'd totally let you do it".
That's a matter between player and GM, not a matter for the rules test for a campaign-specific supplement. There's nothing preventing the GM from reflavoring a feat or removing the flavor-based restrictions altogether, but there's nothing requiring them to do either, and players must respect that or find another table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have come to expect it also, but it seems for entirely different reasons. For example, I have never read a spell, feat, etc.. and thought "Man this would be really cool if it were only limited to X."
I have.
Case in point: infernal healing.
Makes great sense as a spell granted to priests of Asmodeus. Annoying as all hell when every wizard and neutral cleric on the block has it.
Limitations like this *add flavor* to a campaign world. Granting it to everyone turns all the colors to mud.
FYI, for an example of a divinely granted benefit that doesn't go away in an anti-magic field, see Paladin's Divine Health, and even Aura of Good.
Granting it to everyone turns all the colors to mud.
In your opinion anyway.
FYI, for an example of a divinely granted benefit that doesn't go away in an anti-magic field, see Paladin's Divine Health, and even Aura of Good.
Huh... How is an aura of good not magical? Is the paladin just such a bro he always has it? I mean, its not like he benefits from it without some ability that keys of it, and any of those are shut down in an AMF, but just... weird.
That's divine power for you.
That's divine power for you.
No, this is divine power. Evocation spell, definitely doesn't work in an AMF.
divine power is more than just divine power
Every time I see campaign specific crunch, I assume it is just to maximize copyright on a game inherited through OGL.
I won't say that that might not be the reason for some publishers to release campaign specific crunch - to maximize copyright, but there's some very specific campaign crunch for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) and its to show a focus on unique properties of the setting, mostly.
On the other hand, there are samurai feats, for example in Kaidan, and though they are primarily designed for use by samurai, nothing in that crunch suggests it cannot be taken by a fighter, nor taken by someone that has never been to Kaidan. Although it is crunch developed for the setting and for use by locals inhabiting that setting, it is not by default, exclusive to that setting. For example, Skillful Followup is one of the available samurai feats for Kaidan, yet what fighter (or any combat class) wouldn't want to take it whether in Kaidan or not?
Some of the subsystems developed for Kaidan is to deal specifically with how the cosmology of Kaidan works and how magic is slightly altered, which is different than most other setting's context to cosmology. Some things work differently in Kaidan, sinced Kaidan is a very different setting. Most of its subsystems wouldn't work on other settings, not because of some copyright exclusivity, rather because other worlds don't work the same as Kaidan. For example, reincarnation in Kaidan is a completely different animal than any other published setting.
I would suggest that none of the campaign specific crunch for Kaidan serves to maximizing of copyright - that wasn't even a thought in its design.
|
I had the same feeling about this way of a prerequisite. I feel as if the prerequisite should have been based on alignment and that you had to have a certain alignment to have that feat. For example, rather than having the "Prerequisite: worshiper of a good deity". Instead "Prerequisite: good alignment". Like in Charge of the Righteous or Peacemaker. This fits the theme and has a mechanic already found in the game
I glanced over some of those feats, some seems to be fun. And I understood the crunch and bonds behind the gods and the feats.
The Torag one to go magus-like with a warhammer seems totally appropriate, as the one from Iomedae. But I only read like 3-4 of them.
Another thing that can be behind those restrictions is the choice you have to make. You can't take the feat for Torag and the one for Calistria for example.
|
|
Understood a good character worshiping Calistria taking a Torag feat would be strange but having a required alignment of LG would eliminate that. Or having worshipping more one god may work for people. It is a polytheistic society and a person may worship several gods. I see not a rule against having more than one deity. THE OLD AND THE NEW
divine power is more than just divine power
Says who? Its attaching definitions and reasons to things that just aren't there. Don't have any reason to believe it is that way. if it is then it probably shouldn't be a combat feat, because then its not something that can be learned.
Required alignment would be . . . well, let's just say the arguments about that would be far more vitriolic.
I have come to expect it also, but it seems for entirely different reasons. For example, I have never read a spell, feat, etc.. and thought "Man this would be really cool if it were only limited to X."I have.
Case in point: infernal healing.
Makes great sense as a spell granted to priests of Asmodeus. Annoying as all hell when every wizard and neutral cleric on the block has it.
Limitations like this *add flavor* to a campaign world. Granting it to everyone turns all the colors to mud.
FYI, for an example of a divinely granted benefit that doesn't go away in an anti-magic field, see Paladin's Divine Health, and even Aura of Good.
I stand by my original statement. I like the spell the way it is. If someone wants to play it up to be all devil devoted, that's cool, if someone wants to just dabble, I am perfectly fine with that too. I find most people who freak out about Infernal Healing do so because they think it steps on the toes of the divine spell list. I don't share that concern.
Every time I see campaign specific crunch, I assume it is just to maximize copyright on a game inherited through OGL.I won't say that that might not be the reason for some publishers to release campaign specific crunch - to maximize copyright, but there's some very specific campaign crunch for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) and its to show a focus on unique properties of the setting, mostly.
On the other hand, there are samurai feats, for example in Kaidan, and though they are primarily designed for use by samurai, nothing in that crunch suggests it cannot be taken by a fighter, nor taken by someone that has never been to Kaidan. Although it is crunch developed for the setting and for use by locals inhabiting that setting, it is not by default, exclusive to that setting. For example, Skillful Followup is one of the available samurai feats for Kaidan, yet what fighter (or any combat class) wouldn't want to take it whether in Kaidan or not?
Some of the subsystems developed for Kaidan is to deal specifically with how the cosmology of Kaidan works and how magic is slightly altered, which is different than most other setting's context to cosmology. Some things work differently in Kaidan, sinced Kaidan is a very different setting. Most of its subsystems wouldn't work on other settings, not because of some copyright exclusivity, rather because other worlds don't work the same as Kaidan. For example, reincarnation in Kaidan is a completely different animal than any other published setting.
I would suggest that none of the campaign specific crunch for Kaidan serves to maximizing of copyright - that wasn't even a thought in its design.
My point exactly. Most anything that is trying to add flavor to an area, could just as easily skip the flavor prereq and still serve the same function.
Case in point, for last years RPG superstar (possibly this year's or previous years' as well) several of the created things had to be campaign specific. It didn't matter what part of the campaign, they just wanted you to throw in a few words for the campaign. I can't see any real purpose in this other than claim intellectual property. I am not saying they are wrong for doing so, you see people all the time lamenting for Beholders or Mind Flayers, but D&D owns them. Pathfinder is trying to claim territory in a similar way.
The only reason I find it taxing sometimes is because it makes it harder to read things on pfsrdd20. Other than that, that site is 100 times more user friendly than the real prd.
I have come to expect it also, but it seems for entirely different reasons. For example, I have never read a spell, feat, etc.. and thought "Man this would be really cool if it were only limited to X."That's funny, I always looked at such items and said "Man they've given flavor to the Inner Sea with this particular niche of magic.
But Christ on a Crutch, you want to rip something out of a setting and use it bare in your home campaign... than DO so. No one is going to beat the door down to check.
What a profound thought, if only it had occurred to me earlier >.>
If I had strongly worshiped Zon-Kuthon and truly believed that my enemies deserved every del of pain I inflict upon them as written on page 212 of the Umbral Leaves, I will do so. If I have a sudden change of heart and faith and no longer feel it nice to cause bleed, I would stop since I don't believe in page 212 of the Leaves.
Also applies to: if I believed in Desna and changed to think more greedy; that I myself deserve the crits I earn.
It's a bit of a flimsy argument, but I'm one of those that also think morale bonuses are exactly what it says on the tin, despite its source.
|
|
Yes,the d20 site is light years ahead of the prd. I only use the prd to cover things I don't have the books for. I use d20 for everything else because it is completely superior.
As far as setting related material goes: as a player it can get annoying when you're trying to min/max. However, as a game designer and as a gm I *really* appreciate it. The full open sourcing of every aspect can become tedious because it leads to lame min/maxing and actually can serve to detract from the atmosphere of a game.
One game I designed is almost exclusively campaign specific material. If you want to master little known knife techniques, you need to be a member of a group who is willing to instruct you in them. Want access to specially made weapons crafted from a neigh unique material? Only members of the Jus Divinum have access to that. Are you a member? This segregation allows for characters to better shine in their respective roles and how they choose to perform them. If anybody could learn secret knife techniques, have their knives made of unique metal and designed in a particularly effective way whole also having the benefits specific to worshipers of various deities, followers of cults or members of political affiliations, it would undermine the nature of the world that players are trying to immerse themselves in.
Sometimes a little restriction is a good thing and this is coming from someone who really does enjoy having as many options available to me as possible.
|
|
A list of all the new material that doesn't remove IP-specific material.
Inner Sea Gods isn't done on it, but if you want to see Feats with the deity and flavor information still intact, check it out there.
|
|
No, I mean, its literally not magic. Magic follows rules in the game like shutting down in an AMF, so does supernatural and spell like, even if they're divine. These abilities would be noted if they were magical in effect.
This is the best point on here. A paladin is granted a number of Ex (Extraordinary) abilities. Aura and Divine Health being the two main ones of the core class (unless you add in an archetype). If you break your code and fall, both of these are lost.
Ex abilities are specifically non-magical, they function in antimagic fields. Yet, here a god can take away those innate powers. Why? Because deity.
So, if they can take them away, it makes sense they could grant them. Feats are basically Ex in most cases (assumed to be non-magical). It makes sense that they could grant them and take them away. Really, why does everything a deity grant have to be innately magical? A deity can't create a non-magical weapon? They have whatever powers you need them to have.
I have come to expect it also, but it seems for entirely different reasons. For example, I have never read a spell, feat, etc.. and thought "Man this would be really cool if it were only limited to X."I have.
Case in point: infernal healing.
Makes great sense as a spell granted to priests of Asmodeus. Annoying as all hell when every wizard and neutral cleric on the block has it.
Limitations like this *add flavor* to a campaign world. Granting it to everyone turns all the colors to mud.
FYI, for an example of a divinely granted benefit that doesn't go away in an anti-magic field, see Paladin's Divine Health, and even Aura of Good.
So agree.
Personally I like the roleplay restrictions on feats from Inner Sea Gods. I think they are a fine way to add distinctiveness and flavor to characters.
On the other hand, people who built themselves around feats and didn't worship the gods lost their flavor and potential at using those feats for flavor. Who's more important, the player, or the god? Keep in mind that you can always attach the flavor to the god and not restrict.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Personally I like the roleplay restrictions on feats from Inner Sea Gods. I think they are a fine way to add distinctiveness and flavor to characters.On the other hand, people who built themselves around feats and didn't worship the gods lost their flavor and potential at using those feats for flavor. Who's more important, the player, or the god? Keep in mind that you can always attach the flavor to the god and not restrict.
If you're referring to reprinted feats that suddenly have deity requirements where they lacked them before, that's a bad move that does affect players in PFS. AQre there such in the book? In a home game I would allow a player to keep using the old version.
The OP's original point seemed to be that ever printing any feat that required worshipping a specific deity was bad, and I was contesting that point. If a feat has roleplaying requirements right from the get-go, then either build your character to conform to the requirements or don't plan on that feat.
|
If you're referring to reprinted feats that suddenly have deity requirements where they lacked them before, that's a bad move that does affect players in PFS. AQre there such in the book? In a home game I would allow a player to keep using the old version.
Eh...there are such Feats, but they were previously listed in things like Champions of Purity under the explicit entry of fighting styles of the deity in question's followers or similar things. There's no bait and switch going on here, those Feats were always associated entirely with that deity, they've just decided to mechanically enforce it.
|
|
Personally I like the roleplay restrictions on feats from Inner Sea Gods. I think they are a fine way to add distinctiveness and flavor to characters.On the other hand, people who built themselves around feats and didn't worship the gods lost their flavor and potential at using those feats for flavor. Who's more important, the player, or the god? Keep in mind that you can always attach the flavor to the god and not restrict.
I'd say that varies from game to game. Personally, flavor is more important to me. Sure, the players need to have fun, but this game has over a thousand feats (1,518 to be exact). If a small percentage of those require a piece of flavor (whether that's worship of a god, membership of an organization, etc.) then I think that only benefits the setting. It gives a little bit extra to people who fall into that category, and hey, there are feats that only atheists can take as well.
I don't think that players should have everything in the world available to them. It's the reason why there's prestige classes, or why feats have other feats as prereqs, or why some spells are intended for certain races or religions. It adds flavor, and that just helps build the world.
If you want your game to have 100% of things available all the time, then sure, nix the RP requirements. That's up to you. Personally, I think they're great, and most players I know don't think it's harming their concept this way.
The OP's original point seemed to be that ever printing any feat that required worshipping a specific deity was bad, and I was contesting that point. If a feat has roleplaying requirements right from the get-go, then either build your character to conform to the requirements or don't plan on that feat.
I'd say if a feat does its a fine time to talk to your GM about a houserule. I'd also prefer if those feats were exclusively ones heavily tied to the deity and preferably magical. Making power attack gorum only will only hurt martials in the long run, and they're the ones that need the most help. I like the idea, but not the execution. When I was a kid I used think feats like that were the best thing ever.
|
|
As a side mention, only 91 feats actually contain "worship" as part of the prerequisite. About 6% of the total feats available. I don't think anyone's suggesting that such a core feat like power attack be made religious only, the feats that are currently religious tied are very much close to that deity's theme.
As a side mention, only 91 feats actually contain "worship" as part of the prerequisite. About 6% of the total feats available. I don't think anyone's suggesting that such a core feat like power attack be made religious only, the feats that are currently religious tied are very much close to that deity's theme.
But it would really help out the flavor of gorum. I mean he is the god of fighting and he does like greatswords.
|
|
A lot of gods involve combat. Limiting that feat is a bit of a stretch. A feat where clerics of Iomedae can get fighter-like proficiencies with their deity's longsword? Sure. A feat like Ironbound Master where a cleric of Gorum can get fighter-like armor training? Great.
These are a lot more unique, more specific to the god in question. Power Attack is a broad feat, and the point isn't to limit *every* feat to certain religions. As I pointed out, not even one-tenth. The goal is just to add a few options with a heavy theme for followers of certain religion, give them a bit of reward for following it. Or, as I pointed above, some feats that only those who specifically avoid following gods can take.
Really, a good game like this will have 50% of feats that everyone could take, and 50% that require *something* else. I think this game actually has a lot more that are already available to everyone, so it's ahead in that regard.
But it would really help out the flavor of gorum. I mean he is the god of fighting and he does like greatswords.Nobody is suggesting anything like this. Nor is it a valid comparison. It's either a strawman or the slippery slope fallacy depending on exactly what you mean by it.
I wasn't suggesting it either to be honest. It was neither strawman nor slippery slope.
|
|
I wasn't suggesting it either to be honest. It was neither strawman nor slippery slope.But it would really help out the flavor of gorum. I mean he is the god of fighting and he does like greatswords.Nobody is suggesting anything like this. Nor is it a valid comparison. It's either a strawman or the slippery slope fallacy depending on exactly what you mean by it.
If you didn't mean to equate existing restrictions to restricting Power Attack, you're quite correct and you have my apologies.
But, to be clear, I never thought you were suggesting it, I thought you were suggesting that having any religion-restricted Feats was the equivalent of having Power Attack so restricted...which would amount to one or the other of the things I listed. If I was wrong about your implication, I'm once again legitimately sorry about that.
A list of all the new material that doesn't remove IP-specific material.
Inner Sea Gods isn't done on it, but if you want to see Feats with the deity and flavor information still intact, check it out there.
I noticed the Prestige Classes were up yesterday, or maybe the day before. I much prefer looking things up on your site to the d20pfsrd; it's much more cleanly laid out, and, as you said, the setting context isn't stripped off.
I have absolutely no problem with setting restrictions applying to any player option whether its a feat or other mechanic. Probably because I am primarily a GM, and a 'part-time' player in short bursts, the PC, the story/module, the setting, the GM are all equal parts to make the whole. If you take away any of those parts, it weakens the whole.
@MrSin (and the OP) - "who is more important, the player or the god", I say they are equal, neither is more important than the other. As equal parts in the whole of setting, story and participants, diminishing any of one of those parts can damage the intent of the game. Look at it this way, which is more important, Little Red Riding Hood or the Wolf? Without one or the other caste member, there is no story, the same is true for the story elements and the mechanics of the game. This, of course, is just my opinion, but I really don't believe player options should exceed the value of the story or the god, as in this case. They are equal.
The whole is stronger than the sum of the parts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@MrSin (and the OP) - "who is more important, the player or the god", I say they are equal, neither is more important than the other.
Well, the god is an NPC and a pile of text that is part of the setting, and the player is a guy with a heart and hands in real life. I place human creativity and potential pretty highly relative to intellectual properties.
Mind you, its not at all a fair ultimatum and extremely hyperbolic.