An idea of mine for balancing casters and non-casters back in 3.5 has been what I called "roleplay disadvantages".
The problem is spells grant superiority to certain classes out of combat wether in the general story or in tactics before combat. To counter act this I though of some scaling disadvantages that didn't affect combat performance or that could be ignored in life threatening situtations. The scaling followed spell levels and the disadvatage could vary.
For example for wizard as you gained levels you could become progressively more compassionate and ethical, or corrupted and disfigured, or obsessed with magic and aloof, or mutated and weird, or easy going and a comfort seeker.
This could also solve certain setting assumptions and could even apply to certain monsters as psychological disadvantage and explantion to why they don't always perfectly use their abilities.
The in setting explanation could be that magic requires some short of sacrifice or that it affects mortal minds that learn it.
Ofcourse the disadvantages should at no point make the character severly hard to play, they should be a source of fun challenge not just making the players life hard and that's the hard part of designing sth like that.
The new anathema for clerics reminded of all this, so I wonder if wizard get sth to that effect. Any thoughts?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlikely, I get the impression that the clerics anathema is more to do with adherence to a deities doctrines than inherent to spellcasting in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea but i think it would be a nightmare to write up and get tables to follow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's certainly the potential for this kind of thing. In the old "Dragon Quest" RPG, members of the College of Black Magic had to sign a pact in order to gain access to advanced spells.
That said, I've been pondering the notion of Anathema rules, and I'm not sure they're a positive development when they're embodied in the rule book. My fear is they will become a way for some DMs to bludgeon players for non-conformance as some DMs are want to do with Paladins. Could the Cleric class become even more unpopular? I'd much rather have a player develop their character's personality and their own Anathema based on their own interpretation of their deity, life, the universe, and everything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The anathema are a good thing that gives some extra flavor to the class. It never made sense that a character who follows a religion to such an extent /their deity gives them magic powers/ could just do whatever the heck they wanted. Even a lay priest of a relaxed religion behaves differently than a normal person in RL.
Considering the sheer variety of deities, and that the anathema aren't likely to be anywhere near as restrictive as the old paladin code, it's really not a problem. Players just won't choose an anathema they would have trouble playing unless they actually want that challenge, because there's so many other deities to pick from. Multiple deities will grant access to any given domain, so a player will still have options if one of the deities with a domain they really want has anathema they don't care for.
(And for all we know, one of the two extra domains you can pick up with feats may even have the stipulation that it can be any domain regardless of what your deity normally grants.)
Really liking the idea of Anathema. I suppose it will be a theme for all divine classes (cleric, druid and paladin) but not much sense such a limitation on the rest of casters.
PD: I can't resist...now all clerics are Solar Exalted
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The anathema are a good thing that gives some extra flavor to the class.
I agree.
It never made sense that a character who follows a religion to such an extent /their deity gives them magic powers/ could just do whatever the heck they wanted.
I think this misstates the situation. You were only free to do whatever the heck you wanted, if the DM chose not to emphasize the details of a cleric's practice/behavior.
Ultimately, the difference is how an Anathema is best expressed in the rules. If you lay down hard rules...
Clerics of X
1. Never Lie
2. Love Bacon
... then in some games any lie will lead to a legal debate, just like you sometimes see with the Paladin code. And then you'll also see some DMs ignore Anathema, just like they ignore the Paladin code. And really, that's okay.
But if we see a decline in the number of players playing a Cleric, will we see the typical party change its composition? I've no idea. This is a good reason to playtest.
I can see a lot of casters picking either Nethys or the Green Faith to get out of having to follow any real restrictions. There are always ways to justify a character's actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see "voluntarily take an anathema in order to gain certain mechanical benefits" as being a thing one could spend a general feat on, similar to deific obedience in PF1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see "voluntarily take an anathema in order to gain certain mechanical benefits" as being a thing one could spend a general feat on, similar to deific obedience in PF1.
I was mulling over an idea like this - take a feat that pairs a restriction with a benefit. There could be different ones for each class, for example:
- Barbarian superstitions
- Bard conceits
- Cleric commandments
- Druid taboos
- Fighter hubris
- Monk vows
- Paladin codes
- Ranger estrangements
- Rogue vices
- Sorcerer impulses
- Wizard oppositions
It'll be a tough design challenge though to balance them, and make the restrictions meaningful without being too overbearing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why there is such a compulsive temptation to try to make everything symetric. It's something pretty obvious, and we all fall into it (myself included), but it's not really a good idea.
Just because Monk will work with Vows does not mean Rangers will work with estrangements. It's also a useless burden to attach to class creation in the future. What will a psychic have? Or a summoner? What a Hunter? What an arcane xylophonist, the brand new class Paizo will create somewhere in 2023?
I don't understand why there is such a compulsive temptation to try to make everything symetric. It's something pretty obvious, and we all fall into it (myself included), but it's not really a good idea.
Just because Monk will work with Vows does not mean Rangers will work with estrangements. It's also a useless burden to attach to class creation in the future. What will a psychic have? Or a summoner? What a Hunter? What an arcane xylophonist, the brand new class Paizo will create somewhere in 2023?
Firstly, I'm not even saying it's a good idea - that's actually why I hadn't posted it until now. But just to be clear, these would be completely optional, they would just be feats that you can take, I'm certainly not proposing them as class features.
Firstly, I'm not even saying it's a good idea - that's actually why I hadn't posted it until now. But just to be clear, these would be completely optional, they would just be feats that you can take, I'm certainly not proposing them as class features.I don't understand why there is such a compulsive temptation to try to make everything symetric. It's something pretty obvious, and we all fall into it (myself included), but it's not really a good idea.
Just because Monk will work with Vows does not mean Rangers will work with estrangements. It's also a useless burden to attach to class creation in the future. What will a psychic have? Or a summoner? What a Hunter? What an arcane xylophonist, the brand new class Paizo will create somewhere in 2023?
Sorry if I sounded confrontional.
I understood you, and honestly, trying to find that kind of symetry is a sin of my own. I remember myself trying to find a way to houserule a class in 4e to make a martial controller, so the different sources were complete.But I came to peace of mind the answer to why there is no symetry, is because it's a bad idea in general. A martial controller made no sense, unless you did a lot of convoluted stuff just to fill the full grid.
Regardless of it being compulsory or optional, there is no need, and little to gain, just by filling the grid and adding a "fighter only" version of Anathema. It's better to give versions of Anathema to those classes that make sense (like Vows for a Monk, maybe Taboo for a Sorcerer or Druid?), and once you have enough of them that make sense, be happy with it and use the design space to something different. The paragraph you will be using to give a fighter "Hubris" might be better spent in giving him leadership and a castle, or whatever you think fits the class.
I like the idea but i think it would be a nightmare to write up and get tables to follow.
Yeah, it would certainly require some thought, a company like paizo could pull it of, though I am not sure it would be worth their time. I do accept that its sth that could go horribly wrong.
That said, I've been pondering the notion of Anathema rules, and I'm not sure they're a positive development when they're embodied in the rule book. My fear is they will become a way for some DMs to bludgeon players for non-conformance as some DMs are want to do with Paladins. Could the Cleric class become even more unpopular? I'd much rather have a player develop their character's personality and their own Anathema based on their own interpretation of their deity, life, the universe, and everything.
Though there is some value in games that protect you from the DM, I had an experience with a pretty flawed DM in 3.5 where optimization protected my character from gross abuses almost too well, ultimately having a good DM with whom you communicate and cooperate well is absolutely the best.
Also I think that in a way everything that protects from a DM's abuses by its nature constrains the freedom the DM has to do cool things, so you gain sth you loose sth.
I could see "voluntarily take an anathema in order to gain certain mechanical benefits" as being a thing one could spend a general feat on, similar to deific obedience in PF1.I was mulling over an idea like this - take a feat that pairs a restriction with a benefit. There could be different ones for each class, for example:
- Barbarian superstitions
- Bard conceits
- Cleric commandments
- Druid taboos
- Fighter hubris
- Monk vows
- Paladin codes
- Ranger estrangements
- Rogue vices
- Sorcerer impulses
- Wizard oppositions
It'll be a tough design challenge though to balance them, and make the restrictions meaningful without being too overbearing.
This is a little bit different from what I am saying since, my suggestion is about closing the out of combat gab between casters and non casters. (Skill availability for out of combat skills could be another. )
Your idea is actually more easy to use. You could simply get a bonus if you follow your restrictions, like a reroll for example, and a penalty if you don't, maybe the DM gets reroll against you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waiting to buy that "Inner Sea Anathemas" splat!
That said, I've been pondering the notion of Anathema rules, and I'm not sure they're a positive development when they're embodied in the rule book. My fear is they will become a way for some DMs to bludgeon players for non-conformance as some DMs are want to do with Paladins. Could the Cleric class become even more unpopular? I'd much rather have a player develop their character's personality and their own Anathema based on their own interpretation of their deity, life, the universe, and everything.Though there is some value in games that protect you from the DM, I had an experience with a pretty flawed DM in 3.5 where optimization protected my character from gross abuses almost too well, ultimately having a good DM with whom you communicate and cooperate well is absolutely the best.
Also I think that in a way everything that protects from a DM's abuses by its nature constrains the freedom the DM has to do cool things, so you gain sth you loose sth.
I think you're misunderstanding me, or I wasn't entirely clear. I'm not worried about good/bad DMs. You're dead-on when you cite good DM communications. I'm with you 100%.
I'm simply wondering if Clerics will become even less popular. DM behavior can contribute to that, as it has with the Paladin.
I'd leave anathema rules out of the game, right along with the Paladin code and even alignment. Players can cook up that stuff on their own as part of making an interesting character. Rules can't force that.
I don't really like roleplaying disadvantages. Magic making you pure lawful good won't stop you from teleporting your invisible party to the top of the villain's tower and roleplaying disadvantages will cause a big grey area with GMs that like punishing their player on one side and a whole lot of people who ignore it in general.
Also even though Pathfinder is no longer completely setting agnostic people will still make their own settings which might not work with the roleplaying disadvantages.
Anathema is not something im against, neither im against alignment restrictions. Both of which i expect to see in PF2 now.
With this said, this isnt something i think should be added to the classes that up until now had nothing to do with it at the core.
The concept is nice, like how rituals, certain items, both of which could affect ALL classes, and spells would have interesting RP consequences and all that, but this should get plenty of space as an optional system at some point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People throw a hissy fit over Alignment which largely doesn't do anything at all they are totally going to lose their minds over hard restrictions from deities.
A lot of us that HATE alignment do so BECAUSE there isn't any "hard restrictions" and you are left to figure out the nebulous details for yourself. With a list of do's and don't's is easy to be on the same page... Good and evil? You have as many perspectives on that as you have people using the system.
So I hate alignment but don't mind Anathemas [assuming they ARE clear do's and don't's].
Ah I see its the classic Bad DM dilemma. They really do have to go and ruin it for the rest of us. If its not spelled out clearly baddm will screw us over. People really need to start just punching the guy. (I keed. a little. about the violence. but really punch him!)
It does look like an interesting mechanic I will need to see more before I have a definite opinion and Already I know I'll have to make house rules for an extended list of non Golarion deities but I'm used to that.
That said, I've been pondering the notion of Anathema rules, and I'm not sure they're a positive development when they're embodied in the rule book. My fear is they will become a way for some DMs to bludgeon players for non-conformance as some DMs are want to do with Paladins. Could the Cleric class become even more unpopular? I'd much rather have a player develop their character's personality and their own Anathema based on their own interpretation of their deity, life, the universe, and everything.Though there is some value in games that protect you from the DM, I had an experience with a pretty flawed DM in 3.5 where optimization protected my character from gross abuses almost too well, ultimately having a good DM with whom you communicate and cooperate well is absolutely the best.
Also I think that in a way everything that protects from a DM's abuses by its nature constrains the freedom the DM has to do cool things, so you gain sth you loose sth.I think you're misunderstanding me, or I wasn't entirely clear. I'm not worried about good/bad DMs. You're dead-on when you cite good DM communications. I'm with you 100%.
I'm simply wondering if Clerics will become even less popular. DM behavior can contribute to that, as it has with the Paladin.
I'd leave anathema rules out of the game, right along with the Paladin code and even alignment. Players can cook up that stuff on their own as part of making an interesting character. Rules can't force that.
Ah I see, though you did say you are afraid that anathema rules " will become a way for some DMs to bludgeon players for non-conformance as some DMs are want to do", I guess I saw this as bad Dming.
Ofcourse I don't understand exactly what you mean by non comformance, do you mean a dm punishing a paladin for clearly breaking the code of conduct after warning him or a dm who is watching like a hawk the player and is ready to punish him with absolutely no warning, because IMO the second one is bad dming while the first one isn't.The problem as I see it with the player making up their own roleplaying restrictions or Anathema as you mentioned, is that it can conflict with the games assumptions. For certain classes some general roleplaying limits should exist, me thinks.
Yeh, I'm fumbling with explaining it, but you're getting it.
So with a Paladin, an extreme/poor DM will jump all over a Paladin that lies, or for that matter, using the Bluff skill. They'll threaten to take away the Paladin's powers. This is counter-productive, clearly. But it sours players on the Paladin. You don't even have to have tried to play a Paladin -- seeing another person get clobbered leaves an impression. So when they show up in another game with a better DM they sometimes just don't even consider being a Paladin.
Locally, few people want to play the Cleric now for a variety of reasons. Some games have to have an NPC Healbot. Other games entice somebody to play the Cleric by letting them play two characters so at least they have a "fun" character. My fear is that formalized Anathema rules will fuel a Paladin-like disincentive.
The problem as I see it with the player making up their own roleplaying restrictions or Anathema as you mentioned, is that it can conflict with the games assumptions. For certain classes some general roleplaying limits should exist, me thinks.
And this is the dilemma to me. The notion of an Anthema for many character conceptions is really cool. And mentioning it in the rules is really cool from the standpoint that it gets folks thinking about those character conceptions.
Like any character conception, it has to fit the DM's game. There's no substitute for DM-Player communications.
So, as I wrestle with this in my mind, I keep coming back to the conclusion that Anathema is a wonderful thing to include in a section that talks about building a character, but to lay down seemingly hard rules for behavior may lead to some unintended consequences.
On a game-by-game basis, its easily solved. A good DM will smooth it over, like they currently try to do with Paladins. Anathema rules are easily ignored if they cause problems. But if bad DMs create an environment where even fewer people want to play a Cleric, then maybe that's knocks a leg out from under the stool of the "big three" classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeh, I'm fumbling with explaining it, but you're getting it.
So with a Paladin, an extreme/poor DM will jump all over a Paladin that lies, or for that matter, using the Bluff skill.
Uh...
Bad example. It actually outright says in the Paladin code that a Paladin cannot lie. If you like, you are SUPPOSED to lose your powers if you like.
Even once.
Or perhaps a really good example if that kind of thing is what Anathema becomes and is extended to Clerics.
EDIT: I apologize as that can read really poorly. I'll elaborate in hopes of clearing things up rather than digging a bigger hole.
Everybody lies. Saying "Nice shoes, Martha", when all you're trying to do is break the ice or be nice, but you don't really care about her shoes, is technically a lie. A little white lie? Okay. How a DM deals with this kind of thing can really clobber a player's motivation for playing a Paladin, plus it can work against the story. It can also make a memorable story... BA Baracus was afraid of flying, so the A-Team always tricked him and knocked him out... similarly, it can be entertaining for a party to arrange for the Paladin not to be around when a lie is told.
The code is not universally good or bad to a game, but the manner of enforcement of the code changes behaviors well beyond the game in which it happens.
I've had players not elect to play a Paladin because they got clobbered in some other game, this is despite the fact that I tell them I neither use alignment nor the Paladin code. In D&D 1e they were rare because you needed a 17 CHA. Now they're still rare even with no mechanical disincentive.
Ah I see its the classic Bad DM dilemma. They really do have to go and ruin it for the rest of us. If its not spelled out clearly baddm will screw us over. People really need to start just punching the guy. (I keed. a little. about the violence. but really punch him!)
It does look like an interesting mechanic I will need to see more before I have a definite opinion and Already I know I'll have to make house rules for an extended list of non Golarion deities but I'm used to that.
It's NOT that narrow. It could be bad DM's, or bad players looking to game the system or genuine disagreements on what a vague restriction covers [or ANY combination of the three]. Alignment is just so vague and offers NO guidance on intent vs action so it engenders divergent outlooks depending on which you give more 'weight' to.
So saying "its the classic Bad DM dilemma" is really missing the point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The code isn't rewritten for the game. It is the code. Paladins aren't a class for everyone.
They are rare because properly playing a Paladin is hard. They're supposed to be rare.
Okay, I'm gonna come out and say it. You don't see a problem with a core class, one of the twelve basic options of the game, being inherently difficult to play and by extension a rare character choice? I'll buy that for a splatbook class or something in a later hardcover, that's totally fine, but the core rulebook should not have major options like classes that aren't designed to be accessible and playable by anyone who's interested out of the box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't engage in dishonorable behavior but I look the other way when my allies do." It's the 'pacifist' Cleric all over again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth mentioning that Paizo has already come out and said the new Paladin code is far more lax and that it allows the Paladin to lie.
I can basically guarantee that you'll be unhappy with whatever Paizo comes up with HWalsh. The developers are much more concerned with people being able to have fun with their product than you are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth mentioning that Paizo has already come out and said the new Paladin code is far more lax and that it allows the Paladin to lie.Correct and incorrect.
They've said the new code will be more well defined, not lax, and will allow them to lie in specific circumstances.
I think they're making a mistake. We'll see.
"I'm not allowed to lie" is the most idiotic part of the paladin code. If, for example, a squad of Hellknights comes to the door and demands to know if there are refugees hiding in the basement, by the code the paladin is obligated to tell them there are, even though he knows those refugees are innocent of the crimes they've been accused of, that the Hellknight won't listen to reason and doesn't care, and that simply trying to fight the Hellknights off will accomplish nothing and will in fact cripple his ability to do good in the city. But in order to not fall, the paladin must tell the truth, even though the truth will get innocents killed.
This change to the code fixes that. The paladin is still not allowed to lie, unless lying serves a more important good. Flexibility and prioritization of the tenets of a code make for a more functional character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're stretching the definition of the word lie if you think it applies to any pleasantries.
Just a quick point, *I* don't apply it to pleasantries. I don't even use the code when I run. But some DMs do strictly interpret the code so narrowly that white lies count, and that leads to Paladins being rare even in games where the GM doesn't share your views about Paladins being a special class.
And... related to the original topic. I worry that Anathema will extend Paladin code quirks to the Cleric class ... and if Anathema carries into other classes as was suggested in the first post.
And by worry, I don't mean I'm stressed. I can easily fix any of this in my own game. But it means I have more work to convey my setting to folks coming from other games. That's it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeh, I'm fumbling with explaining it, but you're getting it.
So with a Paladin, an extreme/poor DM will jump all over a Paladin that lies, or for that matter, using the Bluff skill.
Uh...
Bad example. It actually outright says in the Paladin code that a Paladin cannot lie. If you like, you are SUPPOSED to lose your powers if you like.
Even once.
False. The allegiance for Paladins of Torag say, among other things:
"I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be."
So it's deity based, even within Pathfinder 1e, which is not the only paladin that exists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth mentioning that Paizo has already come out and said the new Paladin code is far more lax and that it allows the Paladin to lie.Correct and incorrect.
They've said the new code will be more well defined, not lax, and will allow them to lie in specific circumstances.
I think they're making a mistake. We'll see.
"I'm not allowed to lie" is the most idiotic part of the paladin code. If, for example, a squad of Hellknights comes to the door and demands to know if there are refugees hiding in the basement, by the code the paladin is obligated to tell them there are, even though he knows those refugees are innocent of the crimes they've been accused of, that the Hellknight won't listen to reason and doesn't care, and that simply trying to fight the Hellknights off will accomplish nothing and will in fact cripple his ability to do good in the city. But in order to not fall, the paladin must tell the truth, even though the truth will get innocents killed.
This change to the code fixes that. The paladin is still not allowed to lie, unless lying serves a more important good. Flexibility and prioritization of the tenets of a code make for a more functional character.
Actually there are a lot of things the Paladin can say in your scenario that are both true and still doesn't reveal the refugees.
1. "If there were, I wouldn't tell you." (Not a lie.)
2. "Go away, I have nothing to say to you."
3. "The very sight of you offends me, now begone. You have disturbed me enough for one day."
4. "You'd be making a mistake, but If you'd like to see for yourself then by all means, come in."
5. "I do not respect you, or your authority, now unless you have some reason to believe they're here I bid you good day."
All 5 are ways not to fall that aren't lies.
And all 5 of which would be extremely likely to lead to either direct conflict with the Hellknight, or him coming in and finding the refugees. Now required honesty does make sense for the stodgy old LG only Paladin, but it can legitimately be crippling in situations that could realistically come up. Oh, and incidentally Hellknights are typically a legitimate authority, so you are also required by the code to respect him, which at the very least cuts option 5 out, and potentially all but option 4. Simultaneously, you're required by the code to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. So now what do you do?
