Eminent Domains

TN worshippers of Zon-Kuthon would be nice, since he's pretty lax so long as you perform the right stuff on yourself, if I recall.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

In PF1e not all domains were equal, and letting players cherry pick domains and favoured weapons could very well lead to broken characters.

If it feels too strong for your tastes, you can always go with the non-theistic cleric rules (which is basically the same as just taking the Separatist archetype). I'm not here to argue what's right for your table, only that there were simple options that made handling this easy.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

As a GM creating a custom setting, a lot of the fun is deity and pantheon design.

The size of the pantheon necessary to cover every domain is massive. I once attempted this, and just getting every domain and subdomain in CRB + APG required twenty-three deities, which I found a bit excessive. Given the number of subdomains published today, you'd need closer to 50 deities to cover them all. Let me be clear: this is an unreasonably large amount of homebrew. We're talking multiple pages just to list the statblock of the deities (alignment, favored weapon, domains, subdomains). This is a huge amount of work that you could have spent on other parts of your campaign.

Moreover, this is incredibly wasteful for a homebrew world. Such a huge amount of deities (or religious sub-faiths, in the case of your Sun/Moon example) will never see significant use in a campaign. The number of deities should be driven by the narrative needs of your campaign and world, not the need to provide players with access to all the mechanical options. It takes time and creative energy away from where it's needed, and adds relatively little as most of them will just bland entries that exist solely to fill mechanical niches for clerics.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The fact is as a GM if you’re going with a custom setting, or adapting an existing campaign setting from another game you are obliged to do some design work.

Such designs should add to your campaign world, not be obligatory because some game mechanics demand them....

Here's an idea to balance player choice with not making you do more work than you want: Make however many deities you actually want to make that are important to your story. Give them domains, anathemas, and favored weapons as you deem appropriate. Lightly encourage players to pick one of these as their deity because it ties in best with the story.

If a player doesn't want to use those deities for whatever reason, be it mechanical or story driven, let them pick the mechanics of a pre-existing Golarion deity. (The assumption here is that the Golarion gods are decently well balanced against each other and your custom gods.) Don't let them mix and match features. Maybe make an exception for the actual tenants and anathemas-- see below.

Once they have picked their god mechanic set, the two of you can figure out who this god is in the story. Maybe they are a full blown card carrying member of the Major Pantheon. Maybe they are some kind of minor deity. Maybe they are a particular aspect of one of your pre-existing gods. Maybe they are not exactly a god at all, but something masquerading as one. See what fits! Shelyn's abilities seem like they could be pretty easily re-flavored away from being focused on art and beauty and more towards practical craftsmanship to support your community.

This approach means you don't have to do extra work by default, only if a player chooses to go down this path. And it makes the conversation with the player about story and world building, which is infinitely preferable to haggling over spells and what not. It will probably lead to your player having more investment in your world too, since they helped create a small part of it!

Here's an idea to balance player choice with not making you do more work than you want: Make however many deities you actually want to make that are important to your story. Give them domains, anathemas, and favored weapons as you deem appropriate. Lightly encourage players to pick one of these as their deity because it ties in best with the story.

If a player doesn't want to use those deities for whatever reason, be it mechanical or story driven, let them pick the mechanics of a pre-existing Golarion deity. (The assumption here is that the Golarion gods are decently well balanced against each other and your custom gods.) Don't let them mix and match features. Maybe make an exception for the actual tenants and anathemas-- see below.

Once they have picked their god mechanic set, the two of you can figure out who this god is in the story. Maybe they are a full blown card carrying member of the Major Pantheon. Maybe they are some kind of minor deity. Maybe they are a particular aspect of one of your pre-existing gods. Maybe they are not exactly a god at all, but something masquerading as one. See what fits! Shelyn's abilities seem like they could be pretty easily re-flavored away from being focused on art and beauty and more towards practical craftsmanship to support your community.

This approach means you don't have to do extra work by default, only if a player chooses to go down this path. And it makes the conversation with the player about story and world building, which is infinitely preferable to haggling over spells and what not. It will probably lead to your player having more investment in your world too, since they helped create a small part of it!

Came here to say this and you already said it for me. :)

let them pick the mechanics of a pre-existing Golarion deity

So the solution to not wanting to play in Golarion is to use Golarion? You know what, fine. I know a lost cause when I see it. Fine, restrict players to using the statblocks of Golarion deities and figure out how to work that into the setting whenever it comes up.

But what about settings that make use of non-theistic clerics or otherwise do not have conventional pantheons? This doesn't mesh at all with my current campaign setting, where it's explicit that the specific manifestations of a cleric's powers (ie, domains) are unique to the individual.

Captain Morgan wrote:

let them pick the mechanics of a pre-existing Golarion deity

So the solution to not wanting to play in Golarion is to use Golarion? You know what, fine. I know a lost cause when I see it. Fine, restrict players to using the statblocks of Golarion deities and figure out how to work that into the setting whenever it comes up.

But what about settings that make use of non-theistic clerics or otherwise do not have conventional pantheons? This doesn't mesh at all with my current campaign setting, where it's explicit that the specific manifestations of a cleric's powers (ie, domains) are unique to the individual.

Ask the player which domains best represent the manifestation of the personal non-theistic beliefs? Then pick three spells in line with that at the same levels that deistic clerics get them. They don't get favoured weapons, which is a fair trade of to go without anathema's and alignment restrictions. Done. Not that hard.

EDIT: Although honestly this question is a bit like asking for a solution to Sorcerer spellcasting when you don't want bloodlines to exist, or how to you do Wizards if arcane magic is purely an expression of natural talent and not achievable by study or acumen.

Then pick three spells in line with that at the same levels that deistic clerics get them.

This is missing the entire point of my objection. I do not want to be obliged to create new homebrew - and potentially have to negotiate with the player if it's not to their liking or expectations - every time someone wants to play a cleric.

I like that players are in control of their own characters, that permission from the GM is a yay-or-nay as to whether a particular source is okay. Having to actively design part of the class features every time someone wants to play a certain class is a big downsides in my book, even if it's a relatively small part of the total picture.

Although honestly this question is a bit like asking for a solution to Sorcerer spellcasting when you don't want bloodlines to exist, or how to you do Wizards if arcane magic is purely an expression of natural talent and not achievable by study or acumen.

Not quite; a more apt comparison is if Sorcerers had to pick specific named ancestors from the Golarion universe and then chose bloodlines and other benefits based on that. These new cleric rules make decoupling them from Golarion more tricky than it was in PF1, where you basically didn't need to do anything since non-theistic clerics worked out of the box with no modifications.

Well... since deities are theoretically universal, just use Golarion deities in your homebrew. The drow society was built around Lolth across virtually every edition (to the extent that even Pathfinder drow have spider themes) and we somehow got by.

Alternatively... just let your players pick it all. Let them choose any spells, domains, favored weapon, with no edicts or anathema. Basically the same result as "clerics of a philosophy" anyway. And zero work for you.

Heck. Just ban clerics. Simplest possible option. Clerics of a philosophy were barely clerics anyway.

Alternatively... just let your players pick it all. Let them choose any spells, domains, favored weapon, with no edicts or anathema. Basically the same result as "clerics of a philosophy" anyway. And zero work for you.

Though, if you do do that, don't complain if the cleric ends up over-tuned in some regard.

If you're going to create a world, creating the religious framework for those classes is part of that crafting.

I hope some form of Pantheon Cleric is feasible in PF2

At which point Dasrak it seems like you want your cake and eat it too. You want all the benefits of homebrew without any of the (incredibly minimal) amount of work? That line of thinking would mean no RPG is sufficient as there is always going to be something that someone wants in their setting which isn't already covered in the rules.

I do not want to be obliged to create new homebrew

... but that's what's fun.

I'm always a bit befuddled by people who want to do games in a homebrew world but don't want to do the stuff like statting out the gods. Isn't doing stuff like that the whole point of doing a homebrew world?

Dasrak wrote:

I do not want to be obliged to create new homebrew

... but that's what's fun.

IF you have the:

A. Time
B. Creativity
C. Patience
D. Audience
E. Energy

to do so.

Otherwise, it's a lot of work for very little 'payoff'.

Deity quick spell suggestion: switch to domain spells. Most of the domains map to an old domain or subdomain. Most old domain spells map to new spells. Their first domain lets them pick three spells from the old domain.

IF you have the:

A. Time
B. Creativity
C. Patience
D. Audience
E. Energy

to do so.

Otherwise, it's a lot of work for very little 'payoff'.

If you lack these resources...why in the world are you doing homebrew?

I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, that's a serious question.

Eeh; in my experience players don't like reading about gods, so it's a waste of time to make them. Homebrew or printed gods either, they constantly misidentify even the ones their characters purport to worship. Mostly they get a one-sentence phrase that they identify with. "God of sex," "god of art," etc. and they create their own imagined deity which fits that theme and then make a character that would worship said deity. I've taken to just letting people make what they want and call it what they want.

The example in this post is good, it gives a rough outline of how a PC should behave, and enough information for us to construct an imagined goddess, so it'll be interesting to see how clerics end up in 2.0. Personally I'd like actual codes for the martial orders (cough, paladins, cough) buuut those're really secondary.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

IF you have the:

A. Time
B. Creativity
C. Patience
D. Audience
E. Energy

to do so.

Otherwise, it's a lot of work for very little 'payoff'.

If you lack these resources...why in the world are you doing homebrew?

I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, that's a serious question.

Yeah, the Audience is probably the hardest (getting to play enough to use all the material), but I take pleasure in homebrewing, converting, designing variants, etc, for the fun/pleasure of it.

Link to a thread for homebrew work discussion. It’s getting off-topic.

I just don't agree with "the system isn't allowed to have developed deity mechanics because it's more work for me if I decide not to use the published material". It seems like a big shame to make all clerics virtually identical, just because discarding the provided flavor and making your own takes more time and effort than you want to spend.

I'm always a bit befuddled by people who want to do games in a homebrew world but don't want to do the stuff like statting out the gods. Isn't doing stuff like that the whole point of doing a homebrew world?

It really depends on the story you're trying to tell and what you mean by "statting out."

I never tell stories where the gods are actively involved. They're beyond the daily interests and affairs of man. Also, their lack of involvement means some people might even choose to believe there are no gods.

I'm certainly not going to define their STR, DEX, etc. But I have given them names, descriptions, and mapped them to domains. I want them to fit into the lore and if PCs want to be somehow inspired by them, then that's great.

The bummer is that its a massive amount of work to make something like Hero Lab match up with a homebrew setting. Usually PCs just have to pick Golarion deities to make Hero Lab work, and then make notes about which deities in-game are actually involved.

I'm certainly not going to define their STR, DEX, etc. But I have given them names, descriptions, and mapped them to domains. I want them to fit into the lore and if PCs want to be somehow inspired by them, then that's great.

For the record, this is very much what I mean by 'statting out' in regards to deities.

The bummer is that its a massive amount of work to make something like Hero Lab match up with a homebrew setting. Usually PCs just have to pick Golarion deities to make Hero Lab work, and then make notes about which deities in-game are actually involved.

That sucks. Unfortunately as a non-user of Hero Lab I cannot comment beyond that.

That sucks. Unfortunately as a non-user of Hero Lab I cannot comment beyond that.

I'd speculate that without Hero Lab, the Pathfinder games in which I play/run would be using different rules.

Note also that this is something potentially subject to change in the playtest. If once the playtest is "out in the wild" the preponderance of opinion is that spells should be tied to domains instead of deities, that's only a couple hours of work on their part to fix. It's hardly fundamental to the system like the action economy and new math.

That said, I actually LIKE the concept of deity spells. Except I'd actually make it a 1-9 or at least 1-6 list per deity, instead of only 3 spells. :) My suggestion would be just work with a player if they want a God you didn't stat up, or alternatively if it goes to print with deity spells and you prefer domain spells / philosophy clerics just houserule domain spell lists.

I’m happy with the small number of spells. It’s less to consider, and not a big deal if the deity has awful ones.

Apparently losing Clerics that do not refer a specific deity (something that did exist in PF1) matters to some GMs and players

I think it should be easy to put a sidebar in the CRB with guidelines for this. I do not think this will lessen the fun of those who like Clerics of deities

Apparently losing Clerics that do not refer a specific deity (something that did exist in PF1) matters to some GMs and players

I think it should be easy to put a sidebar in the CRB with guidelines for this. I do not think this will lessen the fun of those who like Clerics of deities

I respect that desire, and I would be perfectly fine with a sidebar like that. It didn't bother me in PF1, and it wouldn't bother me here. ^_^

I just don't want the mechanics that differentiate one cleric from another to be watered down. I'm looking forward to a system where clerics of Desna are actually different from clerics of Asmodeus. The divine paragon archetype is the closest we've gotten in PF1.

Apparently losing Clerics that do not refer a specific deity (something that did exist in PF1) matters to some GMs and players

I think it should be easy to put a sidebar in the CRB with guidelines for this. I do not think this will lessen the fun of those who like Clerics of deities

That would be cool. Though can't see the sidebar giving suggestions much different than what folks have said and apparently that is still too much effort/not viable in some way.

Apparently losing Clerics that do not refer a specific deity (something that did exist in PF1) matters to some GMs and players

I think it should be easy to put a sidebar in the CRB with guidelines for this. I do not think this will lessen the fun of those who like Clerics of deities

Well if the game makes a provision (even optional) for allowing a Cleric to just fill in a belief or an alternative deity and then pick the domains from the list, then Hero Lab stands a good chance of supporting that, which means homebrew games with custom deities might not be left out in the cold for automation.

Artificial 20 wrote:

Imagine a cleric of Shelyn sees someone peacefully destroying art and can only stop them by striking first.

Actually, that's quite interesting. Challenging one via ethical dilemmas can make for fantastic roleplaying scenarios.

The Cleric has mere moments to decide which of the two tenants of Shelyn would be most forgivable to break. Assuming Shelyn doesn't already have an established priority of her ethos, of course.

That's a better reply than my post deserved, as were several others.

Being more explorative, I feel an important question is: should violating one's anathema be seen as an occupational hazard or a personal choice? In other words is it something the player/character does, but knowing how to avoid the violation and being able to, yet deciding to break for the sake of something more personally important to them? Or is it something the GM does, presenting a no-win situation where 2 or more anathema are mutually exclusive in the circumstances, and sometimes you lose your deity's power and have to work to restore it, the same way that sometimes the fighter's magic weapon is eaten by a rust monster and then they have to replace it?

The position on that principle seems prudent to establish, since mechanics are an effort to implement principles, to stating them up front has merit.

Being more explorative, I feel an important question is: should violating one's anathema be seen as an occupational hazard or a personal choice? In other words is it something the player/character does, but knowing how to avoid the violation and being able to, yet deciding to break for the sake of something more personally important to them? Or is it something the GM does, presenting a no-win situation where 2 or more anathema are mutually exclusive in the circumstances, and sometimes you lose your deity's power and have to work to restore it, the same way that sometimes the fighter's magic weapon is eaten by a rust monster and then they have to replace it?

In practice, it will generally work out better if it is something the player/character does. The player is more likely to be both entertained and feel empowered.

The GM ramming a significant change down a player's throat rarely goes down well. It can happen, but usually after some kind of discussion with the player ... "Hey, I considering a story line where you end up in a moral dilemma. Can you handle some consequences knowing that it can all work out in the end?" ... which essentially turn it into a player choice again.

I'd also point out that a fighter losing their best weapon is in no way close to a Cleric losing favour. The fighter can still leverage any/most of their class features just by picking up another weapon (likely readily available, if not minimal cost.) Yeah they might be down some damage and to hit bonuses for a bit but they still get to fundamentally be a Fighter. The Cleric however is basically not a Cleric anymore.

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

Sure, but they still have all their class features. A fighter losing a weapon hurts, but they get to still apply their Fighter awesomeness to whatever they hold in their hands. If a cleric loses everything divenly appointed (I hope not) then they have lost everything from their class that isn't something other classes get.

Planpanther wrote:

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

Sure, but they still have all their class features. A fighter losing a weapon hurts, but they get to still apply their Fighter awesomeness to whatever they hold in their hands. If a cleric loses everything divenly appointed (I hope not) then they have lost everything from their class that isn't something other classes get.

Fighters have awesomeness? Not seeing it from that ermm smelly thing of a preview.

Malk_Content wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

Sure, but they still have all their class features. A fighter losing a weapon hurts, but they get to still apply their Fighter awesomeness to whatever they hold in their hands. If a cleric loses everything divenly appointed (I hope not) then they have lost everything from their class that isn't something other classes get.

Fighters have awesomeness? Not seeing it from that ermm smelly thing of a preview.

Yup! It hasn't been revealed what something like Legendary proficiency in a weapon can get you but I'm pretty sure it'll be awesome. I mean Legendary Reflex turns your outcomes on a Reflex Save, by default, from Crit Fail, Fail, Success and Crit Success to Fail and Crit Success. Pretty awesome.

Asgetrion wrote:

but I find Indulgence and Zeal to be odd choices for "primary" domains. At least as domain names, if not for what they mechanically represent; aren't all adventuring clerics more or less zealous?

Clerics may generally be zealous, but there are deities that really focus on that. Iomedae will probably have more zealous clergy members than, say, the more laid-back Caydenites. Indulgence makes sense to me. You could call it Hedonism instead if you wanted, but that's a little more negative.

Asgetrion wrote:

It's probably already been pointed out more than a few times, but if subdomains have been weeded out of the game mechanics (in the sense that they've become "actual" domains), doesn't all clerics of the same deity actually have *less* choice to differentiate themselves from their fellow brethren? We used to get 5 domains per deity, plus 6 subdomains, and now it's just 4 domains and that's it?

Shelyn gets 4 to start, but she'll probably get more. Subdomains were a later addition, after all.

I don't think Shelyn will get more; she or any of the other deities didn't get any new domains or subdomains since core rulebook and APG. Nor were any of them replaced with ones that would have made more sense, such as the Stars subdomain for Desna. I don't Paizo is a big fan of "retconning" stuff, but they probably feel the 3E list for not ideal for their own pantheon. That is the whole point of rewriting the domains, to make them better fit the portfolios of the Golarion powers, and most subdomains were scrapped while others were "elevated" to full-fledged domains on the new list.

As for Zeal and Indulgence, yeah, it's true that some clerics are more zealous and hedonistic than others. I still don't approve of those two, since I feel domains should be broad concepts that easily fit multiple deities (War, Peace, Death, Life/Healing, Sun, Moon, Darkness, Destruction, Protection, Magic, etcetera), and IMO subdomains or some other similar subsystem is a better tool for "finetuning" spells and domain powers to fit each deity's portfolio.

I had high hopes for class feats and using them to really differentiate between characters of the same class, and perhaps even gaining access to archetypes that bring even more depth and variation to abilities. However, based on these blog previews I'm beginning to suspect I might actually have to spend the first few ones just to pick up the abilities (such as my cleric's second domain or alchemist's 'Throw Anything' class feature) my low-level character already had in PF1! And to me that'd feel extremely underwhelming and counter-intuitive. I don't think this was done to dismantle constructed class features to enable more freedom or tinkering with each character; I suspect it was primarily due to avoid "frontloading" abilities for multiclassing PCs, but I might be wrong, of course. This does beg the question, however: would it be totally out of the question for PF2 to use Unchained or 4E style multiclassing?

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

Sure, but they still have all their class features. A fighter losing a weapon hurts, but they get to still apply their Fighter awesomeness to whatever they hold in their hands. If a cleric loses everything divenly appointed (I hope not) then they have lost everything from their class that isn't something other classes get.

Fighters have awesomeness? Not seeing it from that ermm smelly thing of a preview.

Yup! It hasn't been revealed what something like Legendary proficiency in a weapon can get you but I'm pretty sure it'll be awesome. I mean Legendary Reflex turns your outcomes on a Reflex Save, by default, from Crit Fail, Fail, Success and Crit Success to Fail and Crit Success. Pretty awesome.

I think you might have a low bar for what is considered "awesome".

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

Sure, but they still have all their class features. A fighter losing a weapon hurts, but they get to still apply their Fighter awesomeness to whatever they hold in their hands. If a cleric loses everything divenly appointed (I hope not) then they have lost everything from their class that isn't something other classes get.

Fighters have awesomeness? Not seeing it from that ermm smelly thing of a preview.

Yup! It hasn't been revealed what something like Legendary proficiency in a weapon can get you but I'm pretty sure it'll be awesome. I mean Legendary Reflex turns your outcomes on a Reflex Save, by default, from Crit Fail, Fail, Success and Crit Success to Fail and Crit Success. Pretty awesome.

So, "awesome" in this case is, essentially, the PF1 Monk and Rogue's evasion ability?

If that's par for the course than I assume that Legendary Weapon proficiency will grant you the effects of the PF1 Weapon Specialization feat.

I'm not sure how I feel about Cleric alignments no longer being "within one step" of their Deity's alignment.

Whoa, that would be disappointing, where was that stated?

MidsouthGuy wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about Cleric alignments no longer being "within one step" of their Deity's alignment.

Whoa, that would be disappointing, where was that stated?

It's in the Cleric blog. Each deity now specifies valid alignments for their priests - for example, Shelyn allows LG, NG, and CG (but not N).

Weather Report wrote:

MidsouthGuy wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about Cleric alignments no longer being "within one step" of their Deity's alignment.

Whoa, that would be disappointing, where was that stated?

It's in the Cleric blog. Each deity now specifies valid alignments for their priests - for example, Shelyn allows LG, NG, and CG (but not N).

Ah, okay, at least you get a choice, and obviously now on a different axis (any good, in this case).

I'm beginning to suspect I might actually have to spend the first few ones just to pick up the abilities (such as my cleric's second domain or alchemist's 'Throw Anything' class feature) my low-level character already had in PF1! And to me that'd feel extremely underwhelming and counter-intuitive. I don't think this was done to dismantle constructed class features to enable more freedom or tinkering with each character;

From a design perspective, you can't just stack more and more stuff on top of the 1E class. Why is it underwhelming to start with basically the lowest common denominator of the archetypes and letting you buy the features to add on to that? It looks like it will provide more freedom and tinkering.

It does provide more freedom, but to someone coming from P1e, it might make low-level characters feel stripped-down in comparison, especially to those "converting" or re-creating a favorite PC.

If you're used to getting, say, six fixed abilities at character creation and now you can pick any three you want out of ten, yes, the class is more customized, but you have fewer features in total to manipulate. Or, in other words, character creation and leveling involves more tinkering, but the actual play in between levels involves less: you have more actions per round but fewer options to choose between for what to do with them.

It won't be an issue at all to people who have never played P1e. For those of us who have, I think it's inevitable that we'll be comparing what level we have to be to get all our favorite features from the previous edition. The playtest will show whether the overall game is improved enough that that's a trade-off people are willing to make.

Malk_Content wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

IDK, going from a +x weapon can reduce a fighters damage by a lot in PF2. We dont even know the penalty for anathema yet, if any.

Sure, but they still have all their class features. A fighter losing a weapon hurts, but they get to still apply their Fighter awesomeness to whatever they hold in their hands. If a cleric loses everything divenly appointed (I hope not) then they have lost everything from their class that isn't something other classes get.

Fighters have awesomeness? Not seeing it from that ermm smelly thing of a preview.

Yup! It hasn't been revealed what something like Legendary proficiency in a weapon can get you but I'm pretty sure it'll be awesome. I mean Legendary Reflex turns your outcomes on a Reflex Save, by default, from Crit Fail, Fail, Success and Crit Success to Fail and Crit Success. Pretty awesome.

I think you might have a low bar for what is considered "awesome".

Given the new paradigm of tiers of success. Yes, yes I do. That no matter how skilled a wizard you are up against they can never do double damage to you with a fireball and have a 50% increased chance to just outright ignore the spell. Or if you have Legendary Will, you can shake off the charms of the most seductive devil to ever exist. Yeah so it is awesome.

It does provide more freedom, but to someone coming from P1e, it might make low-level characters feel stripped-down in comparison, especially to those "converting" or re-creating a favorite PC.

If you're used to getting, say, six fixed abilities at character creation and now you can pick any three you want out of ten, yes, the class is more customized, but you have fewer features in total to manipulate. Or, in other words, character creation and leveling involves more tinkering, but the actual play in between levels involves less: you have more actions per round but fewer options to choose between for what to do with them.

It won't be an issue at all to people who have never played P1e. For those of us who have, I think it's inevitable that we'll be comparing what level we have to be to get all our favorite features from the previous edition. The playtest will show whether the overall game is improved enough that that's a trade-off people are willing to make.

This pretty well encapsulates my concerns with the new class design. I don't want my character to feel less powerful or have less in play options at level 1.

Hopefully things like active shield usage and combat maneuvers being viable out of the box alleviates this, though. And that assumes the characters actually wind up with less features at level 1. I'm worried they will, but I don't think we will know it until we actually get the playtest, or at least a level 1 character sheet to compare.

So I was reading through the Paladin thread and thinking about how characters could be ported over from PF1. It occurred to me that I dig Shoanti divine casters. Are we going to see Quah Totems in core? If not, I hope we get them soon. Or will Totems be some kind of Druid thing?

Totems will probably be a Barbarian thing, since they're a popular mechanic in PF1.

Totems will probably be a Barbarian thing, since they're a popular mechanic in PF1.

Yeah, but the Shoanti totems encompass the role of gods for the Shoanti of Golarion, too. Clerics and Oracles can draw power from them as though they were gods, although druids and shamans seem to be more common.

Man, the shaman might be top 3 RP losses for the new edition. That and the Oracle both fit this specific story role that is a little tricky to emulate with the druid and cleric.

Though, if in a relatively soon past launch book shaman and oracle both were to appear, tuned to support themselves rather than shaman being a hybrid class...