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
351 to 400 of 554 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Readied actions resolve before the event that triggered them. You fall.

Nonsense. I did not attack first, but as a reaction to an enemy's attack. The fact that I intercepted his attack does not change the fact that it was he who started it. I gave him the opportunity to avoid combat and he refused it.

I can't imagine anyone being honestly ambiguous about this. As TriOmegaZero says, your hypothetical GM is deliberately trying to screw you over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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".

I also find it weird, but not in the same way you do. I find it odd that she has any Anathema towards combat at all, or for that matter that she cares about the destruction of art in an absolute way like that.

Consider that "architecture" has an artistic quality. Clearly, tearing down buildings is not going to set off Shelyn. Folks who craft fine armor are likely to decorate that armor in creative yet functional ways, yet it is armor that is meant to get hit. Shelyn isn't going to go a&&*$~$ over that.

Folks talk about "common sense" being the key to Anathema. In practice, there's nothing common about common sense. Work with your GM to sort it out. To me, in the role of GM, Anathemas are a suggestion, not a rule, and players will be given a lot of room for interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
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?

Its certainly an issue and its effects spread further than the "problem game." Player opinions of classes and expected behavior get shaped, then those players move to other games.

It would certainly be unfortunate if the player base chose to shy away from playing clerics because some games effectively used Anathema to discourage people from the cleric class - just like has happened to the Paladin class.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Still not happy with spell points for powers activation...

Why not power points?!?

For what I saw, powers are spell-like, not exactly totally spells. Will obviously create confusions, it's not player-friendly.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jet Set Dizzy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
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.

This is pretty much my thinking with the question I raised. It is potentially a problem, depending of how it's interpreted. I'd hope the anamatha section of the rules is clear on how others actions that effectively invalidate a clerics aheracne to their anamatha impact the cleric. Neither answer is perfect but having some guidance on which is the intended interpretation will at least give clarity and consistency to how different groups use the same rules and establish what the baseline is, so players and groups who want to use the rules differently are conscious of where they're diverging from the standard rules.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

There was a mention that there was a feat that just gave you spell points. If you can take a feat that gives you both spell points and a domain, how many spell points would the non-domain feat have to give to equal the domain feat?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The title made me ignore it at first I thought it was about some legal issue >.>

It is. We're dealing with rules lawyers and Anathema ^.^


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry to say that, but we cannot have any mechanical option tied to any concept of alignment, code or behavior without writing a 30-page long contract for each of these options strictly saying what one can or cannot do in each possible case ¬¬

Seriously, it seems that sometimes people just want to break the game.

Also, I've played with paladins before and none of that "alignment straight-jacket" thing happened at my table.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To those worried about the 15 minute adventuring day, the cantrips seem to be an explicit counter to that problem. They are readily powerful at-will spells. The casters will always have something to do that isn't expendable.

If, after all that, your players are wasting spells and want to rest constantly, tell then to tough if out.

The reduction in number of spell slots is a good idea in fixing the 'caster/martial' disparity. The problem wasn't power, but versatility. At later levels, they could use spells for all variety of situations, allowing them to displace nearly any other class in a given situation. With few spell slots, you have to make an actual choice in what you use, rather than being able to use everything.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:


graystone wrote:

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

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

You may be saddened, but it lifts my heart with joy to still that this is still a thing, and that it still has an impact on the game.

I imagine I am not the only one in this position.

Paladin blog should be interesting, when we get there.

Seconded. Alignment is one of the great reasons why I play this game, and classic Paladins are an old love of mine. Take that out, and the game can get quite bland for me...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:

Still not happy with spell points for powers activation...

Why not power points?!?

For what I saw, powers are spell-like, not exactly totally spells. Will obviously create confusions, it's not player-friendly.

I second that completely. We have Domain POWERS, Ki POWERS, Bloodline POWERS, Rage POWERS... You get the idea

I also think the obvious choice of name would be POWER Points, instead of Spell Points. Besides making no sense as a name whatsoever, Spell points gets even more convoluted with spell slots and spell levels and all that jazz.

Just my 2 cp.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
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)

TBF, it is a rename I can get behind - saves any possible confusion with the Heal spell, after all.

Jet Set Dizzy wrote:
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.

I doubt this is the case. I'm sure I've seen reference to the Pally code being reworked to mean you don't end up playing the Party Police, and I doubt the Cleric would be designed to be a problem for groups either.

Now, actions leading to in-character conversations? That seems like a great roleplay opportunity.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna be honest, murdering people who have surrendered seems like something any and all Good characters should object to most of the time. That's, y'know, a war crime. Or police misconduct on a profound level.

The 'not striking first' thing is a lot more problematic.

Though I'll reiterate that I think people are being hasty in assuming there is no additional guidance in anathema usage in the actual book. I'd be shocked if there wasn't.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:

To those worried about the 15 minute adventuring day, the cantrips seem to be an explicit counter to that problem. They are readily powerful at-will spells. The casters will always have something to do that isn't expendable.

If, after all that, your players are wasting spells and want to rest constantly, tell then to tough if out.

The reduction in number of spell slots is a good idea in fixing the 'caster/martial' disparity. The problem wasn't power, but versatility. At later levels, they could use spells for all variety of situations, allowing them to displace nearly any other class in a given situation. With few spell slots, you have to make an actual choice in what you use, rather than being able to use everything.

I think that rituals (and probably cantrips, as you get some of them from your ancestry) have already reduced that difference.

Rituals wrote:
... In the playtest, these sorts of spells have been made into rituals. This means that these downtime spells don't take up your spell slots, and that martial characters who manage to attain a high enough proficiency rank in magic-related skills like Arcana can cast them! This is particularly great when, for instance, the cleric dies but the monk can perform a resurrection ritual. ...

So at least Binding and Raise Dead can be used through rituals. Essentially the story narrative power of magic is available to everyone that is willing to spend the appropriate resources.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
(and probably cantrips, as you get some of them from your ancestry)

This is not normally true. I mean, Gnomes can manage it, but they always could. It's not a normal part of the game for most Ancestries, anyway.


I'm late, as usual... But this is by far my favorite preview, as deities and divine spellcasters are my favorite part of the game (and dragons, of course). It's always good to know that deities will "interact" even more with their followers.

No Dragon domain? I'm sad... Well, it's good to see that at least some of my favorite subdomains became domains (specially light and moon), and now I'm anxious to see their own subdomains.

I'm also interested into those three spells each deity will grant, and obviously speculating about all the specific spells granted by demon lords, and empyreal lords, and horsemen and all other demigods... *O*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm gonna be honest, murdering people who have surrendered seems like something any and all Good characters should object to most of the time. That's, y'know, a war crime. Or police misconduct on a profound level.

Well, yeah. It's called Mercy, a fundamental concept of goodness.

The thing is, when talking about mercy, most people start to think about "letting the villain get away with his/her villainy", which is just not true. Capturing the said villain and delivering him/her to justice, for example, is usually a very valid, and merciful, option.
However, killing someone who has surrendered before you falls squarely into evil territory. I'm surprised when people just don't get that...


I just noticed that Shelyn grants only 4 domains...

What happened? =O

Is she a minor deity now? In 1E, I used to assume that demigods and minor gods would grant 4 domains, while true gods would grant 5. Is that still a thing? (if it ever was)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
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.

Exactly. If precipitating hostilities is amongst your top goals, Shelyn isn't it. I don't see the problem there, not all Deity themes will match all player goals. If you "discover" this conflict in the middle of a game, well, that might be impetus to compel a conversion to other Deity. Conflict of character personality/agenda and Deity code is exactly the sort of thing you would expect to prompt conversions with all roleplaying that implies. I'd much rather have rules coherent with differences of opinion lead to parting ways, rather than hand wave it and say "it doesn't matter, you can still get the same powers from same god".

And of course, this ISN'T a conceptual shift from P1E, Clerics there also lost powers for violating code of conduct of Deity. It just happened to be that Paizo didn't really bother spelling out this code of conduct for most Deities for whatever reason, possibly due to overlooking their own rules. Which if anything left it MORE open to arbitrary GMs which people seem prone to complain about. But this isn't really about that, it's about "what you can get away with", likewise why they never complained about Deity-specific Paladin codes because that was seen as EXPANDING what they can get away with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jet Set Dizzy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
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.

What kind of Adventuring parties have you been in?

Not one party have I been in where, "Don't kill those who surrender" would've been a deal breaker.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

I just noticed that Shelyn grants only 4 domains...

What happened? =O

Is she a minor deity now? In 1E, I used to assume that demigods and minor gods would grant 4 domains, while true gods would grant 5. Is that still a thing? (if it ever was)

Well one of Shelyn's domains also used to be the weird "Good" domain. The alignment domains were often used as filler for various deities. I'm thinking that, A, the alignment domains are probably gone, and B, all deities just have four domains now. With "quasi-deities" like demon lords maybe getting three.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Well, yeah. It's called Mercy, a fundamental concept of goodness.

The thing is, when talking about mercy, most people start to think about "letting the villain get away with his/her villainy", which is just not true. Capturing the said villain and delivering him/her to justice, for example, is usually a very valid, and merciful, option.
However, killing someone who has surrendered before you falls squarely into evil territory. I'm surprised when people just don't get that...

For the record I wouldn't be quite this absolute about this.

Absolute adherence to the rule of law is a Lawful trait rather than a Good one, and even for the Lawful doesn't always apply in an area with no rule of law ('terra incognita'). If the person in question has committed crimes worthy of a death sentence then a summary trial and execution can be reasonable for some Good characters in some situations.

That's a big 'if' though, and a lot of caveats. I wouldn't expect any reasonable party member of a Cleric of Shelyn to strongly object to not killing prisoners most of the time, though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

For the record I wouldn't be quite this absolute about this.

Absolute adherence to the rule of law is a Lawful trait rather than a Good one, and even for the Lawful doesn't always apply in an area with no rule of law ('terra incognita'). If the person in question has committed crimes worthy of a death sentence then a summary trial and execution can be reasonable for some Good characters in some situations.

That's a big 'if' though, and a lot of caveats. I wouldn't expect any reasonable party member of a Cleric of Shelyn to strongly object to not killing prisoners most of the time, though.

I wasn't really talking about law, or about all cases. Just that killing someone who has surrendered is evil. Without getting too specific, that was an example of a choice usually right but usually overlooked. Even so, *trial* and *execution* would involve actual law stuff (especially trial). But mercy isn't about following the law, at all - in fact, things can get complicated if the local law is actually *worse* than the criminal... That's part of the fun in playing a Paladin or good-aligned cleric.

Quandary wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
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.

Exactly. If precipitating hostilities is amongst your top goals, Shelyn isn't it. I don't see the problem there, not all Deity themes will match all player goals. If you "discover" this conflict in the middle of a game, well, that might be impetus to compel a conversion to other Deity. Conflict of character personality/agenda and Deity code is exactly the sort of thing you would expect to prompt conversions with all roleplaying that implies. I'd much rather have rules coherent with differences of opinion lead to parting ways, rather than hand wave it and say "it doesn't matter, you can still get the same powers from same god".

And of course, this ISN'T a conceptual shift from P1E, Clerics there also lost powers for violating code of conduct of Deity. It just happened to be that Paizo didn't really bother spelling out this code of conduct for most Deities for whatever reason, possibly due to overlooking their own rules. Which if anything left it MORE open to arbitrary GMs which people seem prone to complain about. But this isn't really about that, it's about "what you can get away with", likewise why they never complained about Deity-specific Paladin codes because that was seen as EXPANDING what they can get away with.

Pretty much. Playing a cleric or a paladin isn't about only getting their shiny powers, but mainly about roleplaying a believer with an ethos to follow. If you aren't comfortable with that, you may get another class...

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
I wasn't really talking about law, or about all cases. Just that killing someone who has surrendered is evil. Without getting too specific, that was an example of a choice usually right but usually overlooked. Even so, *trial* and *execution* would involve actual law stuff (especially trial). But mercy isn't about following the law, at all - in fact, things can get complicated if the local law is actually *worse* than the criminal... That's part of the fun in playing a Paladin or good-aligned cleric.

Sure, I'm just saying that sometimes, I can definitely see a Good person killing a prisoner. Just not usually.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pedro Sampaio wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:

Still not happy with spell points for powers activation...

Why not power points?!?

For what I saw, powers are spell-like, not exactly totally spells. Will obviously create confusions, it's not player-friendly.

I second that completely. We have Domain POWERS, Ki POWERS, Bloodline POWERS, Rage POWERS... You get the idea

I also think the obvious choice of name would be POWER Points, instead of Spell Points. Besides making no sense as a name whatsoever, Spell points gets even more convoluted with spell slots and spell levels and all that jazz.

Just my 2 cp.

From when Spell Points was first announced, I thought Power Points was a pretty good name instead of Spell Points. Even Magic Points is (barely) better than Spell Points. It's not even the "gamey-ness" of the name, it's just the confusion it seems likely to cause.


The thing with Power Points vs. Spell points, I don't think this pool of points will be used with other abilities. I also think the domain spells are gonna remain "spells" as they have a lot more in common with spells than not. I'm thinking that other powers, like Ki or Rage powers, might not use this same resource.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the Spell Points issue: I saw someone up-thread who suggested Usage Points. I thought about that and kinda like it for several reasons:

1: I agree, Spell Points is ... confusing, at best.

2: We use DSP stuff and Power Points would be a source of confusion. Even if we called DSPs Psi Points instead, we'd still have TWO PP abbreviations.

3: Unlike many of the other abbreviations ending in -P (SP, XP. EP. GP...) UPs can actually be pronounced. "Have you used all of your UPs yet?" I can even see gamers calling them UPpers.

Just a semi-serious attempt to lighten the mood.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Readied actions resolve before the event that triggered them. You fall.

Nonsense. I did not attack first, but as a reaction to an enemy's attack. The fact that I intercepted his attack does not change the fact that it was he who started it. I gave him the opportunity to avoid combat and he refused it.

I can't imagine anyone being honestly ambiguous about this. As TriOmegaZero says, your hypothetical GM is deliberately trying to screw you over.

You intercepted their attack ... by striking them first. Sounds like a fall to me. Shelyn teaches you not to strike first, not that it's okay to strike first if you think they're going to strike you.

It's almost like if you set up strict fail conditions, it's inviting GMs to act like there are strict fail conditions in place.


I would prefer power points over spell points or even mana, magic, special, etc.

Also "powers" sound much better then "feats".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

With all these complaints about the GMs using rules as a way to screw over players, it sounds like a lot of you have really bad GMs. Maybe the problem isn't the rules, but that you're putting up with a bunch of sadistic rules lawyers, rather than playing with friends who try to make a fun experience for everyone?


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

Brew,

The problem is that in some places there are limited choices, and those choices usually include low-quality GMs who do not see the benefit in giving the benefit of the doubt.

Before I got wiser about such things, I used to have a couple of GMs who LOVED to camp in this sort of territory, so it can't be a unique thing if other people are mentioning it as well.

And before saying 'Well, just GM yourself'... some of us have employment that prevents/limits the capability of GMing.

If the ambiguity is either removed or there's a caveat at the start of Cleric indicating that these are narrative devices to help drive a story, not screw over players, I suspect that would ease a lot of concern over the matter.

Trebly so if the Paladin and Druid have similar.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:
With all these complaints about the GMs using rules as a way to screw over players, it sounds like a lot of you have really bad GMs. Maybe the problem isn't the rules, but that you're putting up with a bunch of sadistic rules lawyers, rather than playing with friends who try to make a fun experience for everyone?

I've played with GMs and players who are good, or at the least, tolerable, right up until someone rolls up a Paladin. I think that there are things about the Paladin class that bring the worst traits of certain players and GMs to the surface, namely the code/fall and how it provides specific stumbling points for the Paladin. And the way that anathema are being written up are likely to extend that sort of thing to Clerics as well in PF2.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ser Guii de Facien wrote:
"Ummm. Please tell me that my Goddess still loves my singing, and not just boring building stuff?"

Forgive me if someone has already beaten me to this idea, don't have time to check every post. If they haven't, let me propose this: What about letting Clerics choose from one of two skills that fit their deity?

Imagine Shelyn granting Crafting or Perform.

Sarenrae granting Heal or Diplomacy.

So on and so forth.

Not both, but pick one. This would let followers pick which aspect of the deity they favor more...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It's almost like if you set up strict fail conditions, it's inviting GMs to act like there are strict fail conditions in place.

It's like that, only instead of an actual GM doing it in a game where everyone is an real and genuine person, it's a forum poster using it to make strawman arguments. We have no idea if these are actually "strict fail conditions" rather than "a series of guidelines" because we haven't seen the text describing how they work in the rulebook.

Besides that, if a player and a GM are genuinely getting into arguments about something like this, they need to stop playing together, because at least one of them has a toxic personality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:
Ser Guii de Facien wrote:
"Ummm. Please tell me that my Goddess still loves my singing, and not just boring building stuff?"

Forgive me if someone has already beaten me to this idea, don't have time to check every post. If they haven't, let me propose this: What about letting Clerics choose from one of two skills that fit their deity?

Imagine Shelyn granting Crafting or Perform.

Sarenrae granting Heal or Diplomacy.

Mark said up-thread that Perform and Diplomacy (and I think Medicine) are already whatever the equivalent of Class Skills are for Clerics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do think it's a bad idea that the Deity Skills don't include skills that aren't on the cleric skill list, since that means it isn't future proofed, so if you get say a PF2e inquisitor class in later years you might end up with Shelyn priests who are stuck with Crafting just because Cleric already has Perform.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Also, future Cleric archetypes might trade out some skills, and the deity might want to have a fallback of altering the trade (for instance, a future Crusader archetype trades out Medicine, but Crusader Clerics of Sarenrae would be granted Medicine and trade out something else that Sarenrae normally grants instead).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh, I did always find it weird that only paladins through god specific codes had to follow their god's teachings.

But yeah, Shelyn's anathema and edicts are basically 1e Shelyn's paladin code, but with some context removed(like "never strike first, unless its to protect the innocent").

I do think people being silly since I would interpret strike first as "initiate combat", but even if you interpret it as "never attack before enemy does so", you are a cleric, you can just cast buff spells. Unless you are going to claim that counts as striking first?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
dysartes wrote:


graystone wrote:

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

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

You may be saddened, but it lifts my heart with joy to still that this is still a thing, and that it still has an impact on the game.

I imagine I am not the only one in this position.

Paladin blog should be interesting, when we get there.

Seconded. Alignment is one of the great reasons why I play this game, and classic Paladins are an old love of mine. Take that out, and the game can get quite bland for me...

I want classic Paladins to..Charlemagne's ones slitting throats and screaming glory in the highest and slaughtering prisoners at the Courts of Blood, you know: REAL paladins. Not this Capt America thing we have now.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Also, future Cleric archetypes might trade out some skills, and the deity might want to have a fallback of altering the trade (for instance, a future Crusader archetype trades out Medicine, but Crusader Clerics of Sarenrae would be granted Medicine and trade out something else that Sarenrae normally grants instead).

It has been hinted at that Archetypes are going to be additive options rather than swap out options. Taking the Warpriest archetype might give you a few more feat options to a Cleric. But you might be a Cleric of Besmara and decide to take the global Pirate archetype instead and get some swashbuckling feat choices.


^If the archetypes are totally additive, it would never make sense for anyone to refrain from taking as many archetypes as will fit together.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Christopk-K wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
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.

It is funny, because medicine is Latin word. I guess Romans where too modern for PF


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^If the archetypes are totally additive, it would never make sense for anyone to refrain from taking as many archetypes as will fit together.

I think you are limited. And even then they just free extra choices. You are still making the choice of taking an archetype feat in place of a class/general feat. They just don't swap out core features (I could be wrong.) I imagine/hope the restriction is 1 Class archetype AND 1 Global archetype.


^If that is all you can do, that would be rather restrictive in terms of variety of builds. In Pathfinder 1st Edition, you can fit multiple archetypes together as long as you can pay for them by trading out or modifying class features (you can't trade out the same thing, although the FAQ about this was overly broad with respect to what it considers trading out or modifying the same thing).

That said, having the option to spend feats to add archetype features without trading out class features would be a decent option to have in addition to the Pathfinder 1st Edition operation of archetypes (think of an expanded VMC option in which you are allowed to double down on your primary class instead of being restricted to different classes).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A class skill should be based on your domain choice that way you could get multiple class skills if you take the feats for extra domains.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
A class skill should be based on your domain choice that way you could get multiple class skills if you take the feats for extra domains.

That actually makes them much more boring. Not all Fire gods should give the same skill for example (I mean, Sarenrae and Asmodeus are pretty different).

Tying them to deity is much more interesting thematically and lets them give the base Cleric more of them and make the Domain Feats more powerful.


This blog about deities mentions favored weapon, which reminds me, do we know anything about weapons in 2e? In 1e, one of the key distinguishing features of weapons is their crit behavior (range and/or multiple), buy crits work rather differently in 2e. Do we have any idea what, for instance, makes a 2e longsword different from a battleaxe?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redblade8 wrote:
This blog about deities mentions favored weapon, which reminds me, do we know anything about weapons in 2e? In 1e, one of the key distinguishing features of weapons is their crit behavior (range and/or multiple), buy crits work rather differently in 2e. Do we have any idea what, for instance, makes a 2e longsword different from a battleaxe?

Yes we do! For the most part the crit ranges are going to be gone, but in there place every weapon has various abilities. Like a scimitar has an ability that deals extra damage when attacking a single character multiple times in a row and also has one that makes it so when they attack multiple opponents in a row, in a single round, the attack penalty decrease. Light weapons appear to have only -4 on additional attacks, and a rapier does an extra +1d10 damage on a crit. There are probably other examples out there, but I think you get the idea. Personally I think it sounds pretty rad, which is good because I'm not a fan of the lose of differing crit ranges(love a good crit fishing build myself) so this is at least makes up for it.

Silver Crusade

Redblade8 wrote:
This blog about deities mentions favored weapon, which reminds me, do we know anything about weapons in 2e? In 1e, one of the key distinguishing features of weapons is their crit behavior (range and/or multiple), buy crits work rather differently in 2e. Do we have any idea what, for instance, makes a 2e longsword different from a battleaxe?

Generally: damage type, damage amount, handedness. (maybe not with your example I guess).

They've also talked about weapon properties, but I don't have a good handle on those. I know there's one that causes increased damage on a critical (and I think axes get it?), another that reduces the penalty for iterative attacks. I would expect a finesse or similar property. Other than that I don't know what's been talked about.

I'm not aware of other differentiating factors for basic weapons so far.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Redblade8 wrote:
This blog about deities mentions favored weapon, which reminds me, do we know anything about weapons in 2e? In 1e, one of the key distinguishing features of weapons is their crit behavior (range and/or multiple), buy crits work rather differently in 2e. Do we have any idea what, for instance, makes a 2e longsword different from a battleaxe?

We already know that there are mechanics defining traits for weapons. We assume all with have them.

For example Scimitars have a traits that reduce iterative attack penalties. Crosbows deal additional damage on crits and so on. Rapiers might have dex to damage/hit. The differentation of weapons I hope will be quite significant as that will be a boon to fighters gaining mastery over multiple weapons.

My personal theory is that simple weapons will have one such trait, martial will have two and exotic weapons three.

351 to 400 of 554 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Eminent Domains All Messageboards