Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I strongly believe the single largest destroyer of backward compatibility in the current Beta rules of PRPG is the drastic change to backward compatibility that is the Cleric Domain changes.
No other change (Wizard schools, Sorcerer bloodlines, etc) effect backward compatibility in any way as much as the Domains change.
Retaining this change forecloses on hundreds of discrete rules from WotC (and other 3rd party) books including Prestige Classes, Feats, and Abilities.
I haven't met a DM since 2000 that used just the PHB. The culture for 3.5 games is the more the books the merrier. These new rules for domains encourage DMs to run games with just the new PRPG book. If he wants to use other books (like all games the local 40+ players that gather in a local monthly meetup play) then these changes require DM's to do more work than any other change.
The many problems with these changes are listed below:
1) The DM needs to convert all existing domains not in the PHB to the new format (for example all domains in Spells Compendium.)
2) The DM must rule on how/if a given rule works with the new system (for example Divine Crusader in Complete Divine.)
3) The benefit gain by the Domain SLA pale in comparison to the old Domain system, so if the desire was to nerf the Cleric then nerf it. Lower his spells per day again to offset the additional spell per day slot (so the new Cleric can't get more spells per day total than the current "new" Cleric in PRPG.)
So I beg of you Paizo, do the right thing. Kill the Domain changes and work in the existing 3.5 Domain system in to PRPG so I don't need to do that. I've been running games using PRPG rules for as long as the 1st Alpha rules have been out. I'm playing in a game that has been using the PRPG rules since 2nd Alpha rules. Neither of these games use the new domain rules and both DM's (me and my friend) think they destroy backward compatibility and we will never be using these games if we end up continuing to use PRPG rules after Beta.
Others, please chime in with your support for reverting back to 3.5 Domains or if you like the rules for domains changed from 3.5 rules. In this thread, I'm not too concerned with ways to "fix" the new rules. They can't be fixed. Either you support removing them or you support keeping some changes from the 3.5 domains.
I agree. The domain changes are one of the biggest detractors from backwards compatibility. Paizo can not update every domain due to copyrights, therefore they should not make such a sweeping change that invalidates so much content. It was my understanding that compatibility with the current 3.5 content was a design goal of Pathfinder. This one issue totally kills that goal.
|
I somewhat agree. I believe that the 1st level domain powers should at least nod towards the SRD domain abilities, and make them similar if possible. However, the 8th (and I believe, 20th) level abilities should open up new options.
I think the biggest detractor of the new domain system is the loss of domain spells. The SLAs gained at infrequent levels lack the flavor content of the SRD spell choices. I would like to see these go back (or be modified to a similar mechanic to the specialist wizards, so at 2nd level, a cleric gains a bonus spell to their list from a small selection of choices, etc).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
However, the 8th (and I believe, 20th) level abilities should open up new options.
You could add this feature to PRPG without the new domains. Just add an ability or two to any Cleric with 8th and 9th level spell slots based on what god they worship.
For example, the Sun God could get Sunbeam as an SLA 3/day when he has 8th levels spells and an Ex immunity to [Light] spells when he has 9th levels spell slots. A Fire god could get Immunity to Fire as an 8th level SLA.
I still prefer no changes because even this suggestion requires the DM write/design the 2 abilities for each God a player chooses which isn't already designed in the PRPG rules. But at least that is less work than all the adjudicating required to fit the new rules into games.
The problem with the old domain system is that it encouraged a lot of level-dipping into "worship the ideal" clerics, who would grab the War domain and Luck domain, and then head off into another class with some healing, a bevy of feats, and a reroll. In my campaigns, it certainly encouraged rogue/cleric combinations.
The idea behind the new domain powers is very sound: it gives players a reason to keep levelling as a cleric. There has been a lot of discussion on how to rework those powers, which I won't repeat here, but in our playtests so far it has given characters a lot more incentive to stick with cleric.
It is also internally consistent, comparable in both mechanic and power to the bloodline and school specialization abilities of the other spell-casters.
Frankly, the loss of compatibility with the other domains is a big issue to backwards compatibility. But there are great number of new domains in PRPG and plenty of parallels can be drawn between the Spell Compendium and the new domains. It hasn't slowed down a Forgotten Realms game at all; we simply replaced the old domains with comparable new ones. The dynamic remains fun, and the new domains give the clerics a bit of flare they lacked before.
A thought occurs to me: Why not simply have each domain add two to three spells to the Cleric's spell list at the appropriate level? It takes up less space, gives the flavor the 3.5 domains added, and doesn't require removing the new (and in my mind engaging) domain powers. It also means that if a cleric doesn't want to use a domain spell, they don't have to take it.
[This’ll probably hurt!] I disagree.
I like the new domains, they have more flavour than 3.5 ones. WotC released far too many splat books with endless extra Spell, Domains, Prestige classes and monsters that PF have no authority to use.
It seemed to me that the SpC domains were usually selected for the Feat or ability they granted and hardly ever because of the spells within. What's wrong with the domains that are part of their God's Portfolio? It was too much cheese for me!
Although backward compatibility is important, it's inevitable that some parts of the game will change. PF need to look toward the future of their product and how to make a business out of it. At least we're getting to have a say in its direction, and whatever happens it can't be worse than 4th!
However, I do agree that some of the Domains need a little work, but on the whole I like them.
|
|
I was about to write something along these lines too. As much as I like the the basic domain structure, which encourages to stay in the class, I don't agree with the actual powers and the spells/SLA's of most domains. It is clear that one domain should not be as powerful as a single wizard school but how can a more or less useful to downright pitiful fixed list(detect magic from the magic domain and gentle repose from the repose domain comes to mind) of SLAs compare with a free selection from your chosen schools list? If given the choice my cleric would trade his two cleric domains for one wizard school in a heartbeat.
Let's look at the War Domain. Here's what I would do ... the old SRD power was Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus, and the 1st level spell was Magic Weapon.
If you want to keep the existing structure, and keep the bonus spells, and keep the Pathfinder structure, here's how I would handle this specific domain.
1st - Soul of War (Su): You gain a +1 bonus to hit wielding your deity’s favored weapon, plus an additional +1 for every 5 levels in cleric you have (maximum +5 at 20th level)
NOTE: This scales as you take additional levels of cleric, avoiding level dipping, gives you a power that is still relevant at higher levels, and mimics the original SRD effect of Weapon Focus, maintaining backwards compatability.
2nd - You may memorize an additional 1st level spell from the following list: magic weapon, shillelagh, true strike
NOTE: This gives you the effect of the bonus domain spell from the SRD, opens up a few more options, and is still a useful 2nd level power.
4th - You may memorize and additional 2nd level spell from the following list: spiritual weapon, align weapon, shield other
NOTE: You get the idea, three spells, one extra slot, keeping with the theme of the domain, occasionally allowing non-cleric spells, just like the SRD does.
8th - Battle Master (Su): You gain the use of a bonus combat feat. This feat can be changed each time you pray for spells. You must meet the prerequisites for this feat. You may transfer this feat to another target 1/day for a duration of 1 round per caster level.
NOTE: A supernatural at-will power that is certainly worthwhile to a cleric at this power level, that keeps with the thene of War.
20th – Master Tactician (Su): For all allies within 60 feet who can hear your voice, you automatically grant the effect of aiding them in combat. Each round, you may declare whether this grants them a +2 to Armor Class, or +2 to attack rolls. As well, you may take 10 with all attack rolls, at any time.
NOTE: A capstone power that is with the War domain theme, that is not jut another spell slot granted 1/day.
So, with a little work, you keep backwards compatability (a plus in my book), give the domain the Pathfinder treatment, with scaling effects that reward the cleric for advancement, and avoid level-dipping for feats, and grant a version of bonus spells more like the specialist wizard, that also offer some additional variety.
Thoughts?
For my part, I agree. The changes to domains are easily the most difficult to rectify with other 3.5 products. It is also one of the only instances where characters built with the core rules must endure a loss of powers, possibly forcing a retroactive continuity for those characters.
The Domain bonus spell lists were neat.
Thoughts?
I'll admit I'm a fan of the new Pathfinder domains, and managed to convert all my 3.5 clerics with very little difficulty (although why the water domain is all cold spells is sort of beyond me), but, with that said, I feel that your compromise system has an awful lot to recommend it. By limiting "domain-dips" and intentionally providing benefits that scale with cleric level rather than caster level, you fulfill Paizo's goal of discouraging people from feeling a need to prestige out of all base classes ASAP. By providing some spell choices and 1st level abilities that somewhat mimic the old domain powers, you throw a bone to the "we demand reversion to 3.5 at once!" crowd. Hopefully this idea will engender further constructive discussion.
Edit: I'd actually hoped they would nerf the cleric some more, not less. 3/4 BAB coupled with full spellcasting and a slew of bonus feats/abilities was a bit much in 3.5, and adding the new, improved channeling in PF makes them even better. (And don't even get me started on the ridiculousness that is the Spell Compendium bolt of glory--if you allow open access in your game, you get what you deserve when every PC is suddenly a cleric.) Overall, I suspect if everyone who does NOT have a cleric PC dropped out of the thread, we'd actually find a lot more people in favor of scaling them DOWN a bit more.
Interesting idea for the War Domain & Idea of choice from three spells for 2nd, 4th, etc.
Your write-up of the War Domain is interesting Archade, and the spell choice could be workable (though I feel over-complicated in use and perhaps too strong). However I don't think your idea addresses the OP's concerns about backwards compatibility - it still requires developing new abilities, and would not be able to prestige class out of cleric and keep the benefits of the domain abilities.
I consider backwards compatibility my #1 concern, and I am *fully* in favor of the new Domain formats. Individual powers/spells can always be tweaked - there are certainly 3.5 domains that virtually no one would ever select. I don't consider the new domains to be a "nerf" at all - except for dippers looking for bonus feats. The powers themselves are generally quite strong (Charm, Law, Trickery) and flavorful.
About the only thing that is needed at this point are some *guidelines* for handling Domains in prestige classes that use them, and possibly for conversion of other domains. A look at how Domains were used can pick out some suggestions.
For example, we *cannot* simply give a prestige class that used to grant access to an extra domain the full powers of that domain in addition to the base two. This is because previously an Extra Domain was mostly just an extra choice, and a "Domain power". Now it would mean the 1st level power, all the extra spell slots, and other powers later.
I would suggest any "Bonus Domain" classes grant the powers of the Domain based on the Prestige class level. It may seem weak, but the original class feature was not that strong to begin with.
Edit: And for the record:
I haven't met a DM since 2000 that used just the PHB.
Now you have.
The concept of the new domains is sound. What I really would like to see would be a template to port over old domains. This would make it a tiny little bit easier to do this. And, yes, it is the worst new thing regarding the backwards compatibility... but still, this is not such a big thing. Just strap the domain spells and abilities from NPCs and add the new domains. Are there really so many written sources where cleric NPCs are not working at all without their old domain spells and abilities? I doubt it.
|
i disagree with the topic and the OP
i like the new domains, they feel more thematic than just "bonus spells" i don't think they affect prestigue classes... the character would have the domain many PRC ask, so itwon't change... if you mean t PRC having different domains than how they are shown... well... as much as DM use different books they also make change... so its time for both theplayer and the DM to sit and discuss how this new Domain would relate with the world, and which wuld be its powers and "bonus spells"
i think this can be good
also yes, they gave more versatility to domains in general, making some of them more attractive versus what already existed.
from the changes in the rules: schools, domains and bloodlines... is what i have enjoyed most... because it makes character feel unique... instead of just a bunch of spells...
in 3.5 i played a cleric with War and Sun, the new domains encouraged me to make asimilar concept but using Glory and Sun...
i agree a few needrefining... but i would hate to see them go...
|
Mmmmm I am just curious how this ruins backwards compatablity?
This weekend I converted two cleric characters, one level 3 and one level 16. I think it took me a whole five minutes each to make the conversions over.
Instead of using the old domain powers and extra spells I just wrote down the new ones. I didn't have a Prestige class that depended upon those powers, but if I had, I would have just adjusted to the change.
To me, this seems like one of the most minor changes in any of the classes.
And face it, PRPG is not a clone of 3.5 so people will need to use their brains a little bit to merge the two.
I mean, really if I can convert characters from 1st and 2nd edition to 3.5 and even to Pathdinder, what is the problem?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) the old domain system is that it encouraged a lot of level-dipping into "worship the ideal" clerics
2) It is also internally consistent, comparable in both mechanic and power to the bloodline and school specialization abilities of the other spell-casters.
1) That isn't the place of the game system to prevent dipping, it is the job of the DM.
2) Except in the case of Domains, you are gutting a whole complex mechanic and in the case of Sorcerer Bloodlines and Wizard Schools, you are adding mechanics where none existed. Two different things as far as backward compatibility.
3) WotC released far too many splat books with endless extra Spell, Domains, Prestige classes and monsters that PF have no authority to use.
4) Although backward compatibility is important, it's inevitable that some parts of the game will change.
3) Again, it is the job of Paizo to be wary of obsoleting so much 3rd party content. They want this system to be the new core rules. If they try to hard to make all that content obsolete (like this domain change) they end up encouraging people like me to either stick with the existing 3.5 core rules OR spend hours on end converting parts of PRPG back to 3.5 mechanics.
4) And nothing else in PRPG that changes has much of any noticeable effect on backward compatibility except this Domain change.
5) I suspect if everyone who does NOT have a cleric PC dropped out of the thread, we'd actually find a lot more people in favor of scaling them DOWN a bit more.
5) I have roughly 24 players in the 4 games I run or play each week and only 2 players of the 24 have Clerics. One of them use the PRPG rules and likes the Cleric (using 3.5 domain rules) and the other use 3.5 rules with PRPG Turning but she doesn't like playing a Cleric (she doesn't like to heal) so she may change to a Wizard soon. Please don't try to suggest that the opposition to the changes come from people wanting to protect their "Cleric power". In fact, the PRPG Cleric lose a lot of spells per day, it is already nerfed a substantial bit and you don't see me asking for any increase in power. The revert to 3.5 domains is not what one would consider and increase in power.
6) Now you have.
I'm glad I don't play in your games. From my view you are in the great minority. We have a monthly D&D meetup here where 30-40 people show up each month out of over 120 members. I've never seen a single game in 2 years that was "core rules" only. Not a single DM in over 120 players. From my view, your style of play is very rare. I don't dispute you play that way, but I do say it isn't the target audience Paizo is trying to encourage switching. Their market is the folks like me who like buying new content, new books, new modules, new minis, basically new content.
7) Are there really so many written sources where cleric NPCs are not working at all without their old domain spells and abilities? I doubt it.
Who cares about NPC's? I care about classes that add Domain Slots (how do they work in the new rules) like Divine Crusader and Holt Warden. How do you handle feats that require a Smite ability when a 3.5 Cleric could take the feat when they have a Domain based smite ability? What about Clerics who have spells they can cast from Domains? In short, there are literally hundreds of Feats, Prestige Classes, and other abilites that no longer work with the changes and this isn't counting the NPC's that fail to work as written now.
I find myself thinking that the more work Pathfinder requires me to do in adapting from 3.5 to Pathfinder the less I'm interested in doing so at all.
I admit I like some of the class changes. I don't really like this one.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Sure, there are existing classes in the 3.5 glut that interact specifically with the Domain rules, but they are certainly not as common as the hundreds of divine classes that don't interact with Domains at all. With the sheer number of 3.5 books out there, were Paizo to change nothing that would affect any of them, we'd still be playing the same SRD. Furthermore, why would they make such a huge design decision when they can't even use most of the classes that would be effected in their own products? Were there a mechanic that interfered with the Dragon Shaman, do you think that would be enough for Jason et al to decide against what is otherwise a great revision?
I for one feel that this change is great. I love the internal consistency within the revised rules set, since now Domains, Bloodlines, and Schools all have similar mechanics. If you're a full caster, you get one of three similarly structured class features. Nice, clean, perfect. Sure, some of the specifics of certain Domains and Schools need some tweaking, but overall I think it's great.
The main argument I see here, other than the nebulous "it ain't BC" is the loss of spell slots. I agree that while the addition of SLA's makes up for some of this, it doesn't fully compensate. Perhaps extending a cleric's spell list to include other domain spells (which would still take up a normal slot) would make up the difference, allowing them to take more spells of the same feel to add to the SLA they are already getting.
In the end, though, BC is only one of the goals of the PRPG, and if this is the worst of the non-BC content, then I think they've done a great job so far. I don't see it being a huge amount of work to convert a non-OGC domain to this format anyway, as all you're really doing is making some of the spells into SLA's along the way.
Overall, I'm actually pretty happy with the new domains. Sure, there is some tweaking that needs to be done as far as powers (make them balanced with each other) and the extra spells (some just don't really fit the domain as well as the old 3.5 ones did).
Of course, we started a new campaign using the rules, so there isn't any conversion required from old characters.
The one major area we have is with bonus domains granted by PRCs. For example, I really wanted to run my cleric towards the Eberron Soveriegn Speaker prestige class. The problem is the class gives an extra 9 domains. Under the old rules, this would have just been 9 extra first level abilities and then extra choices for my domain spells. Under Pathfinder.... we couldn't come up with an adequate solution. Even if we used the PRC level for abilities, that would have been 9 first level abilities (at 9th level ability), 36 (9x4) first level spells, 9 2nd level spells, and 9 8th level abilities (at 9th level). Looking at that we had to say "Nope, that PRC doesn't exist. There are no Soveriegn Speakers in Eberron".
I realize that is an extreme example, but there are several cleric PRCs that grant 2+ bonus domains. It also means that PRPG completely nullified a major campaign-specific PRC with just this one change in the rules. Before, the PRC had been more flavor than anything as it mostly gave you choices. Now the PRC is completely unmanageable.
Although I agree that the domain changes affect backwards compatibility, I personally don't really care all that much about it. I'd rather have a better new solution than a completely backwards compatible one. I did find the process of generating my cleric a little annoying, but once I gave up on the 3.5e splatbooks it was OK :-)
Backwards compat is for monsters and adventures anyway, and it's good enough for those.
|
|
I realize that is an extreme example, but there are several cleric PRCs that grant 2+ bonus domains. It also means that PRPG completely nullified a major campaign-specific PRC with just this one change in the rules. Before, the PRC had been more flavor than anything as it mostly gave you choices. Now the PRC is completely unmanageable.
could it work if you give it less domains?say 3? if they are 9 especific domains, maybe the speakers can focus on some aspects...
sorry i haven't read Eberron so i don't know how the PRC works or how its thematic would be altered...
aside of this... most of the Cleric's PRC as some poeple mentioned arenot affected by Domain abilities...
if there is one and you see that it works that way using one of the old domains, changue the prerequisite to just that domain, in the example of the "smite evil" also add the smite evil (ex) at 1st level
done
to the OP, you have 2 clerics, one of them doesn't want to be one, the other ok doesn't like the new mechanics
in our party of 8 people we have a sorcerer, a wizard and a cleric... and the 3 of them loved the bloodlines, schools and domains changes (actually the wizard, has 2 wizards in different campagins, different schools; i myself use the cleric and i am in love with the domains... alerady saved her life once and gave her the advantage in a few situations (glory and sun))
i myself have only the 3.0 base books from DnD... the rest of the books i have are settings, rules, alternate rules, etc from third parties... and i don't feel that the change would alter that.
for the ones who are lazy about making the few changes... well nothing can be done for those of you... many of us... likewhat wehave given, is a better solution than just "bonus spells" where NOT all of them were thematic enough
i agree with the rest... the domains still requiere work, but that doesn't meant we shouldn't have them
Although I agree that the domain changes affect backwards compatibility, I personally don't really care all that much about it. I'd rather have a better new solution than a completely backwards compatible one. Backwards compat is for monsters and adventures anyway, and it's good enough for those.
i completly agree
|
|
Who cares about NPC's? I care about classes that add Domain Slots (how do they work in the new rules) like Divine Crusader and Holt Warden. How do you handle feats that require a Smite ability when a 3.5 Cleric could take the feat when they have a Domain based smite ability? What about Clerics who have spells they can cast from Domains? In short, there are literally hundreds of Feats, Prestige Classes, and other abilites that no longer work with the changes and this isn't counting the NPC's that fail to work as written now.
Well first of all I would expect a GM and 90% of the players to be capable of working with the GM to find a fix for the change that suits them.
If you want to preserve 100% backwards compatability, it ain't gonna happen. People will have to use some imagination themselves and do some thinking.
I know backwards compatability is something to strive for, but we are playing a living game, not a dead one that remains the same forever and ever.
Again, if a cleric from 1st and 2nd edition can be converted over with just a bit of thought power, how hard can it be to change a 3.x cleric to a 3.P cleric?
|
|
Ok, I know this will be met with a great big "No freakin' way" by the Paizo staff, but I would like to see the Cleric class broken into two classes, just like Wizard and Sorcerer.
Keep the old boring, been-there-done-that cleric using the same old boring domain spells and abilities and having to prepare spells. Keep that one for the folks who can't adapt.
Then add a new class, that is a spontaneous divine caster! Let this Shaman use the new, cool-awesome, progressive domain powers in addition to spontaneous casting. Shamans are designed to Turn outsiders instead of undead. But otherwise very similar to what we see now.
Problem solved.
Players unwilling to change or incapable of making simple judgment calls can play the same old thing. People able to make judgement calls and are capable of adapting get a freakin awesome class.
And more than anything else, there NEEDS to be a spontaneous divine caster.
Oh, and if you have the old books and need to keep them compatabel just play the old cleric. Newer players won't be that worried about the change.
|
|
Then add a new class, that is a spontaneous divine caster! Let this Shaman use the new, cool-awesome, progressive domain powers in addition to spontaneous casting. Shamans are designed to Turn outsiders instead of undead. But otherwise very similar to what we see now.
Problem solved.
hey hey!!!
while i agree there is a need of a spontaneous divine spellcaster... i like my normal cleric (no shamans for me) with the the new Domains :Punfortunately since they want to be as close to backward compatibility as they can, i believe they are not going to add new classes
also i would reconsider the whole magic system making the sorcerer inexistant... but i will be flamed by that... so i keep on my way, insisting the new domains are great
I like the new domain rules. More options are a good thing.
If you like the 3.5 version... that sounds like one really simple house rule to me.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I agree it is very simple to house rule back to the 3.5 domain system for those that prefer it.
I love the new domain system and would hate to see it go.
I don't think it as easy as you think to house rule them back to normal, plus some of us don't like playing games with a lot of house rules.
If you really want to go so different (for honestly no good compelling reason), there is always the 4e system. Different for the sake of difference.
Maybe the real fix is to make the new domain system a alternate class feature? Make it so that if you trade both your domains in for these "new" domains, you lose your domain spell slots and the domain powers for these new domains.
For example, a Cleric with War and Sun would have the Weapon Focus and Greater Turning ability plus the 1 spell slot per spell level as a normal 3.5 Cleric. He could then choose to give up the spell slot and the Weapon Focus/Greater Turning in exchange for the War and Sun "new" domains and their respective abilities.
This might be the way to make everyone happy. By default the 3.5 domain rules are in play until the player chooses to activate the alternate class ability that enhances (power ups) the Domain features of a class.
|
|
I agree it is very simple to house rule back to the 3.5 domain system for those that prefer it.
I love the new domain system and would hate to see it go.
I don't think it as easy as you think to house rule them back to normal, plus some of us don't like playing games with a lot of house rules.
If you really want to go so different (for honestly no good compelling reason), there is always the 4e system. Different for the sake of difference.
Maybe the real fix is to make the new domain system a alternate class feature? Make it so that if you trade both your domains in for these "new" domains, you lose your domain spell slots and the domain powers for these new domains.
For example, a Cleric with War and Sun would have the Weapon Focus and Greater Turning ability plus the 1 spell slot per spell level as a normal 3.5 Cleric. He could then choose to give up the spell slot and the Weapon Focus/Greater Turning in exchange for the War and Sun "new" domains and their respective abilities.
This might be the way to make everyone happy. By default the 3.5 domain rules are in play until the player chooses to activate the alternate class ability that enhances (power ups) the Domain features of a class.
in the Beta there are already the new domains... and it looks like more of us want them, and for what James have mentioned they have come to stay
so actually it would be easier for those who want to have the old domains, just to chose them...
and many of us are here because we HATE 4e... which is more simplistic and absurd (that is how i take it, but i won't begin a flamewar), and the new domains are contrary to what 4e presents and much more closer to what Pahtfidner in general is working
i won't agreein a few things... but domains/schools/bloodlines i like and i have seen they are an improvement
how is that you and your players evaluated them if you had already decided not to use them?
if you haven't playtested them because you like the old ones... then please don't tell people who already playtested them to move to other editions just because you are protecting the "simplicity" of your games... even while giving other so much more complicated suggestions...
how is that you and your players evaluated them if you had already decided not to use them?
A fair question. In many of our 3.5 clerics were played because they were powerful and fun classes. The conversion to PRPG has been a very positive one. The new domain powers were put to use almost immediately and have become a staple of our games.
Now, I don't think the domains are wholly balanced, as a certain Warforged Cleric has been using the Travel Domain to frightening effect, but that's not the issue of this thread.
|
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
I can understand the desire for the simplicity and compatibility of the old domain system, but this was one area of the rules that was in serious need of an upgrade. The old system was easily abused, added little to the class, and worst of all, was relatively boring and uninspiring. I think you could easily allow the old domains to work alongside the new ones, but I think that those playing clerics might want the more exciting domains. YMMV.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Hey there all,
I can understand the desire for the simplicity and compatibility of the old domain system, but this was one area of the rules that was in serious need of an upgrade. The old system was easily abused, added little to the class, and worst of all, was relatively boring and uninspiring. I think you could easily allow the old domains to work alongside the new ones, but I think that those playing clerics might want the more exciting domains. YMMV.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
thanks Jason, my same thoughs, and i think many believe the same.
how is that you and your players evaluated them if you had already decided not to use them?A fair question. In many of our 3.5 clerics were played because they were powerful and fun classes. The conversion to PRPG has been a very positive one. The new domain powers were put to use almost immediately and have become a staple of our games.
Now, I don't think the domains are wholly balanced, as a certain Warforged Cleric has been using the Travel Domain to frightening effect, but that's not the issue of this thread.
nah
taht is just creative solutions, believe me... our wizard is scary using his domains for full effect... (necromancer)in my case i have liked the cleric since i meet the class in the Dungeons & Dragons Red Box... (oh so sexy cleric with a morningstar and attitude) since then i have upgraded, playing mostly cleric, then rogue, then paladin, then ranger... but since ihave tried more games (different than d20) and have been DMmost of thetiem, there area lot of classes i have personaly not tried... except wizard... which i am abyssmal in its use.
Mmmmm I am just curious how this ruins backwards compatablity?
When I run a Cleric from a statblock in a Paizo AP, he is printed with 1 spell at every spell level that he shouldn't necessarily have. He also has a host of new powers in lieu of those spells.
I know this is a weak argument in light of the many, many additions that PRPG has made thus far, but I think it's important not to lose sight of this. It's the most functional definition of reverse compatibility that I have seen. If not keeping old characters, modules, writeups and stat blocks, what exactly is backwards compatibility?
On the other hand, I would be 100% okay if Paizo abandoned the mantle of B.C. and just styled Pathfinder as the new home of Open Gaming. In that event, they can go right ahead and make the SRD obsolete, and I will cheer them on. Frankly, I think they could do a lot more to clean up this game if they weren't pretending your old books will still work. However, they can't just pay lipservice to B.C. as a selling point and expect me to fall for it.
I think they've already crossed the line, so unless they intend to repeal some of the many changes they've made, they may as well sally forth, forget about B.C. and make Pathfinder the best game it can be. Otherwise, my stat blocks, write-ups, and feats need to work as printed.
EDIT: Actually, I don't feel all that decisively about it— I'm playing, and I still think things are backwards compatible. I'm a little sore about domains, a lot of us are. It is one of those situations I think the designers have either over-fixed or under-fixed. The above post shall remain as a testament to my strong feelings on the issue, inflammatory though it may be.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
how is that you and your players evaluated them if you had already decided not to use them?
We did evaluate them, and since they drastically alter the whole Cleric dynamics while making a lot of material obsolete. That is a perfectly fine playtest to learn we can't use the material.
I think you could easily allow the old domains to work alongside the new ones, but I think that those playing clerics might want the more exciting domains.
If you looked at this thread, you would find it is about 50/50 with those wanting to keep the old domains and thoses that like (or simply don't hate) the new domains.
In short, I don't see why you resist putting a rule in the game to allow players an option of using the new or old domain framework. If you must, then make the rule for using the old system an alternate class ability and put the old domains and rules in a web enhancement?
See my problem is I don't run games with house rules. I also don't like to play games where I need to ask the DM a favor when building a character. So if you don't put a method to use the old domains, then I must do it as a house rule (which makes me debate whether I need the PRPG whole system at all.)
thanks Jason, my same thoughs, and i think many believe the same.
our wizard is scary using his domains for full effect... (necromancer)
Actually, many also believe these changes are horrid.
Also, you seem to be confusing the Wizard School changes (which I love) because they present virtually no backward compatibility issues.
I'm a little sore about domains, a lot of us are. It is one of those situations I think the designers have either over-fixed or under-fixed.
I agree, but it seems from his post that he doesn't care that a lot of people don't like the changes. He doesn't seem to care that the backward compatibility is more than any other single change in the system.
|
When I run a Cleric from a statblock in a Paizo AP, he is printed with 1 spell at every spell level that he shouldn't necessarily have. He also has a host of new powers in lieu of those spells.I know this is a weak argument in light of the many, many additions that PRPG has made thus far, but I think it's important not to lose sight of this. It's the most functional definition of reverse compatibility that I have seen. If not keeping old characters, modules, writeups and stat blocks, what exactly is backwards compatibility?
To me, the defining line of compatibility is "Could I run a session in which some PCs/NPCs used 3.5, and some used PFRPG?" The answer is generally yes.
The major point of backwards compatibility is that I can still use my old adventures as written. Enemies' ACs, saves, and abilities are still valid under the PF rules. Suppose my PCs encounter an evil cleric. Does it matter at all that he has bonus spells instead of bonus abilities? Nope. They're still capable of playing out the encounter with him.
In general, this matters a lot more for NPCs than for PCs. Most players will only ever convert one character, one time, whereas a DM may have to convert many NPCs. While easing PC conversion is certain a nice idea, it's keeping NPCs compatible that is the more important goal.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Jason indicated in the chat last night that the new domains aren't going anywhere. He didn't give much more info as comments and topics of discussion were flying every which way, but I for one am glad with the decision.
So let's playtest the hell out of the system as is and make sure that it's as good as it can be.
Just a quick post. I loved the new domains on paper and was pretty excited about them at first, placing clerics pretty high on my personal list of favorite classes (unlike my group). However in play, I was not so thrilled. The powers are all too samey and worse still, they're too similar to the sorcerer/wizard goodies.
As back compatibility is an issue, I'd be in favor of keeping to the original domains. However, I understand that the new ones are not going anywhere. Am I saddened? Yes. Doubly so as we've never seen any problems with cleric 'dipping' (damn munchkins, ruining it for everyone!). Is it a deal breaker? No way - Pathfinder is too cool to miss out on over something so easily rectified by a typed/photocopied page slipped into my Pathfinder PHB.
Peace,
tfad
|
|
I dont see why the old system cant be used by those that prefer it and the new system used by those that prefer it over the old system. I think they are pretty interchangable and that to me equals backwards compatable. In both systems the domains are just kind of tacked on to the cleric class. Removing domains in either PFRPG or 3.5 doesnt really alter any of the other cleric class features unless Im missing something.
he just want to see it writen in stone that they can use either the new or the old ones, i understand he want to play with what the book says... but if its that so then why use 3rd party books... they are not stated in the original rules, many things go counter rules, change rules a lot, even then he worries to something that many (including the designer) believes make things better
i myself i am happy with the decision, i have played both types of clerics, and i believe the new domains are supperior
and i compare the domains with the schools... because they have the same mechanics, different mood and appeal because one is directed to wizards and the other to clerics, they NEED to feel differen, but inside, they work the same, you say you don't find them with troubles with backward compatibility, i read in other threads that some DID find problem and wated they bonus spell back, they didn't liked added mechics... its the same... it depends on who uses what, and how much or littel they used them.
why they won't add a 2nd mechanic? easy they would have to do the same with the schools... and its TOO MUCH space that can be used for other things. why not send them via web content?
why should they? the domains are out there already, there is not the need to publish them again... 3.5 new domains for clerics would come already in gods & magic... (i am waiting for that book) so... really why should they print or work twice on them? speciallywhen you are more worried about 3rd party solutions... which they can't print because they are from other houses?
he just want to see it writen in stone that they can use either the new or the old ones, i understand he want to play with what the book says... but if its that so then why use 3rd party books...
For me, the issue is that I am paying for a product (Rise of the Runelords AP) primarily because it saves me effort. I also want to be involved in beta playtest for a product I will eventually buy (Pathfinder RPG). Each non-essential change to the ruleset de-values the product I am currently paying for.
If it continues too far in that direction, I will have to give up on either the playtest or the product (probably the playtest). Either one means a lost customer for Paizo.
For me, the issue is that I am paying for a product (Rise of the Runelords AP) primarily because it saves me effort. I also want to be involved in beta playtest for a product I will eventually buy (Pathfinder RPG). Each non-essential change to the ruleset de-values the product I am currently paying for.
I know some people say it's not good to have NPCs play with different rules than players. Personally I have no trouble playing NPCs with the old rules and players with the new but I can understand your frustration if you feel that way. I don't know if there is an easy answer for that. Ultimately I think it boils down to whether you feel the old domains were a problem. In my group they were not a problem but I understand there are some significant abuses of the domain system so understand the need for a change.
I know some people say it's not good to have NPCs play with different rules than players. Personally I have no trouble playing NPCs with the old rules and players with the new but I can understand your frustration if you feel that way. I don't know if there is an easy answer for that. Ultimately I think it boils down to whether you feel the old domains were a problem. In my group they were not a problem but I understand there are some significant abuses of the domain system so understand the need for a change.
Thanks for understanding. Again, I don't wish to be divisive, but I do want my frustration to be articulated so that designers can address it.
With respect to running a different ruleset for the PCs and NPCs, that is what I am doing now. However, I would ultimately like to play the Runelords AP with nothing more than the AP and the final Rulebook. This means no running to the SRD when the statblocks fail due to updates.
The big failure has been providing a "why" about domains for those of us who never had a problem. In most other cases, Pathfinder has been great about supplying rationales for big changes in sidebars and such. Could someone explain this for me? What was the big abuse that required such a drastic departure?
This is easily the largest unexplained removal/replacement of class features in the beta, and I feel it needs more explanation if I am to judge whether it performs better than the SRD version.
|
|
If it continues too far in that direction, I will have to give up on either the playtest or the product (probably the playtest). Either one means a lost customer for Paizo.
understandable
but if all is the same, with nothing new, with the same things... then why to create Pathfinder RPG at all?
we could use the SRD all the time, no effort needed, no little change that anyone would feel that makes the game more difficult, or that people don't want
why indeed if things can't be done better?
i understand your reasoning although... i am a very lazy DM... but i HATE canned adventures (i have run a couple of them to the point that the other DMs who run it barely recognized it, and asked me if they have ever arrived to the lower floor... i say no... they were having to much trouble and fun in the upper one
right now as a player we arein RotRL, i am sure the GM has changed lots of thing EVEN if i have not read the module, and atelast i have found hehas notrouble with the changes with the system... and YES we pressured him toward using Pathfinder RPG rules, first it was "whoever wants to keep uisng 3.5 can use them, whoever wants to go to Pathfinder RPG is ok" which didn't lasted that much, already converting most of the matterial and all of the players to Pathfinder... in 3 different campaigns (3 different DMs), because we feel its a lot supperior, ok still with details but weunderstand people in paizo is working in that
i myself... rarely run a canned adventure... i am more like i take a map, think an story and let it go from there, i let the players take the decision, make the choices, i encourage them by giving them enemies and encounters they feel are memorable...
so i could work without changing to Pathfinder? yes
why i do it? because i like the changes in general, specially to the cleric, fighter, wizard and sorcerer if people come saying they don't like it i expect more than "is because i can give myself 10minutes to change things in my module" or "i can use all my feats in my book because i can give me a few minutes to work onthem"
i understand the lack of time... i myself i am short on it... that is why i don't plan that much campaigns like i did when i was in high school or university...
but its not excuse to get something better... one can easily determine which enemies and NPCs really need to check... if its not someone theywould find in combat... let the character alone and save yourself time, if you expect them to combat against or with her at theirsides, thenchange it... test what needs to be tested... the rest let others test it...
On canned adventures, and new material
I want them to improve the SRD where it fails the most, and leave what works alone. Pathfinder has done quite well so far, with the exception of Domains. I don't understand what malfunction made such a drastic change necessary. I am not claiming that no abuse exists, just that it hasn't been unpacked by the designers like Polymorph was. Please explain?
|
|
The big failure has been providing a "why" about domains for those of us who never had a problem. In most other cases, Pathfinder has been great about supplying rationales for big changes in sidebars and such. Could someone explain this for me? What was the big abuse that required such a drastic departure?
This is easily the largest unexplained removal/replacement of class features in the beta, and I feel it needs more explanation if I am to judge whether it performs better than the SRD version.
same frustration i have about 5 classes giving but 2 skill points + int mod... i DO understand... and i hated when they told me it couldn't be changed for backward compatibility or because people thought that the rogue would lost his special niche of skilled class...
but cest la vie... things are like that...
about 20 to 30% of the domains were good, either on spells or 1st level advantages... while otherwere so broken than no one would touch them if they paid them...
a few were good to abuse of taking just1 level of cleric for that domains and continue in other classs using such benefit
i am sure there are people who have more reasons
i had no trouble with them, because i have few clerics, and my using the cleric was trying a few interesting choices, but i play more the background than the mechanics...
in the end... no one would be 100% with this... as no one was 100% happy with the old rules... if it was like that it would be a perfect world...
On canned adventures, and new materialI want them to improve the SRD where it fails the most, and leave what works alone. Pathfinder has done quite well so far, with the exception of Domains. I don't understand what malfunction made such a drastic change necessary.
i think its the other way around
i think they DID something great with those changesi feel them thematic, not just some bonus rules to empower characters, it feels in general more closer to the theme of the cleric's god
ok some needs working but not much asi felt the old ones needed... for me the new rules are welcome... and so i hae seen on my group
Ultimately, I like the new domain system and it has not (at least so far) turned out to be problematic in actual gameplay, so that's great. However, I sympathize with those who say that a large number of domains from other sources are invalidated by this and that the change was not really necessary (apart from the addition capstones, which all classes should have I believe). Also, it makes the perennial favorite house-rule of replacing spontaneous casting of cure spells with spontaneous casting of domain spells more difficult to apply and the benefits of the new rule in terms of giving clerics something that prestige classes don't have could have been gained by simply ruling that prestige classes don't advance domain spellcasting.
Also, it makes the perennial favorite house-rule of replacing spontaneous casting of cure spells with spontaneous casting of domain spells more difficult to apply
Yeah, I must confess, this is very much part of my frustration. That particular house rule was so good, it really became a central part of the game at my table.
You know what WOULD shut me up? Making the new Domains replace cure/cause as spontaneous casts instead of spell like abilities. Anyone want to take that on?
EDIT: ... the ramifications for all the caster special abilities are mind boggling. If Arcane School SLAs were actually spontaneous defaulting? That still makes sense. Saves on paperwork. Bwahaha. I may have a new favorite house rule. Off to test it!