What do most people do regarding new domains released in supplements that make sense for previously existing deities? For example, the Spell Compendium took a lot of previously setting-specific domains and made them "generic." Even before then, I doubt it was uncommon for one to look through the FRCS and say, "Gee, Pelor really should have the Renewal domain, it just seems right," or something.
So, do you allow that? I doubt many people keep a list somewhere in their notes where they note exactly which supplemental domains various gods do and don't grant, but if a player were to ask for that option (the Renewal domain for Pelor, for example), would you allow it?
The next thing that this gets into is the number of domains each god grants. Typically, there seems to be some symmetry to this. For example, the PHB lists most gods as granting access to three domains, or four for most of the greater deities. The Complete Divine increased this average to five. Is there anything wrong/unbalancing/undesireable about allowing domain proliferation to disrupt that scheme? Assuming your players are actually interested in the deities of your setting, would they get upset about the fact that one intermediate god grants access to six or seven domains, while another only grants four or five?
Something tells me "no," but when I tinker around with this type of thing (designing new gods and pantheons) and go to write them in a list, it just seems... wrong... for there to be uneven numbers of domains granted between gods.
Finally, how many domains is too many for a deity? When the Spell Compendium came out, on the request of one of my players, I tried assigning the domains within to the deities in the PHB. Quickly, I had six to nine domains per god. This seemed like a rediculously large number (and the project then seemed rediculous and I abandoned it). Is it just me, or is there a certain number of domains that a god shouldn't go beyond, or it just becomes silly?
Well, that came out longer than I expected. If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me!
The fact that the Spell Compendium has made a number of cleric domains and domain specific spells, such as Lion's Roar(SC pg 132), more or less generic has upset the balance of the cleric class. Lion's Roar is an offensive spell orginally granted to dieties that have the Courage domain. Now in the FRCS Tempus is one the main war-deities, does he have the Courage domain, no. However after reviewing the domain spell list and the know facts about Tempus I allowed the player to added Courage to the domains granted to clerics by Tempus.
Now Lion's Roar is a general 8th level cleric spell and I had player playing a cleric of Eldath, which is a diety of peace and love and all that other hippy crap. She wanted to cast this spell and ruled I no a diety of the profile of Eldath, pacisfism, would not grant her follows the ability to lay the smackdown on their enemies, sorry Ghandi...
In my games if a person wants to have a access to a domain not granted not by their diety they must show it to me and I will rule weather it meets the flavor of said diety. I do this on a character by character bases and this saves me time and sanity. If a diety has nine domains then so be it as long as they meet the flavor of said diety
Deities having six to nine domains may seem a little excessive, but you must look at like this;
If most dieties have five domains now then that means that a cleric has access to some 45 spells that they can specifically cast and most other clerics will not have access to. If you increase to the max of nine as stated they now have access to 81. So if you would like your PC cleric can have a limited access to certain spell 45-81 or have full access to and additional spells 45-81.
The whole point of the previous paragaraph was basically saying you must control the spells that your PC have access to and the domains as well. A number of spells on Domains list in the Spell Compendium are general cleric spell as well. This is a major mistake by the publisher and now gives tools to clerics that they normally would not have some of those tools.
And yes Pelor should have the Renewal Domains, Lathander has it in the FCRS and the two deities are almost identical what with the light and the sun and the birthing of the babies.....
|
I don't think it's a big deal, really. Even if a god can grant twenty domains, each cleric still only gets 2 (plus the occasional bonus one granted by a prestige class). And once the cleric makes that choice, they can't switch it (PHBII rules aside, that is).
I say, if it fits the deity, go for it. The cleric won't be any more or less powerful for it, and I like anything that helps to customize a PC.
Edit: And an inequality among gods regarding domains is really a construct of the rules... I can't imagine deities or churches comparing such things, or even having a way to quantify "domains" (whatever those are, from an in-game perspective).
No I don't think domain proliferation is a big deal. If a cleric player wants a non-official domain that fits his deity, why not?
I do think that deities should have loosely comparable numbers of domains, but I think there's enough domains to go around.
Now let me ask you a question. If a player asked you to modify his domain spell list with equally fitting spells, would you allow it? For example, a cleric of Heironeous takes the War domain and wants to permanently trade out a few domain spells for spells similar to Flame Strike of varying spell level. Using the damage caps in the DMG for divine spells, your player points out, it would be simple to create higher and lower level versions of Flame Strike. So what about it, DM?
|
First, I don't use PHB deities (for a variety of reasons). When creating religions for my campaign, I saw several gaps and created new domains to fill those gaps. Some of those domains now have official versions (e.g., Ice), but I've not shifted to the official ones.
Second, if you allow clerics dedicated to a philosophy (who can normally select their domains rather arbitrarily), I can't see how it could be more unbalancing to allow clerics of existing gods to select their domains rather less arbitrarily.
Third, though, in a more restrictive campaign, the fact that a domain might be appropriate for a god shouldn't necessarily mean it's available for all gods for which it is arguably appropriate. As an example, take a look at Glorantha (from RuneQuest). There are many "war" gods, each of which has a very different flavor. The domains for Humakt, Orlanth, Yelmalio, and Zorak Zoran (if Glorantha were translated to D&D) shouldn't be the same, though there might be a substantial overlap.
I think it's entirely reasonable to differentiate between similar gods by granting different sets of domains, without necessarily explaining to your players why one god offers one set and another offers a different set. (But not because of balance concerns.)
Although it wasn't big on my "must have" list, I think Complete Champion made an interesting point, one that has been bouncing around FR and even GH (read the description of Cuthbert's church) for a while. While a deity might grant a fairly large number of domains, that doesn't mean that the god has one big monolithic church that emphasizes all of these domains equally.
For example, Helm has several order associated with his faith. Some of them are:
The Companions of the One True Vision: An order of various classes, including clerics, that were mainly trained as shock troops and specialized strike force operatives in the Church. These are probably the most Lawful neutral, win at all cost, uncompromising members of the church.
The Watchers over the Fallen: An order of Helmite clerics and divine healers that spend their time supporting other defenders by healing and supporting others in their defense of their charge. While its easy to have LN members, its also likely that this order has a lot of good aligned members as well.
The Everwatch Knights: An order that is primarily Helmites trained to act as bodyguards.
The Vigilant Eyes of the Deity: An order primarily composed of paladins, which is concerned with how Helm's faith is perceived and the amount of good done by the church.
and
The Order of He Who Watches Over Travelers: A small order that blesses caravan guards and heals merchants beat up by bandits, and prays over them before they set out for a trade mission, or prays for safe roads for any traveler and blesses caravan guards and bodyguards of travelers.
Now, each of these orders fits under Helm's purview of defense and guardianship, but they have different outlooks. While Helm's faith, overall, might offer, say, Planning to everyone of every order, some orders might not offer Law (it would be less important to the Watchers over the Fallen), and some might not offer Strength (its more important to the Everwatch Knights, for example, than the Watchers over the Fallen).
I'm not saying that you need to make up all of these orders ahead of time and work out what order picks up what domains and the like, but if a given player has a cleric that worships their god because of X aspect, and they rarely focus on Y aspect, you might be able to use this information to develop a sect within the church that emphasizes the combination that the given cleric seems to emphasize.
I just use the basic PHB domains but I allow clerics to expend a feat to pick up a domain from another source. Generally speaking I'm not really fussy about what extra domain they pick up on the theory that it probably makes sense to the player and if they pay with a feat I'm not interested in stepping on toes. This also saves me the work of working all of this out for each of the Gods without actually loosing the domains in the campaign.
Generally, I limit access to Spell Compendium stuff based on DM approval. This would include some of the domains, which in some cases have spells and/or domain powers that are a bit unbalanced.
Like Doug Sundseth, I also have a homebrew that has a number of domains I've made up myself. Not all of these are particularly attractive to players, because some of them concern portfolios that are more of concern to ordinary people (such as fertility or agriculture). Some have been duplicated by domains published in SC, and I have altered some of my domains based on what's available there.
I think if a deity has a broad enough portfolio to have more than say, five domains, that deity is probably a pretty big time god. Otherwise, maybe were getting too much redundancy (e.g. air, weather, winter, ice, etc. have a lot of overlap--maybe they are meant to express different aspects of similar portfolios, so you should only pick one from the list of overlapping domains for each deity involved with such matters).
Interesting replies. In response to TS, I have a gut reaction to resist such changes, but sometimes find myself desiring them as a player. Further, I try to keep in mind that this game isn't just about me as the DM; everyone has just as much right to their fun as the next guy. Thus, if they are trading one ability for another which is thematically appropriate and of more or less the same power level, then sure.
And that's how I personally handle the domain issue, too. If you can present a good case to me of why your cleric should have this domain, then I'd typically say "go for it."
Another question, this one more aimed at deity design: alignment domains. If I'm trying to create a pantheon where all the members grant an equal number of domains, these things can be a real pain. The unstated law is that a deity has the domains of any non-neutral component of his alignment; i.e., all evil gods have the Evil domain, all chaotic gods have the Chaos domain. Sometimes, if a deity only seems to have one or two domains that really "define" him or her, these domains are a nice way to fill space. Other times, if a deity has a large number of domains but also has one or more non-neutral alignment components, I don't really want to inflate their list by sticking these things in. What do others, particularly those who enjoy making pantheons, feel about alignment domains? Particularly when it comes to sometimes following the unsaid maxim and sometimes not (even within a single deity; for example, a LG deity granting the Law domain, but not Good)?
Another question, this one more aimed at deity design: alignment domains. If I'm trying to create a pantheon where all the members grant an equal number of domains, these things can be a real pain. The unstated law is that a deity has the domains of any non-neutral component of his alignment; i.e., all evil gods have the Evil domain, all chaotic gods have the Chaos domain. Sometimes, if a deity only seems to have one or two domains that really "define" him or her, these domains are a nice way to fill space. Other times, if a deity has a large number of domains but also has one or more non-neutral alignment components, I don't really want to inflate their list by sticking these things in. What do others, particularly those who enjoy making pantheons, feel about alignment domains? Particularly when it comes to sometimes following the unsaid maxim and sometimes not (even within a single deity; for example, a LG deity granting the Law domain, but not Good)?
Like many d&d mechanics, I think that the aligned domains exist, at least in part, to make the four extreme alignments more attractive to players. I've never heard a player say "I'm going to be a cleric of X deity so that I can have the chaos/evil/good/law domain!" but if nothing else, having a domain list that has one or two domains more than other deities creates a subtle emphasis on the deity in question.
Now I don't have any particular problem with extreme-aligned deities being more attractive to my PCs, as long as nobody decides "My cleric has the law and good domains, so that means he should be obnoxiously righteous in order to show those CG party members the error of their ways." An exaggeration, but you get the idea.
Now I don't have any particular problem with extreme-aligned deities being more attractive to my PCs, as long as nobody decides "My cleric has the law and good domains, so that means he should be obnoxiously righteous in order to show those CG party members the error of their ways." An exaggeration, but you get the idea.
In other words, don't be Miko. I agree; look what happened to her!
EDIT- Yay! I did it! I made a linky!
|
|
Only one of the religions in my campaign has alignment domains. That religion has both Good and Evil. They are occasionally used as enemies for the PCs, but I've tried to make them just enemies. I haven't found the need to use those domains for any other religion.
BTW, I run alignment more like what I understand Eberron to do than the default D&D style, so this might not be very useful.
And that's how I personally handle the domain issue, too. If you can present a good case to me of why your cleric should have this domain, then I'd typically say "go for it."
.
Another question, this one more aimed at deity design: alignment domains. If I'm trying to create a pantheon where all the members grant an equal number of domains, these things can be a real pain. The unstated law is that a deity has the domains of any non-neutral component of his alignment; i.e., all evil gods have the Evil domain, all chaotic gods have the Chaos domain.
I've used a Homebrew Pantheon of 27 deities and 9 'lords'
Ranging from 7 Domains to as low as 4Three deities and one lord for each cardinal alignment
Deities are Greater (6-7 domains)
Lesser (5-6 domains)
and Minor (4-5 domains)
A 'lord' is a small deity without an established church, you may find a shrine or alter to this deity in a chruch deveoted to another deity. These lords are generally weaker (4 domains), and non 'mainstream' religions.
For example you might find a shrine to 'Hume' (the dwarven lord of caves and tunnels) in a church devoted to 'Kanamor' (the dwarven deity of weaponry and smithing)
Not all lawful deities in my campaign have the Law domain, nor do all good deities have good, etc.
My huntsman deity (NG) does not have 'Good' domain
(He is the night hunter, and protector of the moon)
he instead has Animal, Air, Moon, Protection, and Night (Dragon #342)
I've re-assigned the domains several time for the deities (as new domains are listed) but I don't do it for every single domain, some domains just don't fit my campaign.
Every deity or lord has a unique domain available ONLY to that deity, even if it is appropriate for other deities, I single out the one that it is most appropriate fro and give it to that deity only. This let me add some new domains without glutting the market (so to speak).
Eventually (if the trend continues) it may come to the point where every deity has TWO unique domains.
As new domains come out I may take domains away from certain deities
and assign a new domain in its place)
Not sure if any of that helps answer your question at all.
The fact that the Spell Compendium has made a number of cleric domains and domain specific spells, such as Lion's Roar(SC pg 132), more or less generic has upset the balance of the cleric class. Lion's Roar is an offensive spell orginally granted to dieties that have the Courage domain. Now Lion's Roar is a general 8th level cleric spell and I had player playing a cleric of Eldath, which is a diety of peace and love and all that other hippy crap. She wanted to cast this spell and ruled I no a diety of the profile of Eldath, pacisfism, would not grant her follows the ability to lay the smackdown on their enemies, sorry Ghandi...
I'm with you in this regard. While I have no big gripe with deities having a half-dozen domains, I do have a HUGE problem with domain-specific spells suddenly appearing on the general list, when those spells are vastly superior to other general spells of the same level (I'm talking about bolt of glory, here).
I'm with you in this regard. While I have no big gripe with deities having a half-dozen domains, I do have a HUGE problem with domain-specific spells suddenly appearing on the general list, when those spells are vastly superior to other general spells of the same level (I'm talking about bolt of glory, here).
You can always require that the player research the spell, spending time and money (as per the DMG on researching new spells) before allowing the spell.
After all, just because it has been published in a book here doesnt mean the character has ever heard of the spell.
Or simply ban the spell from your campaign altogether.
Or simply ban the spell from your campaign altogether.
No problem with the spell, if people are willing to take a specific deity and domain just to get it. I just don't think that spells created for specific domains should be fair game for everyone--should all clerics have access to time stop just because it's in the Trickery domain? I'm not advocating the banning of that spell, either--I just like to keep it restricted to those for whom it was intended. (If WotC publishes a book tomorrow listing time stop as a 4th level druid spell, I'd probably have a problem with that, too.)
I just don't think that spells created for specific domains should be fair game for everyone--should all clerics have access to time stop just because it's in the Trickery domain?
I phrased my response poorly...
REVISED: "Or simply ban the spell (other than the domain version) from your campaign altogeher."
I meant to imply that one could keep it on its original domain list, but ban it from other clerics. I've seen several spells that I have felt are overpowered for general clerical access.
I'm not sure what the criteria is for deciding if a spell is too powerful or out of flavor for certain spell lists, but often times some choices made by WotC boggle the mind.
I'm not sure what the criteria is for deciding if a spell is too powerful or out of flavor for certain spell lists, but often times some choices made by WotC boggle the mind.
That's for sure! My critereon for bolt of glory is that it far exceeds the damage cap for a 6th level spell, and is therefore in violation of the core rules for general divine spells.