|
A friend of mine brought up one point about clerics that will hurt backwards compatibility quite a lot. You hear that? Hurt - backwards - compatibility.
What should be done with domains outside SRD? Simply ditching them feels like a waste, and some wouldn't agree about it. If there's a solution made to this somewhere, please let me know too.
I don't believe it is that important. Paizo has already converted some of the most popular domains. I'm sure they will publish more as time goes on. In the meantime, substitute domains for similar PRPG counterparts or come up with your own domain powers.
This is one of those areas where I really don't like the new rules. See, I played clerics - as opposed to favored souls, even though I vastly prefer spontaneous casting - in large part because I love the domains, especially the non-standard domains. I think the domain spells are really cool, and there are some nifty abilities that come along with them. I have been totally underwhelmed by the new domain spell-like abilities. I know a lot of people like them. My husband is one of them, and he thinks I'm insane. They just don't work for me, and I would rather keep domains just the way they are in 3.5. It's not a dealbreaker for me on the Pathfinder rules, but I wouldn't choose to play a cleric with them. That's my 2 cp.
I'm just curious how it'll end up working, with monsters who can cast spells from particular domains (dragons, etc.) but not the cleric list as a whole.
|
|
One point here is that for the purposes of the Pathfinder RPG, Paizo would probably (although I can't say with absolute certainty) be limited to SRD material and the additional domains in Spell Compendium, among other places, might be fair game for a homebrew but legally Paizo couldn't touch them with a standard issue 10 foot pole.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A friend of mine brought up one point about clerics that will hurt backwards compatibility quite a lot. You hear that? Hurt - backwards - compatibility.
What should be done with domains outside SRD? Simply ditching them feels like a waste, and some wouldn't agree about it. If there's a solution made to this somewhere, please let me know too.
This is a major problem. I've brought it up in the past and most people don't seem to care. They are so excited about the SLA that they forget this destroys the game for so many things.
I for one will not be using PRGP's domain rules. Domains will remain as they are in 3.5 for all my games. It is a shame, since I'd prefer to run a pure PRPG with no house rules to fix major issues, but that isn't possible with issues like this in the final draft.
A friend of mine brought up one point about clerics that will hurt backwards compatibility quite a lot. You hear that? Hurt - backwards - compatibility.
What should be done with domains outside SRD? Simply ditching them feels like a waste, and some wouldn't agree about it. If there's a solution made to this somewhere, please let me know too.
This is a major problem. I've brought it up in the past and most people don't seem to care. They are so excited about the SLA that they forget this destroys the game for so many things.
I for one will not be using PRGP's domain rules. Domains will remain as they are in 3.5 for all my games. It is a shame, since I'd prefer to run a pure PRPG with no house rules to fix major issues, but that isn't possible with issues like this in the final draft.
you do realise that this is the ALPHA draft? not even the Beta, and a far cry from the Final Draft? Paizo won't be changing things every week. its an open playtest. People work with what they have presented, give their feedback, and they tweak/ajust etc. What you have in your hands, even if it is the Alpha3, is still just exactly what it says: the ALPHA release. Even in the alpha release some things have been changed twice or removed. You just need to be patient as far as whatever will end up the 'true final decisions'.
|
One of the goals of Pathfinder RPG is to keep your current 3.5 library alive. That would include Domains from a wide variety of sources. It isn't feasible that Pathfinder RPG would have a conversion for every Domain out there, so I would assume if you're playing a Cleric of a foreign Deity, that you continue using that Deity's Domains unchanged.
Think of it this way - Clerics worship the more common Pathfinder Domains differently than older 3.5 PHB Domains or even lesser known Domains from other sourcebooks - this is reflected as slightly different rules between Domains, and that's fine, they can exist side-by-side.
I can only think of a few reasons you couldn't play a 3.5 PHB Cleric in an otherwise Pathfinder game:
1) You're playing in a Pathfinder Society organised play campaign after August 2009, in which case your character must be Pathfinder legal;
3) You're playing a Pathfinder campaign, and your chosen Deity or Domain doesn't exist in the campaign setting; or
2) Your GM wants to play strictly by the book, and his only reference is the Pathfinder RPG.
In general, Pathfinder RPG attempts to power-up the base classes to make them more appealing to take through to 20th level. I don't think players should be discouraged from playing a 3.5 PHB character in an otherwise Pathfinder campaign, if that's the book they own and are most familiar with, as they're generally taking the lower powered choice.
There are a few exceptions to this theory, of course, where Pathfinder RPG attempts to fix "broken" rules (eg, Druid Wildshape), and the GM should inform the player of these changes if they affect their character. Specific Domains *might* be one of these, but so far I haven't heard much outcry about them.
|
|
A friend of mine brought up one point about clerics that will hurt backwards compatibility quite a lot. You hear that? Hurt - backwards - compatibility.
What should be done with domains outside SRD? Simply ditching them feels like a waste, and some wouldn't agree about it. If there's a solution made to this somewhere, please let me know too.
This is a major problem. I've brought it up in the past and most people don't seem to care. They are so excited about the SLA that they forget this destroys the game for so many things.
I for one will not be using PRGP's domain rules. Domains will remain as they are in 3.5 for all my games. It is a shame, since I'd prefer to run a pure PRPG with no house rules to fix major issues, but that isn't possible with issues like this in the final draft.
Alternatively some 3rd party redos all the non-SRD domains. Since afterwards they bare no similarity to the original, I think it's safe enough.
I just can imagine some characters that have been built upon some domain or a spell they receive from the domain.
Alternatively some 3rd party redos all the non-SRD domains. Since afterwards they bear no similarity to the original, I think it's safe enough.
I just can imagine some characters that have been built upon some domain or a spell they receive from the domain.
Officially, I don't think you can, even if in the process things get altered. It's derivative, and that might be construed as stepping on intellectual property toes.
The name doesn't seem to matter, though - I've seen a couple of multiple domains out there with the same name, but differing domain spells, in some 3rd party d20 material.
Why not allow Clerics to buy access to domain spells say for the cost of a feat (or two if you want the domain ability as well)? This would help preserve some backwards compatibility.
|
Looking over the new Domains, it doesn't look that hard to convert. Almost all of the spell-like abilities are taken from the domain spell-lists, or, more rarely, the granted powers.
And as a 3rd party publisher can't produce them, is there any reason we can't put our creative hats on and thrash out unofficial conversions here? It's not like there's a shortage of creative, interested parties with a good grasp of the rules on these boards.
|
|
This is one of those areas where I really don't like the new rules. See, I played clerics - as opposed to favored souls, even though I vastly prefer spontaneous casting - in large part because I love the domains, especially the non-standard domains. I think the domain spells are really cool, and there are some nifty abilities that come along with them. I have been totally underwhelmed by the new domain spell-like abilities. I know a lot of people like them. My husband is one of them, and he thinks I'm insane. They just don't work for me, and I would rather keep domains just the way they are in 3.5. It's not a dealbreaker for me on the Pathfinder rules, but I wouldn't choose to play a cleric with them. That's my 2 cp.
Quoted for full agreement. The domain issue probably won't convince me to pass on Pathfinder, but I don't like the new rules and they have not grown on me.
|
|
As an alternative to Pathfinder rules that might still deal with the no point in continuing a Cleric issue, perhaps the following would work:
Keep the domains as they are in 3.5 but instead of being spells they are now spell-like abilities that are granted at the same level as usual. Thus, if you leave Cleric for a full caster prestige class, you don't get access to the higher level abilities. It's not perfect solution by any means, but thoughts?
what I have done was I converted a domain. then the spells that you only got from that domain I made then standard cleric spells.However the spells that were domain only are still only on lists of cleric that have that domain.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you do realise that this is the ALPHA draft?
Yes
this is reflected as slightly different rules between Domains, and that's fine, they can exist side-by-side.
I can only think of a few reasons you couldn't play a 3.5 PHB Cleric in an otherwise Pathfinder game
They can't be used side by side, in my opinion. They are as different as night and day.
Aditional ways they break things:
1) Divine Crusader isn't a playable PrC with PRPG rules.
2) Holt Warden may lose a chunk of it's class with PRPG rules.
3) Domain Icons, Domain Drafts, and a whole host of Domain related items cease to function.
4) Losing domain spells prohibits a number of flavour builds using cleric list with specific domain spells.
5) How is Sovereign Speaker work with the new rules? It may no longer be viable.
There needs to be a better way to do what is wanted by the domain changes? Maybe just have domains add the spells to your spell list normally like Sorcerer bloodline feats add spells known to the Sorcerer list.
Why not allow Clerics to buy access to domain spells say for the cost of a feat (or two if you want the domain ability as well)? This would help preserve some backwards compatibility.
A feat may be too expensive of a cost, but some sort of buying method would be desired if there is no way to remove the new domain powers as they stand in PRPG #3.
Keep the domains as they are in 3.5 but instead of being spells they are now spell-like abilities that are granted at the same level as usual.
This would fix a number of issues with the new domain rules, but how do you handle it when you have more than two domains? How about more than 1 domain spell slot per level?
|
|
Keep the domains as they are in 3.5 but instead of being spells they are now spell-like abilities that are granted at the same level as usual.This would fix a number of issues with the new domain rules, but how do you handle it when you have more than two domains? How about more than 1 domain spell slot per level?
Exactly the same way you handle it now. If you can cast multiple domain spells, you get multiple spell-like abilities to use (spell-like ability slots effectively). If you have more than two domains you have more choices, just like now.
All I'm really suggesting is renaming the Domain Spell as the Domain Spell-Like Ability. Granted it's not that radical a solution, but it does preserve the domain spell ability. I have no trouble with the Pathfinder rules yet, but this is a suggestion for those that do.
I also will not be adopting the new domain rules. Frankly I don't like the SLAs for sorcerors or wizards either. From the perspective of the DM they are one more thing that I have to track. How many times have they used their spells, their SLAs, etc?
But with the domains I also don't like that they have removed several pre-existing abilities such as the ability to rebuke or command elementals and plants. Even the Elemental turning feat doesn't address this since it only allows you to damage a specific type of elemental. Clerics of earth gods can no longer rebuke/command earth elementals. That bugs me.
Additionally I have several custom domains created for my campaign that I would have to convert over to the new system. I tried this the other day and I found that coming up with appropriately balanced and flavorful abilities to match the other domains was difficult.
So I will not be using the new domain rules.
|
|
Why not allow Clerics to buy access to domain spells say for the cost of a feat (or two if you want the domain ability as well)? This would help preserve some backwards compatibility.
Here's an idea:
Clerics automatically get domain spells as 3.5, but they can take a feat called "Domain Specialization" (or something more catchy) that also gives them some SLA's related to their domain, similar to the Pathfinder model. This would preserve backwards compatibility, and still allow more focus on Domains (strengthening the flavor of the specific domains the cleric chose).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm sure as time goes by Paizo will add more domains to 3P. While they may not be the same, I'm sure they'll cover the same theme.
I seriously doubt it due to IP problems and the hint of being considered a derivative work.
Second, even if they did, it would still break compatibility.
|
|
A friend of mine brought up one point about clerics that will hurt backwards compatibility quite a lot. You hear that? Hurt - backwards - compatibility.
What should be done with domains outside SRD? Simply ditching them feels like a waste, and some wouldn't agree about it. If there's a solution made to this somewhere, please let me know too.
Paizo can't really try to create backwards compatibility with non-SRD stuff. For one it would be too complicated (are they going to make it compatible with ToM, ToB, MoI, etc?) and for another it would be legally dubious.
But they can refrain from adding systems or changing systems in a way that wrecks compatibility with non-SRD materials. One of the things that Pathfinder is supposed to do is maintain the value of the books we already have.
To maintain compatibility in this area all they have to do is not alter the way domain powers work.
|
I'm sure as time goes by Paizo will add more domains to 3P. While they may not be the same, I'm sure they'll cover the same theme.I seriously doubt it due to IP problems and the hint of being considered a derivative work.
Second, even if they did, it would still break compatibility.
I am sorry, but you're are most likely not correct here. Just because Wotc created a "cold" domain outside the SRD, does not preclude Paizo from using the same concept. If the mechanic of domains is in the SRD, you can't preclude the use of such basic, universal ideas. Take a look at the FOS software movement. no one decided that "Microsoft uses a right mouse button context menu, so we can't because of prior art/IP" Context buttons operated by a mouse click are to general an idea to be locked into IP. Domains based on universal, basic ideas similar to the ideas in the SRD, can and will be added to PFRPG with no legal issues.
As to your prior post's list of things broken, if the worst the new system deviates from backwards compatibility is a handful of non-SRD prestige classes (out of hundreds) and a smattering of items that i have not even heard of (and I own most Wotc books except those released since the decision to cancel the mags), it really isn't a big deal.
I think you might be misconstruing what Paizo means by backwards compatibility. It doesn't mean that 100% of your splat books will work with no conversion. It means the majority of your books will work fine, and the rest can be shoe horned into the system.
The new cleric rules (while not to my taste), pass the backwards compatibility test with flying colors.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
if the worst the new system deviates from backwards compatibility is a handful of non-SRD prestige classes and a smattering of items that i have not even heard of, it really isn't a big deal.
The new cleric rules (while not to my taste), pass the backwards compatibility test with flying colors.
If you really want me to, I will post 100 or more things the domain changes break.
The domain rules don't remotely pass the backward compat test, period. I honestly don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
Director of Games
|
if the worst the new system deviates from backwards compatibility is a handful of non-SRD prestige classes and a smattering of items that i have not even heard of, it really isn't a big deal.
The new cleric rules (while not to my taste), pass the backwards compatibility test with flying colors.
If you really want me to, I will post 100 or more things the domain changes break.
The domain rules don't remotely pass the backward compat test, period. I honestly don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
I would like to see that list.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
if the worst the new system deviates from backwards compatibility is a handful of non-SRD prestige classes and a smattering of items that i have not even heard of, it really isn't a big deal.
The new cleric rules (while not to my taste), pass the backwards compatibility test with flying colors.
If you really want me to, I will post 100 or more things the domain changes break.
The domain rules don't remotely pass the backward compat test, period. I honestly don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
the ones you listed b4 are easy to fix or get around . I posted ways to do so...but it got ate and I Didn't feel like retypeing. it really isn't an issue.
|
I would like to see that list.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm in the camp that the revised domains do break backwards compatability. I'm not saying the domains don't need reworking, and I am a fan of the specialist wizard changes, but not the domains. Here's why:
Published NPCS no longer valid
- spell slots changed
- bonus domain feats removed
- bonus domain class skills removed
- spell selections may not be valid any more
Existing supplements/SRD
- domain specific spells (word of chaos, etc) no longer useful
- these specific domain spells are often given to monsters as SLAs and are still needed
What I would like to see is the domains rewritten, to make them more equal in power (roughly the equivalent of gaining one bonus feat of middling to low power). And keep the bonus spells known.
As a personal wish, I was hoping turn undead would stay turn undead, and each domain would get a bonus use of that ability. So the healing wave would come from the Healing domain, etc.
I just want to chime in and say I like the new domains. As both a DM and a player. Domains were previously selected for how broken they were(spell domain giving the anyspell) or for free feats. Now they will be picked for flavor of the character.
I just want to chime in and say I like the new domains. As both a DM and a player. Domains were previously selected for how broken they were(spell domain giving the anyspell) or for free feats. Now they will be picked for flavor of the character.
I hope the new domains stay we love em. and having redone a few domains its not that hard.
And as a 3rd party publisher can't produce them, is there any reason we can't put our creative hats on and thrash out unofficial conversions here? It's not like there's a shortage of creative, interested parties with a good grasp of the rules on these boards.
Thank you, Paul, for pointing out exactly one of the issues which has been most distressing to me for some time now. As DMs and die-hard tabletop role-players, why should we be complaining about smaller details we can change all by our lonesomes? One of the greatest beauties of running a game is the ability to creatively alter things to make them work for our own campaigns. If a Domain is not included in the PRPG, why wait for Paizo (who quite frankly have an entire company to manage) to convert it when we can do it all on our own?
Now, I will admit that I am a new poster to these boards, and I would never wish to inflame anyone who may be a regular, but I am NOT new to RPGs overall. When many of us first began gaming, it was because we found an outlet for some of our most creative abilities. I have noticed over the years that those "creative muscles" seem to have atrophied as we wait for someone else to do the work. Well, I say lets start flexing those grey muscles and see what we can come up with. This foram is exactly the place to bounce those ideas around to see if they'll work for others as well as for you.
We could start a thread for converted domains....think I will do such a thing right now
Stating that it is not that hard to convert non-SRD domains to Pathfinder domains does not make it so.
It is hard if you're short on time or uninterested in doing so. Balancing the new mechanics of daily uses vs. spells lost is not easy.
Plus this change means revising every cleric stat block from a previously published source. Unlike wizards and sorcerors, clerics actually lose spells per day at every level as a result of this change. It also eliminates listed domain only spells which may be in those stat blocks and adds a host of abilities which are not included in the original stat block. So every cleric stat block needs significant rework to be compliant.
That leaves the Pathfinder DM with two choices. Spend the time to convert his NPCs over so they are on par with the PCs or ignore the change for his NPCs in which case they don't have the same powers and abilities as similar PCs.
To me that's too much of a blow to backwards compatibility.
|
|
I'm sure as time goes by Paizo will add more domains to 3P. While they may not be the same, I'm sure they'll cover the same theme.I seriously doubt it due to IP problems and the hint of being considered a derivative work.
I'm sorry but concept isn't IP. The Winter and Cold Domains from say Frostburn might be stat blocks and mechanics and gods granted by WOTC stuff that isn't OGC, but they don't own "Winter Domain."
Second, even if they did, it would still break compatibility.
Really it does? How does Paizo making it's own Winter Domain hurt backwards compatibility?
|
|
I think that the PFRPG approach of domain powers is a big step forward in keeping the cleric class viable longer.
But I do think that the loss of domain spells is a bit of a shame, for many of the reasons cited above.
For my own games, I'd just add a cleric's domain spells to his list of spells known. I don't see how that would break the game - it's no different than allowing the cleric access to additional spells from a splatbook, and we're only talking about a handful of spells that a cleric would get from his two domains (and in some cases, none at all.)
This is pretty much how I feel.
I believe that the inclusion of the new domain and abilities is a step in the correct direction. I feel that removing the 3.5 SRD domain powers is also a step in the right direction - too many times I saw players choose their character, their god, and thus their domains simply on the power they would have gotten - as some of them were outlandishly more powerful than others.
However, losing the extra 1 x day spell slot from the domain spells is a big loss. There's already a problem with the 15 min adventuring day in many games - this just adds to that dilema I think.
For my games, I intend to use PF domains and abilities (which I like a lot) and simply allow the extra memorized domain spell each day.
I don't think it breaks anything.
For the record - I feel similarly about the wizards (specialists) and their SLAs that are now arbitrarily assigned to the wizard at each level, and removing the players choice of what bonus spell he wants to memorize. Something that i'm also adding back to the wizards - they'll get their specialist school arbitrary spells per day assigned to them, and can still choose one school spell to be memorized as they see fit. That way they still have the option of memorizing an Extended Haste in the 4th level slot is no 4th level transmuting spell sounds appealing to them that day.
I say to anyone who doesn't like the new domain rules because of the omission of the domain spells - just add them back in - that doesn't take a lot of work. House rules are a part of his hobby; always has and always will.
Robert
|
Stating that it is not that hard to convert non-SRD domains to Pathfinder domains does not make it so.
Your campaign world should have a set of domains and any NPC in that world should conform to one of those domains. If you don't like the domains in PfRPG then spend some time to convert the domains you want in your world. You only have to do this once. Personally I think the Pathfinder ones are adequate and can't see adding more than a few but YMMV.
Plus this change means revising every cleric stat block from a previously published source. Unlike wizards and sorcerors, clerics actually lose spells per day at every level as a result of this change.
Indeed this is the case. However I think it's a more general issue. Specialist wizards lose one spell per level and gain domain powers, socerers all lose their familiars and gain bloodline powers. Barbarians gain rage powers... The Cleric NPCs are not the only ones touched by this.
If you are in a hurry or just don't want to spend the time, use the quick conversion guide on page 129. The NPC cleric is slightly different than the PC cleric... I don't think it's a big deal and the players probably won't notice. If you think it's a big problem having NPCs slightly different then you are going to be frustrated.
-- Dennis
The domains tend to follow a predictable pattern on SLAs granting the former first, second, fourth or fifth, sixth or seventh and ninth level spells as SLAs and you could implement the house rule that the domains add the spells that were on the original domain lists to the main cleric list so you could still get access to say Genesis with the Creation domain or holy aura with good or Probe Thoughts with Mind, etc. Actually conversions of the Creation and Mind Domains would be greatly appreciated
|
|
I have yet to hear what is actually wrong with domains as they are in 3.5 - some are clearly more optimal choices than others (War was a really good one, but not as necessary with the weapon proficiency change in PF, and Law/Good/Chaos/Evil all stunk), but those could've been fixed individually without completely redoing the whole system.
It just seems unnecessary and I don't see anything good that it adds. The touch powers aren't even worth the effort and the 'spell like abilities' don't seem more or less powerful than the domain slots so if it's not balancing something it's not needed at all.
|
|
I like the new domains, I hope they are here to stay. I do believe they can reduce some clerics power.
A cleric in my campaign had the war and elf domains. This gave them 3 extra feats at level 1. The current system isn't goint to replace this, but then many believed the cleric to be at the high end of the power scale in 3.5 anyway (even those at WotC as stated in Races and Classes)
I do think some of the powers need reworking, but thats what the open play test is for. I've been working on the Elf domain in another thread with help from others looking in.
As for backwards compatibility, there are always going to be issues. They aren't issues that can't be resolved with a little work. If you don't have the time stick with 3.5 until the official 3P adventures start to roll off the press.
The elf cleric archer is going to suffer, no weapon focus, no point blank shot... However the concept will still be there, they just won't outshine the rest of the party (such as the ranger) at missile fire, while casting spells and turning undead :)
For my part, I love the new system for domains. My only issue is that it is close to but not exactly like the Schools for wizards. I'm not fond of a different mechanic for each class, but that's not the point.
The domain powers are not exactly compatible with the non-SRD material, and that's okay. I've seen official revisions of the material that were just as (if not more) incompatible with that material. The thing I've learned is that you don't base permanent and critical choices for your character on non-core material. It will never be looked at in the same light as core material, and it should not be a sticking point for core changes.
I play a cleric with three domains, two of which are not in the SRD. I will need to present a suitable option to my game group that will be a reasonable replacement for the old domains. Will this be difficult? Maybe. Will it take some time? Definitely. Will it involve me doing what I love to do in a hobby I've been active in for three decades? Absolutely.
This may be the single most extensive backwards compatibily issue I've encountered in Pathfinder. I really don't care. If a mod I use contains an old cleric, I'll probably just play him as written. If it's a critical NPC, then I'll rewrite him. No big deal.
-Scott
I like the new take on domains, with the houserule that spells on the old domain lists are added to the cleric spells list for clerics with those domains only (so that holy smite and so on don't just go away). The player of the elf cleric with the Sun and War domains feels like his PC has been gimped in the conversion; in my view, it was about time.
I'm not so crazy about the new specialist wizard powers; for the most part they seem goofy and arbitrary, and totally lack the coolness that the extra spell per level provided. The universalist wizard is also now a tad too good for my taste. I may houserule wizards back to 3.5, but keep Pathfinder classes for the others... have to see what the group would prefer.
In this case, I tend to agree that the changes are not game-breaking. Paizo can't be responsible for every D20 splatbook on the market complying with the current rules, and converting material not supported by Pathfinder doesn't appear to be all that difficult. I am curious how some monsters, such as dragons, would be converted, but in the end it seems pretty easily done. In the case of dragons, you just keep the spells on their spell lists.
-Steve
By the way, I'm still curious to see this list of over 100 ways the new domain rules break backward compatibility ...Well it really boils down to 3, NPCs, Domain only spells, and non-core domains.
I don't really see this as much of a problem in terms of BWC as it is in terms of people getting to make the sort of characters they want. Even then, compatability isn't as much of a problem as preference.
I myself have a couple unique divine casters who are impacted by the change. The most notable is a cleric who uses the spontaneous divine casting rules. Obviously, for someone with a very limited number of spells known, a change like this has quite an impact eliminating about 30% of the spells she would normally know. However, working with my DM, it was a simple matter to say that she would add those domain spells to her spells known list and retain the old granted powers instead of gaining the new SLAs. In other words, no changes necessary.
As for NPCs...
If I run a 3.5 module using PfRPG rules, I'll just give the clerics a couple extra feats and use whatever spells and granted powers they have in their stat block. If I'm running a Pf module with 3.5 rules, the stat blocks should have all the SLAs defined in the entry so I can just stick to that.
Either way, not a problem.
Personally, if the new-style domains are kept, I'd be in favor of the Final rules having a brief sidebar noting how 3.5-style domains can be used alongside the PfRPG rules. +1 Domain spell at each level and You use the domain spell lists and granted powers from whatever sourcebook You have in hand.
Honestly, I just don't see the fuss so I really would like to see that entire list of 100 issues.