Eminent Domains

Aratrok wrote:

Tempt Fate is just... amazingly horrible. The example critical failures we've seen are crippling and often equivalent to failing versus save or lose/die effects in d20. Critical success is useful but not nearly as critical, like effectively having evasion versus a fireball. The ability would only be good if you could use it offensively, no ally in their right mind is going to be a willing target for that thing.

I mean, if you tempt fate foolishly, it sure is bad. If you're smart about it, it can be very helpful, though still not without risk. For instance, you might run across a saving throw you're really good at that you can make on a 3 and that has a problematic success effect. You would normally have 1/20 crit failure, 2/20 failure, 10/20 success, 7/20 crit success, but you can buy 10/20 more critical successes for only 2/20 more critical failures, generally worth it. Of course, for an extremely risk averse playstyle, it might not be worth it to you even if it's expected to be much better. It also depends on the difference between the critical failure and the regular failure as well. If the regular failure was already bad enough that the critical failure isn't significantly worse, that changes your calculus. For instance, it's a really bad idea to use tempt fate on dominate unless you really need all 3 actions next turn, as the critical failure is way worse than the failure, but if you're up against a spell where a failure is 1 minute and a critical failure is permanent, and your ally knows you can remove the effect easily if it's permanent, she might not care about incurring a permanent effect when 1 minute is already going to last the combat.

Using that ability require making a spellcraft check or a complete player knowledge of all the spells and disregard for using OOC knowledge.

Sure, in this example the cleric could use her first action to cast a buff spell (or something else that doesn't cause damage outright), or she could try a combat maneuver like trip or disarm, or a social action to get the attacking thugs to back down (however unlikely that might seem, depending on the nature of the thugs and the vagaries of the situation).

There are many things a cleric of Shelyn could do besides actually attacking with the intent to damage, maim or kill. Heck, she could even try to subdue an opponent with non-lethal damage (if that still exists in PF2.0).

But all corner cases like this should be treated as mitigating circumstances and some graded series of consequences for anathema violations should come into play.

For the anamatha must always accept surrender what happens if the cleric of Shellyn accepts a surrender but the Barbarian in the party immediately slaughters the surrendering foe.? Would the cleric be forced to stop adventuring with him or lose her powers?

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.

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.

The domains add two different things:

- domain spells, that are memorized in your clerical spell slots and cast normally. Those are spell for all effects.

This is actually not true. You get the actual spells from your Deity, not your Domains.

Mark, I have a few questions.

1. Will there still be subdomains in the 2nd edition?

2. Will there still be alignment domains and outsider subdomains? I really wish Paizo to delete them.

3. In the 1st edition, deities have 5 domains and demigods have 4 domains. Is this rule still applied to the 2nd edition?

Mark, I have a few questions.

We actually all know most of these collectively.

1. Will there still be subdomains in the 2nd edition?

Doesn't look like it. A lot of PF1 subdomains are Domains in PF2, though.

2. Will there still be alignment domains and outsider subdomains? I really wish Paizo to delete them.

Well, Shelyn isn't listed with one so they seem to be gone.

3. In the 1st edition, deities have 5 domains and demigods have 4 domains. Is this rule still applied to the 2nd edition?

Shelyn is a full deity and listed with only 4, so presumably not.

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Sound like fun to me. interesting RP experience.

You guys make me feel like a weirdo sometimes. This seemed like you were going for a terrible composition but I thought WOW that looks fun! I don't know I kind of like the challenges I guess.

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.

There is also the issue of consistency. Either anything that is powered by spell points should be called a spell, or spell points should be called something else.

At least I can understand why the term power points is not used, as there are quite a few of us who are familiar with that term in connection with psionic powers.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Weird, none of the anathemas listed so far say anything about: "Don't let anyone who isn't you break these anathemas".

If you accept someone's surrender and the barbarian doesn't, then you might have an argument about it: but that is something that characters would argue about anyway! The cleric doesn't lose powers based on what their companions do. In fact companions don't seem to be mentioned at all.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Weird, none of the anathemas listed so far say anything about: "Don't let anyone who isn't you break these anathemas".

If you accept someone's surrender and the barbarian doesn't, then you might have an argument about it: but that is something that characters would argue about anyway! The cleric doesn't lose powers based on what their companions do. In fact companions don't seem to be mentioned at all.

Sounds like my actual religious philosophy of you do you and I'll do me.

I really feel sorry for quite a few of you. It seems like you're constantly playing with GMs who have adopted an antagonistic GM vs. Player mentality and is trying to use everything they can to screw you over during games, which would include alignment and upcoming anathema questions. Maybe that's the issue, not the rules themselves?

The title made me ignore it at first I thought it was about some legal issue >.>

When I saw the title, I was wondering for a moment whether Paizo had found a legal way to seize our old books.

I think the majority of paladin moral disputes have to do not with the paladin breaking their code, but with the paladin's companions doing things that the paladin can't accept because associating with people who engage in such things is a breach in itself. This is bad, because it can break the adventuring group apart.

Now if the anathema or code does away with the need to police your companions, then this is just good RP material. It may still break the group apart if characters can't resolve the differences, but at least there isn't a mechanical constraint as a forcing factor. Much better.

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.

There is also the issue of consistency. Either anything that is powered by spell points should be called a spell, or spell points should be called something else.

At least I can understand why the term power points is not used, as there are quite a few of us who are familiar with that term in connection with psionic powers.

I think moving away from "power" to "spell" would be better in this case, since "power" is a rather vague term that doesn't really tell people anything. "Spell" at least gets across that it's a magical spell without further elaboration.

that's one that they specifically called as functioning pretty differently from the way it does now.

The effect is weaker all across the board while still being 'usable' for some value of that word at all/most levels.

Not a direct answer to your question, but some info on color spray here:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Since you mentioned pattern spells, they no longer have a Hit Dice limit or the like, which is an extremely good thing for all the patterns except color spray (seriously, I never prepared them in PF1 but they are cool in PF2), since most of them had limits that were quite low. But of course we said in the other blog that we were going to cut down on save or lose (especially at 1st level spells), so color spray serves more of a debuff role most of the time. On the other hand, it does so handsomely for a 1st-level spell, so your foes in the cone should expect to at least suffer a round of miss chances unless they are very lucky.

Alright, that makes all kinds of sense. Given how Color Spray was one of the few save or die spells left in the game (and at first level to boot), it makes a ton of sense to nerf it but then make it usable for a longer time. Yes, yes, it is technically not "save or die", but "unconcious, then stunned for several rounds" may just as well be.

Anyway, thank you for the info!

Alright, that makes all kinds of sense. Given how Color Spray was one of the few save or die spells left in the game (and at first level to boot), it makes a ton of sense to nerf it but then make it usable for a longer time. Yes, yes, it is technically not "save or die", but "unconcious, then stunned for several rounds" may just as well be.

Anyway, thank you for the info!

A critical failure on your save probably still screws you just as thoroughly. A failure probably just blinds for a while, and a success seemingly blinds for a round.

Seems workable as a solid mass debuff.

David knott 242 wrote:

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.

There is also the issue of consistency. Either anything that is powered by spell points should be called a spell, or spell points should be called something else.

At least I can understand why the term power points is not used, as there are quite a few of us who are familiar with that term in connection with psionic powers.

I think moving away from "power" to "spell" would be better in this case, since "power" is a rather vague term that doesn't really tell people anything. "Spell" at least gets across that it's a magical spell without further elaboration.

Yeah, at least from what we've seen so far I only see benefits to calling these domain powers "domain spells"—since they're just spells powered by spell points. In fact, the PF2 "one name for everything that's the same" idea would seem to support that change. Maybe in context of the full playtest rules it'll make more sense why these have a different name, but right now I don't see it.

EDIT: I should add, I can see reasons for keeping them separate I guess. It allows rules to affect your "powers" across classes. E.g., a feat that boosts your powers in some way. And even if there aren't such rules in the Playtest, keeping the names separate allows design to add such options later. So maybe I take back the original post.

magnuskn wrote:

Alright, that makes all kinds of sense. Given how Color Spray was one of the few save or die spells left in the game (and at first level to boot), it makes a ton of sense to nerf it but then make it usable for a longer time. Yes, yes, it is technically not "save or die", but "unconcious, then stunned for several rounds" may just as well be.

Anyway, thank you for the info!

A critical failure on your save probably still screws you just as thoroughly. A failure probably just blinds for a while, and a success seemingly blinds for a round.

Seems workable as a solid mass debuff.

I'd wager color spray is more like C Fail -> Stunned/KOed, Fail -> Blinded for a round or two, Success -> Dazzled equiv for a bit, C Success -> Nothing.

I mean, it's a level 1 spell and AOE to boot. Getting something as debilitating as Blind on a basic success seems a bit above its pay grade to me.

I'd wager color spray is more like C Fail -> Stunned/KOed, Fail -> Blinded for a round or two, Success -> Dazzled equiv for a bit, C Success -> Nothing.

I mean, it's a level 1 spell and AOE to boot. Getting something as debilitating as Blind on a basic success seems a bit above its pay grade to me.

Mark said it inflicted a miss chance on a successful save. It might only be 20% or something rather than fully blinded, but it's more hardcore than dazzled by quite a bit.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

I'd wager color spray is more like C Fail -> Stunned/KOed, Fail -> Blinded for a round or two, Success -> Dazzled equiv for a bit, C Success -> Nothing.

I mean, it's a level 1 spell and AOE to boot. Getting something as debilitating as Blind on a basic success seems a bit above its pay grade to me.

Mark said it inflicted a miss chance on a successful save. It might only be 20% or something rather than fully blinded, but it's more hardcore than dazzled by quite a bit.

20% miss seems reasonable, especially if that's something tied into the Blind condition stack (Like Blind 1 being 20% miss, 2 being 50%, and 3 being the PF1 version).

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.

That sounds reasonable. My take would be to bring it up prior to play. "Yo, PFS GM. How do you interpret Shelyn's tenet of not striking first?"

It might suck to have to deal with table variation but at least they'd know ahead of time.

I'm also going to make an assumption here. I know a number of forum members also run PFS games. Community members including TOZ and Wei Ji. I've known them to be level headed and based on comments, I believe they want their players to enjoy the game. Taking them as examples, I don't think the average GM running the game for PFS is waiting for an "Aha!" moment to screw the player. So when obtuse language slips through the book, and it will, it seems like most of the time, common sense and player/GM respect can fix the issue.

Even if the GM doesn't let you hit somebody before they've actually attacked, there are options. Clerics have buff cantrips, so you always have an option there- and actual buff spells as well. You could also focus on intimidation or aid another. Plus, with the new initiative system, you're free to pick any action you want for exploration without concern for how quickly it lets you react. You can also lead with spells that harmlessly take somebody out of the fight while trying to talk the group down. Color Spray and Enthrall certainly play into that style.

Is it just me or is Shelyn's anathema to "striking first" a little weird?

So imagine your just rolled initiative vs a group of thugs that pull weapons on you. Your initiative turn is before theirs, so you hold back because you don't strike first even though the thugs intentions are clear. The thugs turn then comes up and they crit Fred the Fighter an he goes down.

Is it not ridiculous that even though you knew they were hostile and planning to try to kill you, a good god wouldn't allow you to strike first to stop them? Even to protect your allies?

I feel like it'd be better off worded as "initiate hostilities".

And the you will have "clerics" of Shelyn do the outmost to provoke the opponents so they can say "They initiated the hostilities" and enemies doing all that can be done without crossing that line.

I’m a bit concerned that the first level power of the Indulgence domain is a bit lackluster. I mean, the spell has great flavor (pun intended). I’d definitely give this to an innkeeper or the king’s chef, but I have difficulties thinking why one of my players would take this over something like, say, being able to shoot a ray of fire out of your hand like we saw in one of the Playtest Demos. Unless you can make a scalding hot bowl of soup and throw it at the enemy, or place an enticing slice of banana cream pie under a falling boulder trap and watch the foolish Orc abandon his post at the front door to eat it.

Unless the Level 2 Spell lets you polymorph the servants of a foolish young noble into singing and dancing plates, bowls, and cutlery that you can use to enjoy your aforementioned soup and cake in luxury, I’m concerned that my players will dismiss it as an “NPC Domain”.

Personally I was hoping that this would function more like a weaker Hero’s Feast. Would it be too imbalancing if the meal, once consumed, granted 1d6 + Wisdom Modifier Temporary Hit Points?
And Heightened (+1) creates more food/drink as well as increases the temporary HP by another 1d6.

It is a glorified version of Purify food and drinks. It has a anti-poison feature like that cantrip.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I suppose that setting us an ambush will be a big "NO, NO!" for Shelyn priests and followers.

Plenty of good things you can do with your first action in an ambush. For instance, you could cast your Color Spray, which does not hurt or damage anyone and therefore isn't a «strike».

So you feel that a deity that say "Don't be the first to attack" will feel that setting up an ambush and supporting your allies attack is fine?

If the creatures you are ambushing have a prior history of attacking defenseless people the situation change, but even then ambushing them and attacking without first asking for surrender is at least a minor anathema violation.

I mean, "never strike first" and "always accept surrender" were always part of Shelyn's Paladin code, so eh.

Though to be fair, the code did say:

"I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent."

Which is much clearer and easier to work with than just the part before the comma.

One rule that could calm the concern with anathema is how Infamy is handled in Starfinder Society--the GM has to warn a player that their stated action would result in Infamy and give them a chance to change their mind and do something else instead. This at least stops the "a ha, gotcha!" sort of thing that some people worry about. (I've never experienced anything like the problem myself--good luck with GMs, I guess)

Diego Rossi wrote:

- domain spells, that are memorized in your clerical spell slots and cast normally. Those are spell for all effects.

This is actually not true. You get the actual spells from your Deity, not your Domains.

Right, misremembered. So adding domains don't add extra spells.

cleric is the first class preview that kind of makes me feel a bit meh. I was really hoping domain powers would be a bit more...powerful. The ones previewed here seem (mostly) niche enough that I wouldn't be likely to use them much, or they would be most useful during downtime or some such. Which to me at least means: why bother even using spell points for them, versus regular casting? If the extra spells also used spell points, that might make the point pool more acceptable. I was also really hoping obediences would be baked in here, as it's one of my favorite PF 1E editions to the rulesets.

Things I do like:
The overall formatting, and the feel that the deity matters mroe
Anathemas

Reading people debating anathemas makes me roll my eyes a bit. On the player side of things, there are going to be a diverse range of deities across different alignments and concerns to choose from. If you think an anathema clashes with your playstyle or the group, just choose a different deity. It's not like paladins where you could ONLY pick LG. If you are concerned on all of these corner cases (which honestly could be resolved with common sense), just talk to the DM before hand and see what his view on. And if the DM is going to continually screw you over on them, find a new DM.

Finally, I get a sense that, much like the rogue is the jack of all trades for skills, and the Fighter for combat, I can definitely see the Cleric being this for divine casters. It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't see future classes that double down on the spells, or combat, or domains, or channeling, and carve out there own design space

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Weird, none of the anathemas listed so far say anything about: "Don't let anyone who isn't you break these anathemas".

If you accept someone's surrender and the barbarian doesn't, then you might have an argument about it: but that is something that characters would argue about anyway! The cleric doesn't lose powers based on what their companions do. In fact companions don't seem to be mentioned at all.

Sure, you will not lose your powers. But if you don't try to convince him of not doing it anymore, you are violating your ethos. After a time it should affect your standing with your deity.

I do find the anathemas (and the edicts!) rather interesting and look forward to using them.

A minor thing; I do like that the example of Shelyn gives information as to who she is as a goddess. When I first came into Pathfinder, I had wished (as did people that I brought into the games) there was more information about the Golarion deities given than merely their sphere of interest - much like the 3.5 PHB did with a couple of the Greyhawk deities (I had to do internet sleuthing to understand Pharasma for example).

I really feel sorry for quite a few of you. It seems like you're constantly playing with GMs who have adopted an antagonistic GM vs. Player mentality and is trying to use everything they can to screw you over during games, which would include alignment and upcoming anathema questions. Maybe that's the issue, not the rules themselves?

I suspect that 50% of the time it is the player that take an antagonist position and feel offended because the GM ask him to respect the rules of his religion, keep in mind that having a back up copy of your spellbook is important, that is not always possible to use a bow or a two handed weapon and that the sunder rules exist for the NPCs too.

Sure, you shouldn't send invisible and inaudible thieves that automatically succeed at stealing the spellbook that the 3rd level wizard is using as a pillow but if the wizard roll a 1 on the save and his handy haversack is destroyed and his spellbooks are lost you shouldn't change the roll because the wizard has no back-up.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Weird, none of the anathemas listed so far say anything about: "Don't let anyone who isn't you break these anathemas".

If you accept someone's surrender and the barbarian doesn't, then you might have an argument about it: but that is something that characters would argue about anyway! The cleric doesn't lose powers based on what their companions do. In fact companions don't seem to be mentioned at all.

Sure, you will not lose your powers. But if you don't try to convince him of not doing it anymore, you are violating your ethos. After a time it should affect your standing with your deity.

You can always be "away gathering wood" when your companions do something that go against your deity rules and claim to be faithful to those rules.

I mean, for the sake of gameplay I'd imagine making an honest effort to abide by your deity's ethos should be enough to keep you on their good side for stuff that isn't entirely in your hands like the surrender clause. Having to resort to metagaming ("Oh, you executed the prisoners while I was at the privy again! Another coincidental tragedy!") or the cleric/paladin/druid's way or the highway isn't going to cut the mustard for keeping things fun when some Anathemas lead to party decisions as a whole rather than personal taboos like striking first or not destroying art.

cleric is the first class preview that kind of makes me feel a bit meh. I was really hoping domain powers would be a bit more...powerful. The ones previewed here seem (mostly) niche enough that I wouldn't be likely to use them much, or they would be most useful during downtime or some such. Which to me at least means: why bother even using spell points for them, versus regular casting? If the extra spells also used spell points, that might make the point pool more acceptable. I was also really hoping obediences would be baked in here, as it's one of my favorite PF 1E editions to the rulesets.

Ritual magic with the requirement to be a follower of the appropriate deity seem ever more appropriate for things like "Enhance Victuals".

Diego Rossi wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.
It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

So we're back to 'one class' dictating the play of 'another class', but on a greater scale because other deities and classes will have restrictions like this as well?

...it was pretty bad with potential Paladin conflict issues, but a party with a Paladin of Torag, a Cleric of Shelyn, and a stock Druid could end up *not being able to adventure together* because of the stacking conflicts...and that's a group that should on paper work *together well*.

Hopefully more clarity will come in the days and weeks ahead.

Weird, none of the anathemas listed so far say anything about: "Don't let anyone who isn't you break these anathemas".

If you accept someone's surrender and the barbarian doesn't, then you might have an argument about it: but that is something that characters would argue about anyway! The cleric doesn't lose powers based on what their companions do. In fact companions don't seem to be mentioned at all.

Sure, you will not lose your powers. But if you don't try to convince him of not doing it anymore, you are violating your ethos. After a time it should affect your standing with your deity.

You can always be "away gathering wood" when your companions do something that go against your deity rules and claim to be faithful to those rules.

I mean, for the sake of gameplay I'd imagine making an honest effort to abide by your deity's ethos should be enough to keep you on their good side for stuff that isn't entirely in your hands like the surrender clause. Having to resort to metagaming ("Oh, you executed the prisoners while I was at the privy again! Another coincidental tragedy!") or the cleric/paladin/druid's way or the highway isn't going to cut the mustard for keeping things fun when some Anathemas lead to party decisions as a whole rather than personal taboos like striking first or not destroying art.

I mistyped, it was meant to be "can't always ...".

I feel that some party composition can be an excessive stretch of plausibility wen keeping together some character because the players know each other. Some compromise at character creation can be needed. Bringing a paladin at a pirate game or even at a game where you play against invading troops of another nation can be a bad idea, like bringing a Red mantis in a game where the the goal is to serve a lawful good nation that never use shady methods.

dysartes wrote:

I may have missed this somewhere, Mark, but is Medicine the new name for the Heal skill?

Ugh. That's one of the things I dislike about 5e the most. Why don't you call Knowledge: Engineering «Quantum Chromodynamics» and Perform: Dance «Twerking» while you're at it...? ;o)

That also bugs me that a lot of terms get renamed. To me many of these new terms are less intuitive but more convoluted.

Catharsis wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

I suppose that setting us an ambush will be a big "NO, NO!" for Shelyn priests and followers.

Plenty of good things you can do with your first action in an ambush. For instance, you could cast your Color Spray, which does not hurt or damage anyone and therefore isn't a «strike».

So you feel that a deity that say "Don't be the first to attack" will feel that setting up an ambush and supporting your allies attack is fine?

I would call that hypocrisy.

If the creatures you are ambushing have a prior history of attacking defenseless people the situation change, but even then ambushing them and attacking without first asking for surrender is at least a minor anathema violation.

It is much more effective to ask an enemy to surrender when you have a glaive at their throat than the other way around. :)

Really, the Ready action is all you need to stay true to your tenets without losing the benefit of a surprise round.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Is it just me or is Shelyn's anathema to "striking first" a little weird?

So imagine your just rolled initiative vs a group of thugs that pull weapons on you. Your initiative turn is before theirs, so you hold back because you don't strike first even though the thugs intentions are clear. The thugs turn then comes up and they crit Fred the Fighter an he goes down.

Is it not ridiculous that even though you knew they were hostile and planning to try to kill you, a good god wouldn't allow you to strike first to stop them? Even to protect your allies?

I feel like it'd be better off worded as "initiate hostilities".

Or the cleric of shelyn just readies an action

Readied actions resolve before the event that triggered them. You fall.

What's missing is a clear disambiguation between powers and the regular kind of spells (for which there is currently not even a technical term, as far as I can tell).

I realize now that I never answered this rhetorical question the last time you brought it up, but they're just spells. Spells by default use a slot, and it's an exception when they don't (powers are apparently spells that use points, and cantrips/orisons don't use either). We already do this in PF1 with cantrips; they're described as spells that don't expend a slot, so we kind of are already encountering the issue you're bringing up without it being a big deal. In fairness, it may actually become one now that they're expanding the number of spells that don't use a slot, where in PF1 it just got swept under the rug.

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.

There is also the issue of consistency. Either anything that is powered by spell points should be called a spell, or spell points should be called something else.

At least I can understand why the term power points is not used, as there are quite a few of us who are familiar with that term in connection with psionic powers.

A similar issue exists for "spell points" though. I don't think a spell point system exists for pathfinder, but it was a variant that existed in 3.5. It's even on the SRD. Assigning the name "spell points" to this resource effectively closes the door on making their own version of the variant down the road. Or at least making it a bit more confusing later.

Is it just me or is Shelyn's anathema to "striking first" a little weird?

So imagine your just rolled initiative vs a group of thugs that pull weapons on you. Your initiative turn is before theirs, so you hold back because you don't strike first even though the thugs intentions are clear. The thugs turn then comes up and they crit Fred the Fighter an he goes down.

Is it not ridiculous that even though you knew they were hostile and planning to try to kill you, a good god wouldn't allow you to strike first to stop them? Even to protect your allies?

I feel like it'd be better off worded as "initiate hostilities".

It's a great thing to have deity-specific anathemas that are not tied to alignment as such. The only thing we are lacking is some guidelines on how to adjudicate anathema violations.

I expect there will be some way to scale the violation, from a minor to a serious violation, as well as some progressive manner of expressing the consequences of anathema violation in game terms. Things like:
- getting fewer / no spell points for a given duration, or until a given action is taken to seek atonement;
- having a progressively higher spell failure chance;
- having the power leech out of all spells, so they have lower DCs, deal or heal less damage, etc.

The idea that if you commit anathema acts in even the most minor degree, then you lose all your class powers forever would lead to endless bitter arguments and dissuade many players from ever wanting to be a cleric. A more flexible and scalable system would help "nudge" offending clerics in the right direction.

FWIW, posts like this really vindicate the position of guys like me who have been decrying the naysayers who claim that PF2.0 is "dumbing down" the game. Rich, deep and varied options are what we've come to love and expect from our pals at Paizo, and this post goes the extra mile to show that we were right.

Both of these.

I’m a bit concerned that the first level power of the Indulgence domain is a bit lackluster. I mean, the spell has great flavor (pun intended). I’d definitely give this to an innkeeper or the king’s chef, but I have difficulties thinking why one of my players would take this over something like, say, being able to shoot a ray of fire out of your hand like we saw in one of the Playtest Demos. Unless you can make a scalding hot bowl of soup and throw it at the enemy, or place an enticing slice of banana cream pie under a falling boulder trap and watch the foolish Orc abandon his post at the front door to eat it.

Unless the Level 2 Spell lets you polymorph the servants of a foolish young noble into singing and dancing plates, bowls, and cutlery that you can use to enjoy your aforementioned soup and cake in luxury, I’m concerned that my players will dismiss it as an “NPC Domain”.

Personally I was hoping that this would function more like a weaker Hero’s Feast. Would it be too imbalancing if the meal, once consumed, granted 1d6 + Wisdom Modifier Temporary Hit Points?
And Heightened (+1) creates more food/drink as well as increases the temporary HP by another 1d6.

It does come with Purify as its base effect. But yeah, I'd be happy if when Heightened it also started granting temporary HP to people who partake in the feast. :) As-is, it's fine at 1st level but becomes lackluster as soon as you start leveling up.

Question - is the list of new domains in addition to existing domains? Or is this the comprehensive list?

Answer. They are in addition to the old school domains. THat's why it says that these are a list of domains that don't share a name with pre existing domains.

JoelF847 wrote:

For the anamatha must always accept surrender what happens if the cleric of Shellyn accepts a surrender but the Barbarian in the party immediately slaughters the surrendering foe.? Would the cleric be forced to stop adventuring with him or lose her powers?

Probably. Or reform the barbarian.

It seem reasonable that associating with people that regularly go against your religion tenets and helping them will have consequences.

This makes Clerics largely incompatible with the average party and if so, playing them in general should be taboo as it mandates the actions of other players. Clerics would only function for specific deity aligned parties or parties that all have VERY closely aligned thinking. A better solution is to just have the deity care about the Cleric's own actions rather than the actions of the whole party if for no other reason than the fact that it actually makes them practical to play. We don't need two Paladins.

You can get a second with a Feat at 1st level if you like, but yeah, you pick the best Domain for what you want to do and then grab others as you have the Feats to spare. That seems fine.

That and choosing a fun flavor domain power via feat also gives you more spell points simultaneously, so you can use it to cast more combat powers on a tough day while also having the non-combat power available for a situation where it could help.

Catharsis wrote:

What's missing is a clear disambiguation between powers and the regular kind of spells (for which there is currently not even a technical term, as far as I can tell).

I realize now that I never answered this rhetorical question the last time you brought it up, but they're just spells. Spells by default use a slot, and it's an exception when they don't (powers are apparently spells that use points, and cantrips/orisons don't use either).

That's a good point. Still, if there were a resource tied specifically to cantrips only, I would expect them to be named something like «cantrip points» rather than «spell points», given that the unmodified word «spell» is understood by default to refer to the kinds of spells cast from spell slots.

We already do this in PF1 with cantrips; they're described as spells that don't expend a slot, so we kind of are already encountering the issue you're bringing up without it being a big deal. In fairness, it may actually become one now that they're expanding the number of spells that don't use a slot, where in PF1 it just got swept under the rug.

Yes, cantrips were largely inconsequential thus far, whereas this new population of powers is probably larger than the entire Ranger spell list.

I still think it would be good to have a term for non-cantrip, non-power spells. Maybe the word «spell» should be reserved for this, and the word «Magic» could be used as the umbrella term for cantrips, powers, and spells (and rituals, I guess). Descriptions such as for attacks of opportunity would then simply read «When a creature performs magic...» rather than «casts a spell».

A similar issue exists for "spell points" though. I don't think a spell point system exists for pathfinder, but it was a variant that existed in 3.5. It's even on the SRD. Assigning the name "spell points" to this resource effectively closes the door on making their own version of the variant down the road. Or at least making it a bit more confusing later. I like "mana." Essence isn't bad, but I prefer the smaller word.

Frankly, I think it's the «points» part that make the resource sound videogamey. Essence or mana aren't bad, but they sound like uncountable nouns. Maybe «surges» or «charges» would work better.

It's a great thing to have deity-specific anathemas that are not tied to alignment as such. The only thing we are lacking is some guidelines on how to adjudicate anathema violations.

I expect there will be some way to scale the violation, from a minor to a serious violation, as well as some progressive manner of expressing the consequences of anathema violation in game terms. Things like:
- getting fewer / no spell points for a given duration, or until a given action is taken to seek atonement;
- having a progressively higher spell failure chance;
- having the power leech out of all spells, so they have lower DCs, deal or heal less damage, etc.

The idea that if you commit anathema acts in even the most minor degree, then you lose all your class powers forever would lead to endless bitter arguments and dissuade many players from ever wanting to be a cleric. A more flexible and scalable system would help "nudge" offending clerics in the right direction.

FWIW, posts like this really vindicate the position of guys like me who have been decrying the naysayers who claim that PF2.0 is "dumbing down" the game. Rich, deep and varied options are what we've come to love and expect from our pals at Paizo, and this post goes the extra mile to show that we were right.

There will probably be Gods with vague enough Anathemas you don't have to worry. People will just avoid Shelyn if the rules are overly harsh.