Eminent Domains

Friday, April 27, 2018

Deities and their domains are a big part of what makes clerics special. Logan set the stage with his cleric blog on Monday, so now let's get into the weeds and take a look at how we structured deities and domains.

Basic Deities

For each deity, we present some basic information, including areas of concern, titles, alignment, edicts, anathema, and favored weapon. Most of these are familiar or self-explanatory. One of the newer entries, anathema, is a concept Logan mentioned on Monday. This entry provides examples of actions that violate the deity's tenets. Let's take Shelyn as an example.

Shelyn

The Eternal Rose is the goddess of art, beauty, love, and music. She seeks to one day redeem her corrupted brother Zon-Kuthon.

Alignment NG
Edicts be peaceful, choose and perfect an art, lead by example, see the beauty in all things
Anathema destroy works of art or allow one to be destroyed except to save a life or in pursuit of greater art, refuse to accept surrender, strike first
Favored Weapon glaive

This entry gives you a good idea of how to play a Shelynite PC of any class. For example, a fighter faithful Shelyn might consider wielding her goddess's favored weapon, and even lay followers would likely feel terrible guilt at committing anathema acts even though they face no mechanical consequence for doing so. But what kind of cool stuff do you get if you're a cleric of a specific deity?

Clerics and Deities

Your choice of deity is essential when determining what type of cleric you play. A free-spirited and optimistic Desnan cleric, a tyrannical and scheming Asmodean, and a self-reliant perfectionist Iroran all relate to the world in different ways. We wanted to reflect this with a variety of character customization options based on deity! We've included a chart that indicates each deity's areas of concern, alignment (and the alignments allowed for their clerics), type of channeled energy (positive, negative, or either), signature skill, favored weapon, domains, and spells. For instance, here's Shelyn's entry on that table:

ShelynArt, beauty, love, and musicNG (LG, NG, CG)PositiveCraftingGlaiveCreation, family,
passion, protection
1st: color spray,
3rd: enthrall, 4th: creation

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

The deity's areas of concern include a brief restatement of her titles.

You'll notice the alignment lists not only Shelyn's alignment of neutral good, but also all the alignments her clerics could have in parentheses. Listing it this way allows us (or you, for your own deities) to be more expressive when creating deities. For instance, Norgorber now has slightly different alignments permitted for his clerics depending on which aspect of the deity they worship! Or, you could create a new deity of balance through opposing extremes who accepts only neutral, lawful good, chaotic good, chaotic evil, and lawful evil clerics.

Listing the type of channeled energy the deity grants allows for some really exciting situations. For instance, Lamasthu may be an incredibly evil deity of nightmares, but she's also a deity of the wild fecundity of the Abyss, so she allows her clerics to choose negative or positive energy when channeling. You could even have a good deity that granted only negative energy (none of the core deities worshiped in the Inner Sea region of Golarion do so, but it could be possible for a deity like Tsukiyo, perhaps, as part of his dualism with Shizuru) or an evil deity that could grant only positive energy.

The deity's signature skill is in addition to those all clerics gain, so Shelynite clerics always have the ability to reach great heights in Crafting. Norgorberite clerics, in contrast, gain Stealth in order to blend into the shadows, allowing them to fit in well with clandestine groups.

What about those spells at the end? Those are three extra spells that all clerics of Shelyn can prepare and cast! These aren't in any sort of special "domain slots" like before; you can cast them as few or as many times as you want. Oh, and Sarenrae has fireball!

But wait, Mark, what about...

Domains

Pathfinder First Edition has a list of domains that cover a variety of basic concepts but miss others entirely, and they are fairly generic, which means they don't always convey the nuance of why your deity has that domain. A great example of this was the Death domain and all its undead spells not really fitting with Pharasma, the goddess of death who hates undead.

One of the earliest and coolest innovations to domains in Pathfinder appeared in the Advanced Player's Guide, where subdomains altered domains to add nuance. In the playtest, we're bringing in that sort of flexibility right away! Each domain has a basic power and an advanced power, and because domain powers work as spells, creating a new domain that's perfect for your world is as simple as adding two spells. This allowed us to include significantly more domains in the game and will allow us to expand to even more domains with ease. Here's the list of new domains that don't share a name with any of the old domains (some names you might recognize from subdomains):

  • Ambition
  • Cities
  • Confidence
  • Creation
  • Dreams
  • Family
  • Fate
  • Freedom
  • Indulgence
  • Light
  • Might
  • Moon
  • Nature
  • Nightmares
  • Pain
  • Passion
  • Perfection
  • Secrecy
  • Truth
  • Tyranny
  • Undeath
  • Wealth
  • Zeal

These domains allow for a variety of powers that can really give you the feel of playing a cleric of a specific deity, both in combat and out! For example, take a look at this fun noncombat basic power from the Indulgence domain:

Enhance Victuals (Transmutation) Power 1

Casting 1 minute (Material, Somatic, Verbal Casting)
Range touch; Target 1 nonmagical pint of water or pound of food

You transform the target into delicious fare, changing water into wine or another fine beverage or enhancing food's taste and ingredients to make it a gourmet treat. The transformation also attempts to counteract toxins in the food or water. If you have Spell Points, you can add an additional pint or pound for each additional Spell Point you spend. The feast vanishes if not consumed.

Heightened (+1) Increase initial and additional pints or pounds by 1.

So if you're a cleric of Cayden Cailean or Urgathoa, you're going to be able to party in style. Since powers are automatically heightened as you gain levels, that means for just 1 Spell Point, a 7th-level cleric can make enough gourmet food for her whole adventuring party to have a meal, and they'll be able to throw a banquet to serve an incredible number of guests if they pour plenty of Spell Points into it during downtime. That's all with only 1 minute to prepare, making them a wonderful host for any occasion!

Meanwhile, the Fate domain has an advanced power that might come in handy in a clutch. But I'll ask you before we dive in—are you feeling lucky?

Tempt Fate (divination, Fortune) Power 2

Casting [[F]] Somatic free action; Trigger You or an ally within range attempts a saving throw.
Range 120 feet; Target you or a willing ally in range

If the triggering saving throw's result is a success, it counts as a critical success. If it's a failure, it counts as a critical failure, and the critical failure can't be reduced by abilities that usually reduce critical failure, such as improved evasion. If the triggering ability did not have both a critical success and critical failure condition, tempt fate fails and your Spell Point is refunded.

With tempt fate, you take your fate into your own hands, promising either total vindication from your saving throw or total disaster! This was a favorite of Jason's cleric of Pharasma in one of our playtests, and needless to say, it's a better choice to use this for your strong saving throws than your weak ones.

But what about Shelyn? Let's close by taking a look at two of the powers from her granted domains, one for in combat and one for outside of combat:

Unity (Abjuration, Fortune) Power 2

Casting [[R]] Verbal reaction; Trigger You and one or more allies within range are targeted by a spell or ability that allows a saving throw.
Range 30 feet

You allow your allies within range to use your saving throw modifier instead of their own. Each ally decides individually which modifier to use.

Unity is really useful for a support cleric with good saving throw modifiers, and it's particularly great for those dangerous area effects that require Will saving throws like a harpy's song, since few allies will be able to match your cleric's Will modifier!

Artistic Flourish (Transmutation) Power 2

Casting 10 minutes (Material, Somatic, Verbal)
Range touch; Target one item or work of art
Duration 24 hours

You infuse the target with artisanal and artistic vision. Its quality increases to match your proficiency rank in Crafting, to a maximum of expert. The target is a beautiful and impressive piece for its new quality, but the effect is obviously temporary, so it can't be sold for more than normal. This doesn't allow you to use the target to Craft a magic item that requires the new quality or perform any other task requiring a permanent item of that quality.

Heightened (4th) If you spend 1 additional Spell Point, the maximum quality increases to master.
Heightened (8th) If you spend 2 additional Spell Points, the maximum quality increases to legendary.

Not only is artistic flourish a great way to express your character's inner artisan, but it can also be of great use in a pinch when you could really use a very specific tool or item of high quality. Legendary-quality items aren't cheap, after all! This is also a great example of one way that using Spell Points allows us to play around a bit more and make the spell more interesting by varying costs. You saw this a bit earlier with enhance victuals, but here it's more than just the ability to save extra castings for a large batch. These sorts of flourishes are possible to word under a "uses per day" system, but it's awkward, and they're straightforward to create and easy to understand with a Spell Point pool.

So who's your favorite deity? What sorts of new domains can you imagine with this new system? Let me know in the comments below!

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
201 to 250 of 554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

What does "strike first" mean in this context? Are clerics of Shelyn going to stand aside and do nothing because a kidnapper grabbed a child and ran off without actually striking anyone?

If a Cleric of Shelyn comes across a group of mindless Skeletons can they not drop a mass heal on them in the first round and instead have to wait for them to attack first?

What if you track down a group of evil mercenaries who attacked you a few days ago and find them sleeping? Will you have to wake them up and give them a free shot before you can do anything?

If your buddy is being stabbed repeatedly by a group of Kobolds who saw your Holy Symbol are you going to be able to do nothing but heal/buff your ally as long as the Kobolds leave you alone?

Using just a bit of common sense...

If somebody grabs a child, that would be reason to attack.

The skeletons would depend on your Gm. If you can't strike first even against nonliving/nonhostile entities, buff, ignore them since they are nonhostile, wait on another instigate combat. You have more than a few options.

Finding sleeping opponents? Well, rather than hacking them up in their sleep, call out and demand surrender. Or draw a pretty picture while the Rogue gets his chance to shine.

If the Kobolds are attacking your party, that's a pretty good sign they are free game.

YMMV but I don't think most GM's are going to make the God's act like idiots and turn Anathema into PF2's addition to Paladin circlejerk games.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?

Common sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

What about Philosophies or Forces?

Does anyone still worship those anymore?

Doubtful. Paizo has always said that the "philosophies" thing for Cleric was an unfortunate holdover from 3E, and that Clerics on Golarion must worship a god. So I'd expect that to be the default for the PF2 Core book.

For further clarification, the reason for this is because Razmir's Cult of the Living God doesn't really work if you can get divine power from a philosophy. In such a setting Razmir would be a deity for all practical purposes rather than his position as the World's Greatest Long Con.


Loving this new info about deities and domain, especially edicts/anathema giving more information about what a deity expects of their followers.

While I was slightly worried about only seeing four domains for Sheyln, I did notice the distinct lack of a “good” domain on her list. Hopefully that means an end to mandatory alignment domains? Honestly, alignment domains just made non-neutral deities seem less interesting and varied.

Liking some of the new domain names, and love the idea of it being easier to add to the list of domains in the future. Concepts like Agriculture, Fertility, Hunting, Time, Prophecy, etc. are widespread among pantheons, but sadly lacking representation among Pathfinder domains since they don’t conform to your standard murderhobo PCs. Hopefully they can at least be added one day even if they aren’t in core, but that does bring up the issue of what happens to existing deity lists when new domains are created. Will some deities just get more domains than others when new domains are created? Or will older deities end up not having access to new stuff?

Also, a bit sad to see no mention of obediences, boons, or divine fighting techniques. I loved the flavor they added along with the ability for non-clerics to get some kind of unique mechanical effect from having a deity. Would have been nice to see them bundled into core so that all deities would be guaranteed to get them as they were updated to 2E.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
eddv wrote:

I want you to understand how overwhelmingly silly that sounds.

"These are spells, but you dont use your spells to cast them, you use your spell points."

That is like...not in any way intuitive.

We've been doing it for almost two decades with spell-like abilities.

Now you don't need two sets of feats to use metamagic. Or consult that one chart to see how spells/spell-like abilities/supernatural abilities all differ. They don't any more. They're all spells.

This comment actually makes me wonder if the supernatural martials (Monk and Barbarian) will use spell points for their abilities...

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Also, a bit sad to see no mention of obediences, boons, or divine fighting techniques. I loved the flavor they added along with the ability for non-clerics to get some kind of unique mechanical effect from having a deity. Would have been nice to see them bundled into core so that all deities would be guaranteed to get them as they were updated to 2E.

Specific deity feats were something we considered adding to the playtest, actually for quite some time, but with 20 of them there just isn't enough space to do them justice without making all the other feat options really lacking, which would be a big problem for someone who wants to play a cleric of another deity (or make up their own gods).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

strike 1st is easy ...she does not want her followers to start fights ,just finish them :)
as the others have said basic common sense.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Also, a bit sad to see no mention of obediences, boons, or divine fighting techniques. I loved the flavor they added along with the ability for non-clerics to get some kind of unique mechanical effect from having a deity. Would have been nice to see them bundled into core so that all deities would be guaranteed to get them as they were updated to 2E.
Specific deity feats were something we considered adding to the playtest, actually for quite some time, but with 20 of them there just isn't enough space to do them justice without making all the other feat options really lacking, which would be a big problem for someone who wants to play a cleric of another deity (or make up their own gods).

Excited for a PF2 Big Book O' Gods if/when we get one


Mark Seifter wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Also, a bit sad to see no mention of obediences, boons, or divine fighting techniques. I loved the flavor they added along with the ability for non-clerics to get some kind of unique mechanical effect from having a deity. Would have been nice to see them bundled into core so that all deities would be guaranteed to get them as they were updated to 2E.
Specific deity feats were something we considered adding to the playtest, actually for quite some time, but with 20 of them there just isn't enough space to do them justice without making all the other feat options really lacking, which would be a big problem for someone who wants to play a cleric of another deity (or make up their own gods).

I agree that specific deity feats would be best left for a splatbook; what I would still really like to see as a core feature is a general feat that gives you a few of the standard cleric benefits (say 1st level domain power and proficiency in either the god's skill or weapon) for your chosen deity.


I would have liked to see more than 2 powers per domain but it sounds like the dreaded Page Count is the villain here.

I woooouuuuuulllllld be willing to pay a few dollars more if the book ended up a couple dozen pages thicker... :3


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?
Common sense.

LOL That thing that has brought us years of paladin debates...

Most of the blog seems fine. A few question/comments though:

Alignment: It saddens me we still have this in the game... :P

Somatic free action: So does this mean I have to have a hand free to tempt fate? So no weapon and shield or two handed weapon use.

EDIT: Weight: are we having bulk AND weight? Can we expect to see both listed or will it just randomly switch between the two?

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Also, a bit sad to see no mention of obediences, boons, or divine fighting techniques. I loved the flavor they added along with the ability for non-clerics to get some kind of unique mechanical effect from having a deity. Would have been nice to see them bundled into core so that all deities would be guaranteed to get them as they were updated to 2E.
Specific deity feats were something we considered adding to the playtest, actually for quite some time, but with 20 of them there just isn't enough space to do them justice without making all the other feat options really lacking, which would be a big problem for someone who wants to play a cleric of another deity (or make up their own gods).
I agree that specific deity feats would be best left for a splatbook; what I would still really like to see as a core feature is a general feat that gives you a few of the standard cleric benefits (say 1st level domain power and proficiency in either the god's skill or weapon) for your chosen deity.

I'm not saying there isn't something like this, to be clear, just not individualized deity feats.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?
Common sense.

We're dealing with gamers here, common sense isn't all that common.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?
Common sense.

Common sense is not universal, that is why we have so many threads on alignment and paladins falling. Some people/GMs have different ideas of what would be ok in different situations. I would think most GMs would be ok with attacking undead on site but with the current info a cleric of Shelyn who attacked a group of skeletons that was just standing around doing nothing is in violation of the Anathama.

Edit: And could be destroying someones property depending on where they are. LOL

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?
Common sense.
We're dealing with gamers here, common sense isn't all that common.

It doesn't have it be. As long as there is common sense between you and the GM, it doesn't matter what some forum poster says.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

What does "strike first" mean in this context? Are clerics of Shelyn going to stand aside and do nothing because a kidnapper grabbed a child and ran off without actually striking anyone?

If a Cleric of Shelyn comes across a group of mindless Skeletons can they not drop a mass heal on them in the first round and instead have to wait for them to attack first?

What if you track down a group of evil mercenaries who attacked you a few days ago and find them sleeping? Will you have to wake them up and give them a free shot before you can do anything?

If your buddy is being stabbed repeatedly by a group of Kobolds who saw your Holy Symbol are you going to be able to do nothing but heal/buff your ally as long as the Kobolds leave you alone?

Using just a bit of common sense...

If somebody grabs a child, that would be reason to attack.

Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.

Quote:
The skeletons would depend on your Gm. If you can't strike first even against nonliving/nonhostile entities, buff, ignore them since they are nonhostile, wait on another instigate combat. You have more than a few options.

The skeletons rolls crits, you die.

Quote:


Finding sleeping opponents? Well, rather than hacking them up in their sleep, call out and demand surrender. Or draw a pretty picture while the Rogue gets his chance to shine.

You adventure with someone who stabs people in their sleep?!? You fall.

Quote:
If the Kobolds are attacking your party, that's a pretty good sign they are free game.

They didn't attack you, so you shouldn't attack them, you fall.

Quote:
YMMV but I don't think most GM's are going to make the God's act like idiots and turn Anathema into PF2's addition to Paladin circlejerk games.

They absolutely will if there's room for it to happen.

Things like "Never Strike First" are both vague enough to be open to interpretation and specific enough to be treated as a hard and fast law of the deity.

Things like "accepting surrender" are just going to devolve into PvP when the cleric accepts the surrender of someone who is just going to betray/kill the party the first chance they get for the 10th time and they finally get sick of it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?
Common sense.
We're dealing with gamers here, common sense isn't all that common.
It doesn't have it be. As long as there is common sense between you and the GM, it doesn't matter what some forum poster says.

Common sense to you might mean one thing, common sense to my GM might be the exact opposite.

"Walking a righteous path isn't supposed to be easy, and to deserve the divine power they grant means making sacrifices. Your deity wouldn't tell you to not strike first if they didn't explicitly mean to never strike first under any circumstance. If they meant that you could strike first in defense of an ally or an innocent, they'd have said so, not left it open to interpretation."

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

What does "strike first" mean in this context? Are clerics of Shelyn going to stand aside and do nothing because a kidnapper grabbed a child and ran off without actually striking anyone?

If a Cleric of Shelyn comes across a group of mindless Skeletons can they not drop a mass heal on them in the first round and instead have to wait for them to attack first?

What if you track down a group of evil mercenaries who attacked you a few days ago and find them sleeping? Will you have to wake them up and give them a free shot before you can do anything?

If your buddy is being stabbed repeatedly by a group of Kobolds who saw your Holy Symbol are you going to be able to do nothing but heal/buff your ally as long as the Kobolds leave you alone?

Using just a bit of common sense...

If somebody grabs a child, that would be reason to attack.

Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.

Sir, that person committed an aggressive action. You are allowed to fight them.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Common sense to you might mean one thing, common sense to my GM might be the exact opposite.

You understand this, and yet you still haven't picked up on it yet.


Looks great.

Really happy to see that free actions exist. That means that there can be spells that are a bit weak, but do not cost a valuable action or reaction, therefore are always worth casting if you have enough resources.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Catharsis wrote:


I agree with everyone and their dog about how spell points are an utterly nonsensical term, given that «spell» makes people think of conventional (non-power) spells. The whole point of these points is that they're exclusive to powers, so why on Golarion wouldn't you call them power points?!

I mentioned power points in a previous comment on a different blog. I think it is the perfect name for a pool of powers that can be used.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am thrilled by the Shelyn material, she really is my favorite Pathfinder God ^^


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do really hope that there is a way to play a PF2 Paladin that is thematically closer to an Oracle or Shaman in that they are devoted to fundamental truths or forces more than they are to gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zero the Nothing wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

What does "strike first" mean in this context? Are clerics of Shelyn going to stand aside and do nothing because a kidnapper grabbed a child and ran off without actually striking anyone?

If a Cleric of Shelyn comes across a group of mindless Skeletons can they not drop a mass heal on them in the first round and instead have to wait for them to attack first?

What if you track down a group of evil mercenaries who attacked you a few days ago and find them sleeping? Will you have to wake them up and give them a free shot before you can do anything?

If your buddy is being stabbed repeatedly by a group of Kobolds who saw your Holy Symbol are you going to be able to do nothing but heal/buff your ally as long as the Kobolds leave you alone?

Using just a bit of common sense...

If somebody grabs a child, that would be reason to attack.

Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.

Sir, that person committed an aggressive action. You are allowed to fight them.

They didn't grab you though, they grabbed someone else, sorry, you still can't attack them unless they attack you first. You fall.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Common sense to you might mean one thing, common sense to my GM might be the exact opposite.
You understand this, and yet you still haven't picked up on it yet.

I suppose not, so please edify me.


I am a bit lukewarm to this, but I like the condensed/clear format and the closer ties to the deities, (along with the ever-contentious impact of Alignment).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


Alignment: It saddens me we still have this in the game... :P

Right? The sacred cow that just will not die.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Without going too far into it, Ninja's point is essentially "May we PLEASE not have YET ANOTHER CLASS with Paladin issues"?

And yes, I'm forseeing the very things that Ninja is talking about happening at many tables, including Organized Play if things are not fleshed out better.

At least some pre-amble or the sort before the class of 'These are generalities, do not stand on the player creativity or hamstring them by producing asinine play combinations that are no fun for them.'

Or some sort of mitigator, because I'm really not looking forward to a decade of "Well, I *had* to stand there and let the person coup de gras the person we were trying to save because no one had struck first."


I like most of this. I love anathema and the way cleric alignments are being handled (opening up who paladins can serve). The deity spells are a bit sparse. But with heightening they'll be possible to use in more spell slots. But overall I like it.

The format for the powers isn't being formatted as they would in Pathfinder but instesd like magic items which may cause arch eyebrows in my group at first. But given the powers themselves aren't purely combat focused and some share strong similarities with Pathfinder 1e domain abilities I don't think this will be too much of a problem.

Given domains simply gate access to powers I can see how new powers can be introduced with ease. I don't see how new domains can be added to the game though if they couldn't be added in Pathfinder 1e (and I think they were adds in PF 1e?)


I do agree that the deity spells are a bit sparse, and it'd be nice to see a 1-9 list for each deity. Or at least a 1-6 list :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It doesn't have it be. As long as there is common sense between you and the GM, it doesn't matter what some forum poster says.

That's something you can do if you have a stable, continuous DM. This isn't quite as easy as you make it when you have a new DM all the time.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It doesn't have it be. As long as there is common sense between you and the GM, it doesn't matter what some forum poster says.
That's something you can do if you have a stable, continuous DM. This isn't quite as easy as you make it when you have a new DM all the time.

The first thing that a real life lawyer will tell you - don't use words like common sense, rational, or reasonable.

Those words have no meaning when dealing with the general public.

/shrug

The 'don't strike first' line shows they have no interest in fixing the Paladin issue - and in fact have no problem with making the issue much worse than it is/was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm a little disappointed that alignment is still on the 3x3 grid. I was hoping for something like the loyalty system from pathfinder unchained but built from the ground up.

I do like the deity and domain stuff that I'm seeing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It doesn't have it be. As long as there is common sense between you and the GM, it doesn't matter what some forum poster says.
That's something you can do if you have a stable, continuous DM. This isn't quite as easy as you make it when you have a new DM all the time.

The first thing that a real life lawyer will tell you - don't use words like common sense, rational, or reasonable.

Those words have no meaning when dealing with the general public.

/shrug

The 'don't strike first' line shows they have no interest in fixing the Paladin issue - and in fact have no problem with making the issue much worse than it is/was.

There's literally centuries of case law that's all about using the reasonable person standard. Lawyers use rational and reasonable all the time.

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It doesn't have it be. As long as there is common sense between you and the GM, it doesn't matter what some forum poster says.
That's something you can do if you have a stable, continuous DM. This isn't quite as easy as you make it when you have a new DM all the time.

The first thing that a real life lawyer will tell you - don't use words like common sense, rational, or reasonable.

Those words have no meaning when dealing with the general public.

/shrug

The 'don't strike first' line shows they have no interest in fixing the Paladin issue - and in fact have no problem with making the issue much worse than it is/was.

Is the paladin issue that some GMs and players are jerks?

There is no rule you can write that will fix this.

Not even "Don't be a jerk."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just watching the argument in the thread tells me that if someone wants you to fall, you are going to. The devs aren't going to be able to make some rule so that someone won't try to wiggle around it and so some GM or group of players won't find a reason to make someone fall/lose powers/etc.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I have had terrible GMs ruin games while running completely by RAW. The rules won't save you. You have to save yourself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Is the paladin issue that some GMs and players are jerks?

The issue is that the greater the vagueness is the greater the chances that people aren't going to be on the same page: alignment is vague enough that two people can look at a set of actions + intent and come up with wildly different ideas on what the alignment of it should be.

Of course, there ARE jerks around: They just add to an existing issue IMO and the vagueness allows them to feel they have a leg to stand on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:
If somebody grabs a child, that would be reason to attack.
Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Common sense to you might mean one thing, common sense to my GM might be the exact opposite.

If that is the approach your GM is taking might I suggest not playing the cleric? The GM is going to make the game quite unenjoyable* either because that's his playstyle or he just really dislikes the cleric as a class.

Alternatively if you are playing OP (because apparently everyone here except me plays PFS) you could petition PFS to address this in their organised play guide.

*If you enjoy that sort of gaming then by all means go for it. But I'd consider that a "gotcha" DM moment and not have fun. Of course, certain playstyles would consider my own version of gaming as being "Gotcha" DMing so it is very much a varies by taste thing rather than a binary "true/false" scenario.

graystone wrote:
Of course, there ARE jerks around: They just add to an existing issue IMO and the vagueness allows them to feel they have a leg to stand on.

Bad players don't need a "leg to stand on" to be bad. They're going to just be bad and they'll find any justification to do so. If your GM is borderline when it comes to alignment issues and codes of conduct: Outright tell him that you will not play any class that has such issues unless the two of you can come to some sort of agreement ahead of time.

Personally speaking: I've had bad DMs. I've had borderline DMs (DMs who would be good if not for some rule element that exacerbates all of their natural inclinations to make the game unfun). Both were equally unenjoyable to play with because no matter what the rules say (and trust me, 4e had no rules issues) they'll find something to get hung up on and make the game unfun.

Unfortunately being a good DM requires experience and lots of it (I'm not a great DM myself. I don't have enough experience). Nothing the rules do will make someone a better DM because there are too many scenarios that will crop up that the rules don't cover. Experience is what matters most (and that's after buying 4 DMGs or their equivalent. All of the advice they had were wasted pages IMO. What mattered in them was the rules content).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ooh, looks like the double brackets seem to indicate placeholders for a symbol (to refer to action economy). I hope this is the case!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Akvo wrote:
Ooh, looks like the double brackets seem to indicate placeholders for a symbol (to refer to action economy). I hope this is the case!

yep!

Mark Seifter wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
What's the [[F]] and [[R]] mean after casting entry for tempt fate and unity powers?
That's where the glyph for a free action / reaction goes!


So the Initiate feats from Player's Guide to Faerun (which granted diety-specific spells to forgotten realms dieties back in 3.0) makes a comeback. That's actually pretty cool - not new or innovative, but cool nonetheless.

Anathema: I've been house-ruling this sort of thing for years. Nice to see an official take on it.

Domain Powers: the ones previewed seem weak and boring to me. Hopefully they're not all as lame as those. Otherwise, I'll just have to port over the P1E domain powers.

Spell Pool: I'm kinda unclear on this. Is there a separate pool for using domain powers and channeling? or do all class features draw from the same spell pool?


Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:
Spell Pool: I'm kinda unclear on this. Is there a separate pool for using domain powers and channeling? or do all class features draw from the same spell pool?

My understanding is that, for Clerics at least, all your domain powers use a single metacurrency- Spell Points. Using a domain power costs 1 spell point, but you may have an option to spend more for a bigger effect.

Uses of channel energy are a separate pool.


I always loved the god of Halflings, but I also always love the gods who favour savagely combat weapons, like Axes and Spears. Nothing better than a holy magic pc who suddenly has proper damage on the table.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:


Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.

The skeletons rolls crits, you die.

You adventure with someone who stabs people in their sleep?!? You fall.

They didn't attack you, so you shouldn't attack them, you fall.

They absolutely will if there's room for it to happen.

Things like "Never Strike First" are both vague enough to be open to interpretation and specific enough...

That sounds a lot more like a douchebag GM problem than a rules one. My advice if you're playing with that guy is to get into a better group, and if you're that guy to be better so you don't find yourself sitting at a table by yourself.

Also, Shelyn notes you can destroy art and whatnot to save lives. Lives are important to her based on that tenet as well as her NG alignment. So using the intent of her values, she would want you to save the child or your party member.

Common sense prevails.

With that, if Paizo tightens up the language, great. If not, it's not a game breaking issue unless the GM is a clown.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel it might be able to help if Domain Powers were called Domain Spells instead. "Power" doesn't really describe well what they actually are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:


Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.

The skeletons rolls crits, you die.

You adventure with someone who stabs people in their sleep?!? You fall.

They didn't attack you, so you shouldn't attack them, you fall.

They absolutely will if there's room for it to happen.

Things like "Never Strike First" are both vague enough to be open to interpretation and specific enough...

That sounds a lot more like a douchebag GM problem than a rules one. My advice if you're playing with that guy is to get into a better group, and if you're that guy to be better so you don't find yourself sitting at a table by yourself.

Also, Shelyn notes you can destroy art and whatnot to save lives. Lives are important to her based on that tenet as well as her NG alignment. So using the intent of her values, she would want you to save the child or your party member.

Common sense prevails.

With that, if Paizo tightens up the language, great. If not, it's not a game breaking issue unless the GM is a clown.

I feel like Ninja's concern is more in the area of PFS. I don't play PFS, but I do understand the worry. Since rather than playing with a single GM who you can have a consistent understanding with and know how they interpret alignment and the world, you're stuck with whoever you get that night.

I have no idea what percentage of Pathfinder players actually play mostly in PFS rather than at home tables. But if it is any reasonably high percentage, it does make sense to be more clear in how ethos requirements like these are worded.

Silver Crusade

Meophist wrote:
I feel it might be able to help if Domain Powers were called Domain Spells instead. "Power" doesn't really describe well what they actually are.

I think I might agree. This might be one place where the standardize the names push should kick in. If it's a spell and you can't it with spell points why not call it a spell? (Especially since "domain spells" a la PF1 are out now.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

If that is the approach your GM is taking might I suggest not playing the cleric? The GM is going to make the game quite unenjoyable* either because that's his playstyle or he just really dislikes the cleric as a class.

Wouldn't it be awesome - if the GM didn't have the power to make the cleric suck even if he's a jerk, using the built in rules?

You know - like if you were playing a rogue, or a wizard, or a fighter?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I have had terrible GMs ruin games while running completely by RAW. The rules won't save you. You have to save yourself.

So the answer to bad or vague rules is that a good GM will work around them - and a bad GM will ruin the game even if they don't screw up the rules - and you should feel bad if you play in a game with a bad GM?

I mean - it sounds cute when you say it the way you did - but when you break it down it makes no sense. Again, wouldn't it make more sense to have rules that help mediocre or bad GMs become better, instead of being traps for them to fall into?

201 to 250 of 554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Eminent Domains All Messageboards