I feel "I don't like them in my game" is a fine reason. The GM is one doing most of the work in the game, if he feels he does not want an option, that is his call.
Maybe its the fact that some of us have seen it.
Everytime i have seen a player bring a concept cleric to the table his domains are always the best two mechanicly suited to his build and his "beliefs" are some barely thought out gibberish that the GM allowed on a moment of not wanting to argue. I have never seen the system used in such a way that it benifits the story in any way shape form or fashoin.
Not saying every gamer would do this but the reason i don't allow it is the players who would use it tend to abuse it. These are the same players who would pitch a fit when we played under Dragonlance rules and their Druids had to have a patron.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel "I don't like them in my game" is a fine reason. The GM is one doing most of the work in the game, if he feels he does not want an option, that is his call.
Personally, I as a DM would want to keep myself on a higher standard than giving a mere arbitrary reason like that to allow or disallow something. Then again, I might just adopt an arrogant, dismissive attitude at these "inferior" DMs I encounter as a result. I actually worked with that one DM to make my homebrew races fit, and he only said no a few days before the game started.
If you like being under the heel of a tyrant instead of having fun PLAYING A CO-OPERATIVE GAME, then that's fine by me. I would rather have a DM who works with the players in a reasonable manner (as it should be) instead of turning the players into his "servants" for an unusual game of S&M (which seems to be what usually happens).
Edit: We were talking about cases where the DM says "I don't want" and not "I don't like" because there is a difference in those words. Both cases require elaboration, but the former is much more dismissive than the latter. I would of course ask the DM "and why not?" as well as "what's wrong with it?" respectively. "Just because" is an overly arbitrary answer and thus less than ideal a choice for a DM to say, which only proves that the DM is unfit in his position as he is an unfair judge.
PS. I would allow "Concept" Clerics, but only in settings where their existence makes sense, and when I know the players will not abuse this option.
|
Regarding "Secondly Non - concept clerics:...": I would think that the Gods of Good would not be so jealous of their power, in respect to sharing and cooperating with some of the other Gods of Good.
This is kind of supported by how demons and devils have been portrayed as antagonistic (The Blood War) and so uncooperative as to have their own languages (Abyssal and Infernal), while there's never been a 'Light War' between angels, archon, azata/eladrin, etc. and all upper planes creatures are sympatico enough to share a single Celestial language.
Regarding your Third point: thank you for the insight. I hadn't thought about why Golarion has the present mishmash of Gods that it does but that makes sense, that it's actually the remnants of several pantheons pushed together over time (and expanded by interlopers and things like the Starstone).
I kind of like how many different 'paths' to godhood appear in the 'pantheon' of the Inner Sea, but do wish there was a little bit more familial connection, at times (as with the Norse, Greek or Egyptian pantheons).
You've got 'always been gods' like Erastil and Desna and Abadar and Rovagug, you've got 'descended from other gods, inherited divinity' like Shelyn and Zon-Kuthon, you've got 'outsiders done good' like Asmodeus and Lamashtu, you've got 'just appeared one day, manifestations of some primal thing' like Gorum, you've got 'mortals who hit the big time' like Nethys, Irori and Urgathoa, and you've got 'mortals who got turned into gods by a big rock' like Norgorber, Iomedae and Cayden.
There's a lot of different ways to reach that end-game, it seems, which is cool.
Edit: We were talking about cases where the DM says "I don't want" and not "I don't like" because there is a difference in those words. Both cases require elaboration, but the former is much more dismissive than the latter. I would of course ask the DM "and why not?" as well as "what's wrong with it?" respectively. "Just because" is an overly arbitrary answer and thus less than ideal a choice for a DM to say, which only proves that the DM is unfit in his position as he is an unfair judge.
PS. I would allow "Concept" Clerics, but only in settings where their existence makes sense, and when I know the players will not abuse this option.
I'll agree "Just because" is a bad reason. But, I don't want and I don't like are more or less the same thing. Saying "because I don't want to deal with the possibly someone abusing it" is not an arbitrary answer. It might not be one you like, but it is an answer.
[
Regarding "Secondly Non - concept clerics:...": I would think that the Gods of Good would not be so jealous of their power, in respect to sharing and cooperating with some of the other Gods of Good. I've found myself agreeing that the evil gods especially, and even many of the neutral gods, given these basic concepts of the universe, would insist that their clerics remain devoted to them and them alone.
The thing is however, it is something they themselves have their own power invested into. They do not "share" as they take all the risk, it is their power poured into that vessel, why would you empower something then allow it to serve someone else for free? The good gods might get along, but they are very different being with very different idea's and portfolios.
You know, sometimes the deities do not seem at all wise, understanding or even composed. Often deities seem like petty courtiers, desperate for more influence and to improve their power-base. This came up in another setting made by a friend of mine. Only mono-clerics, no poly clerics, no Asia or Asian belief systems. In this world the gods are really selfish, desperate figures, eager for more power, more souls, more followers, they even change their followers to be more closer aligned to them (e.g. fire god gives the followers DR to fire, vulnerability to cold). They don't seem like wise powerful beings, only scared powerful beings.
Interesting point on deity selfishness, but there seems so much of that. I can't see many neutral good gods disallowing a cleric to cross the streams with another neutral good god. If the cleric helps people, does good, isn't swayed to another alignment, isn't the path of that cleric more important than being totally faithful? Not if the deity is selfish and puts having a firm orthodox follower over doing good.
It may not be so much selfish as different points of view. Look at the LG gods. We have Erastil,Iomedae and Torag as the big three. They are all Lawful and all good but have very different views on things. Of the three Iomedae and Torag have most in common, but even they would clash over what the cleric should teach or how it should hand;e some things.
Again if you take the setting assumption that the gods invest power into a cleric, it because easy to see why they do not share. The Cleric brakes a major rule for one god, but not the other..does he lose power? It is just a very confusing slop.
|
|
Interesting point on deity selfishness, but there seems so much of that.
D&D-esque gods do seem very much like Greek gods, petty, jealous, prone to tragic overreactions, etc. Zeus, Hercules, Athena, Apollo, etc. often killed worshippers, or even plagued entire communities for saying something unflattering, or things that were totally not their fault. (Athena once punished a woman for being raped in one of her temples. Yeah. Apollo cursed a healing diety for being better at healing than he was.)
Even some of the so-called 'good' gods in fantasy settings occasionally display a 'do as I say, not as I do' sort of ethic, showing a total lack of compassion, mercy, kindness, cooperation, self-sacrifice, etc.
A large part of this seems to revolve around the existence of good outsiders. Most settings have demons and devils actively involved in spreading evil and wickedness and their own pleasures all over the setting, while angels / archons / etc. only show up if summoned, making it *seem* like the gods of evil are just running rampant, while the gods of good are upstairs, with earphones on, doing their best to ignore the child abuse going on downstairs.
It's a bit necessary, for the narrative, for the PCs to be the ones who stop the bad-guys, but, instead of making a crapsack world like something out of Lovecraft, where the only 'gods' care nothing for us at all, to rationalize why only evil outsiders ever show up and change the face of the world, some sort of passive good was instead designed, with devas and archons that exist, purportedly to balance out the oodles and oodles of active and in-your-face evil fiends, but, in practice, they never really show up and do any of that, making them appear either ineffectual or utterly uncaring.
IMO, a crapsack world, where demons and evil gods exist, and angels and good gods do not, would probably work better, in that the angels wouldn't look like selfish dicks who never lift a finger to help (when it's a requirement of the narrative that they not show up, so that the PCs can be the heroes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the angels wouldn't look like selfish dicks who never lift a finger to help
"But, Angels are dicks! Oh, they are not very well hung mind you and often have something stuck up the bum, which I think they enjoy mind you. But they are kinda "Don't care busy" dicks and no fun at parties"
It may not be so much selfish as different points of view. Look at the LG gods. We have Erastil,Iomedae and Torag as the big three. They are all Lawful and all good but have very different views on things. Of the three Iomedae and Torag have most in common, but even they would clash over what the cleric should teach or how it should hand;e some things.
Again if you take the setting assumption that the gods invest power into a cleric, it because easy to see why they do not share. The Cleric brakes a major rule for one god, but not the other..does he lose power? It is just a very confusing slop.
That is exactly the problem with the Godclaw clerics, now that it has been edited, but not before. When they were domain followers and somewhat polytheistic, it was fine, and wouldn't cause much problem, because their power didn't come from the gods, they had merged teachings and law into belief, faith and power which the Godclaw clerics followed. By not allowing sharing or mixing through clerics, the poly associations don't work anymore.
In some cases, the poly fits easier. A cleric of nature domains with some worship of minor gods and Gozreh doesn't run into a lot of problems = the Sargavan nature clerics. Is Gozreh a god of nature, weather and the sea going to oppose clerics being clerics of nature and Gozreh (which is nature)? You could have mixed pantheon clerics, and for it to work with the setting. Another poly mix would be Katephys and Erastil, Zyphus and Groetus, Groetus and the Great Old Ones (the buddies of oblivion, or bud-ob bros). With similar powers, similar focus, similar aims I can see the clergies mixing.
Sorry man I still fail to see an issue with the godclaw. Again you are running into priest=cleric which is not the case. The Godclaw themselves have not changed, clerics with-in the rank of the godclaw have. But even those clerics still believe as the godclaw does, they simply see their god as one of the chief blocks of that belief.The Godclaw are not evil they are LN, which falls within the one step range for all gods who make up the core teachings of the god claw.
A LN cleric of Adabar and an LN cleric of torag that are both in the godclaw are going to have more in common then with members of their faith outside of it. They both believe in the Godclaw, in its teaching. They simply think their god has a bigger hand in it then the others.
It really changes nothing with the Godclaw themselves.
|
|
the angels wouldn't look like selfish dicks who never lift a finger to help"But, Angels are dicks!"
Can one be both a dick and, mechanically (if not necessarily metaphorically), dickless? I mean, angels/archons/devas, right? Genderless androgynous drones? Kinda prudish?
No wonder so many people in Golarion prefer Demon Lords and succubi to Empyreals and Ken doll devas. They realized that there will be no sex in heaven.
And, unless you worship Cayden Cailean, you might also discover that there's not even champagne in the champagne room...
the angels wouldn't look like selfish dicks who never lift a finger to help"But, Angels are dicks!"Can one be both a dick and, mechanically (if not necessarily metaphorically), dickless? I mean, angels/archons/devas, right? Genderless androgynous drones? Kinda prudish?
No wonder so many people in Golarion prefer Demon Lords and succubi to Empyreals and Ken doll devas. They realized that there will be no sex in heaven.
And, unless you worship Cayden Cailean, you might also discover that there's not even champagne in the champagne room...
"By all that's unholy ain't that the truth! We are way more fun! And more flexible and better cooks too."
The more I think about it, the more I think concept clerics should only have one domain, and that be their concept.
Kinda why I think an oracle works best for that. Although if you go that route I think the "curse" should be somehow linked to the concept. I do not feel there are enough mysteries or curses.
As written, yeah I think it works better for the idea of a "Concept cleric". But then I think Inquisitor does a better cleric then the cleric class so YMMV
To me its about focus. Domains seem much more focused in some ways, while mysteries seem a more broad area of control.
|
|
I don't think the oracle works any better or worse than the cleric. You could honestly roll the two into one class without a lot of work.
I feel the same way about sorcerers and wizards. IMO, the 3.0 design team was overly concerned about how unbalancing spontaneous casting would be, compared to prepared casting. (Flash forward a decade, to 10,000 threads about 'god' wizards and clerics and druids and crickets chirping about 'OP' sorcerers and favored souls and spirit shamen, to see how that assumption panned out.)
I think that the spontaneous and prepared casters should be the same class (with the same spell progression, no delayed acquisition for spontaneous casters), with a choice made at first level whether one is going to be a spontaneous caster, or a prepared caster. Instead of making a completely different 'spontaneous cleric' with the favored soul or the oracle, or a competely different 'spontaneous wizard' with the sorcerer, or even a 'spontaneous druid' with the spirit shaman, there could just be the core classes, with two possible paths to take, opening up the potential for their to be spontaneous paladins and rangers and adepts, and prepared bards, as well.
As for the Oracle specifically, it's been said probably a half-dozen times that oracles were *designed* to allow for 'clerics' of stuff like the Godclaw or the elven pantheon or the Arodenites or the Razmir-priests or Shimye-Magalla or Walkena or Shoanti totemists or the weird kid-in-the-box in Kaer Maga, and there has yet to be a Mystery that addresses any of these things, not even in Inner Sea Magic, which, one would expect, would be the exact place these things should have been placed.
It's hard to take the 'use Oracles for this' or 'this what Oracles are for' line that I've seen since before the APG was even released as meaningful when nobody actually cares to back that up with mechanics.
So far, all 'use Oracles for this' means is 'the check is in the mail.'
Just turning NPC clerics of Walkena (in the NPC guide) or the Child-Goddess (in Kaer Maga) into Adepts would make more sense, than to try and figure out what Mystery 'fits' Walkena or the Child-Goddess). Same with Razmiran or the Godclaw. None of the Mysteries are terribly appropriate for Razmiran, and the Godclaw might be a great fit for an Oracle of Justice or Order, but there is no such thing. Kalistocrat Oracles? No Mysteries of Wealth or Greed or Trade or Gold out there. Elven Pantheon? Who knows. Nature, maybe. Aroden? Lore, perhaps.
Definitely Nature for the Green Faith, and Bones looks good for the Whispering Way, so, there's that, at least.
It feels like a flip non-answer to me. "Use LE paladins of Tyranny for that." "You don't have LE paladins of Tyranny..." "I answered this. Why are you still talking?"
|
I agree, Set. I need to sit down and roll the wizard and sorcerer into a single mage class too.
To me its about focus. Domains seem much more focused in some ways, while mysteries seem a more broad area of control.
I find that explaination meaningless. Such 'focus' is a hand wave for 'there is no real difference, we just named it different'.
I agree, Set. I need to sit down and roll the wizard and sorcerer into a single mage class too.
To me its about focus. Domains seem much more focused in some ways, while mysteries seem a more broad area of control.I find that explaination meaningless. Such 'focus' is a hand wave for 'there is no real difference, we just named it different'.
I am gonna disagree. I read your response as "I think it should be the same thing so I am gonna ignore anything that explains why it is not treated as such"
And it is named different as it works different and covers a much larger era then the current domain set up. I will say I would like domains better if they worked like mysteries. Ah well maybe 2e
|
|
I am gonna disagree. I read your response as "I think it should be the same thing so I am gonna ignore anything that explains why it is not treated as such"And it is named different as it works different and covers a much larger era then the current domain set up. I will say I would like domains better if they worked like mysteries. Ah well maybe 2e
It really doesn't work different. Mysteries get an ability at the start and a number of other abilities as the class progresses, and 9 selected spells to use. The functional difference between the Knowledge domain and Lore mystery is practically nothing.
Your explanation explains nothing.
Except it does. But ya don't want it to so yo you it does not. That is really all there is to it.
To me it does, I understand it does not to you. Which is cool. I do like the oracle class better then the cleric myself and think mysteries are what domains should be, but I do see a diffidence in them.
|
Thousands of options is a poor solution when it's that one specific thing I want. It's the same as trying to give me a half-orc when I want to play an orc or a hobgoblin, or giving me a kobold when I want a half-dragon. I don't CARE about the stats, I want the roleplayable concept to be worked on, and if the DM seriously considers it fair to punish me for someone else being an arse, I'd rather walk out and look for a more open-minded, forgiving and sane DM.
This sounds about like "I wanna play a samurai, and the GM's just being mean and unreasonable for telling me 'No', because his game world is a western-european style near-historical setting..."
While I've been interested in following through various issues of what is and is not allowable in official Golarion play (and the 'official' world as conceived and developed), as well as arguing some issues related to the history of the game, I do think that the creative director (and others here) are right when they say that settings are also defined to some extent by their limits as well as what they allow. Some concepts do NOT fit in particular game worlds, and the player should not expect that the game world is going to include every last little option that he she desires, no matter how jarring for the GM and other players trying to force-fit that character into a game world where it doesn't belong is.
|
|
If a DM's only reason to rule out "Concept" Clerics is the feeling of butthurt they have from the last munchkin who used that option against them, then it's 100% clear that said DM has a grudge against munchkins and most likely min-maxers as well. Unless he has some other reason that actually makes sense that would cause them to be banned (like really not fitting the campaign world) then I can understand the reasoning.It's not as simple a decision as you claim when you take into account that DMs are human too, and all humans have their own motives and inner thoughts that they like to dwell on, both in good and bad. Just like how I dwell on this cynical view of mine, which is rather realistic given what I've seen: Absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that applies as much to the DM (if not even more) as it applies to the players. Even when I worked my arse off to make my homebrew races fit the Golarion flavor, one DM banned them for ages until only recently he admitted to having been a bit too harsh since the other players had also changed their minds about his games.
Lastly, I find it somewhat funny how open-minded as a DM I apparently am compared to most of the people around here in the Paizo forums...
If the ONLY reason the GM is banning "concept" clerics is for munchkin control, you might have a point... then again, there might be munchkins running around who HAVE been abusing that power, and there is something to be said in favor of making the rules of the table fair and evenly applied to everyone. I'd still be more inclined to see it your way IF the only reason was munchkin control.
However, the point most folks seem to be following here, is that "concept" clerics do not fit the setting (certainly not as written/developed currently). Your argument in favor of allowing someone to jam a character into the game that just does not fit the world at all, because that's what you want to do, seems rather selfish and unreasonable. Not every game world (in fact, most of them aren't) are settings where literally everything and anything goes with no limits on character concepts and creations.
I can also see a lot of reasons why some, if not most, GMs would be extremely reluctant to allow 'homebrew' races into a well-developed, clearly defined setting; where explaining why this new race exists, what their niche is in the setting, societies, etc., what really differentiates them from already existing races and justifies their presence in the game... in short, what does this bring to the table for everyone OTHER than the one person who insists on creating a new race and bringing it into the world? That gives more than enough reason to tell you "no, I'm not allowing another home-brew race" without it really being something unfair to the player suggesting it.
Now, there's the additional matter that if one is concerned with some sense of balance between different races and their abilities, 'homebrew' races are usually a prime source for unbalanced powers. Every time I've seen a new 'homebrew' race where the description is something like "they're just like existing race 'X' except that they have this slight variation in flavor-text, and they can do these cool things instead of the standard racial package...", it usually has been someone trying to pull something rather munchkinish-- not to mention that if it is reasonably balanced, it's still better handled by allowing a custom alternate racial ability/trait, rather than bringing in a whole new race.
BTW-- about your open-mindedness as a DM? If I were to ever join your game, I'll enjoy playing a mutant, radioactive alien with far-future technology in your version of Golarion... feeling quite sure that you'll find that acceptable if that's the one concept I really want to play...
|
|
It may not be so much selfish as different points of view. Look at the LG gods. We have Erastil,Iomedae and Torag as the big three. They are all Lawful and all good but have very different views on things. Of the three Iomedae and Torag have most in common, but even they would clash over what the cleric should teach or how it should hand;e some things.
Again if you take the setting assumption that the gods invest power into a cleric, it because easy to see why they do not share. The Cleric brakes a major rule for one god, but not the other..does he lose power? It is just a very confusing slop.
I suppose at this point, it depends on your definition of sharing between the deities. I do see why, as the setting has been explained through this long thread, why Clerics in Golarion are supposed to have one Patron deity, period (although the Godclaw still doesn't make sense to me entirely-- WHY would Torag tolerate any of his clerics having close associations, interactions and cooperation with open/known clerics of Asmodeus, and NOT consider that a violation of his codes?). Having a patron means that you do set that patron and your service to him/her above all others, and do not ever neglect your duties to your patron or set one of the others before him/her (although this still sounds just a little selfish). The 'breaking rules' means a Cleric has to walk very carefully... nothing new there.
But, is Sarenrae such a jealous b***h, that she is going to punish her cleric for occasionally (or even fairly frequently) attending services for Milani because her Cleric still honors and respects Milani and has very close ties to allies/friends who follow Milani? Is Iomedae going to zap her Cleric because that Cleric still offers prayers to Erastil every time he goes hunting, and gives a little offering at Erastil's shrine after every successful hunt? Is the Cleric of Sarenrae going to be in big trouble for accepting a commission/task/whatever from Milani's priesthood (or, since Gods/Goddesses can manifest in Golarion-- maybe even a vision from Milani herself), presuming it's a task that Sarenrae would also want to see done? Are any of these Clerics going to be in trouble for constant, close cooperation with Desna's servants or for partying with Shelyn's followers a lot? Speaking of shrine offerings... is the Sarenrae cleric going to be in trouble because she regularly leaves offerings for Desna, whom she still venerates to some extent (and especially because she travels a lot)?
If none of the above examples slide into what you mean by 'sharing their clerics', then there's no issue here with that part of your definitions. I find the arguments that Clerics must have *ONE* patron in Golarion quite convincing, given the nature of the setting. Having a patron, does not mean that you can't (or shouldn't) both still venerate some of the other Gods (just, not as much as you venerate your Patron), and definitely does not mean that you shouldn't serve in causes that happen to be theirs when those causes also line up with your Patron's causes. Regarding veneration of some other deities-- I think, if you have a patron, you're definitely not going to be the one leading services to another deity, but I think that acceptable veneration of deities more or less allied with your patron allows you to be a guest at services for that deity, at least from time to time. If you find my examples of behavior in the paragraph above acceptable for good clerics, then I don't think I really have a disagreement with the limits on clerics in Golarion that you are presenting in your arguments (just, maybe,still need to clarify and define some terms like 'sharing', 'worship', and 'worshipers' within the game).
|
|
I do like the oracle class better then the cleric myself and think mysteries are what domains should be, but I do see a difference in them.
I do like the modularity of Mysteries, and the increased number of Revelations over the static two-ish abilities that come with a Domain (plus the option of learning new Revelations through Feat expenditures).
Some Domains, particularly the alignment Domains, kinda stink, and the fact that almost every deity has one or two of them cluttering up their choices irks me.
The existence of 'freebies' for some Domains (such as the +10 ft. movement speed for Travel or the free Scribe Scroll for Rune) is also a bit off-putting to me. (If the alignment Domains came with the old 3.X '+1 CL to [good] spells' thing, in addition to their junk spell lists and deadly dull powers, it might be a credible attempt to salvage them.)
Given the new hotness of sub-Domains, I could definitely see 'sub-Mysteries' showing up at some point, with a few different spell options, and a few unique Revelations...
I removed some bickering and the replies to it.
|
|
As for the Oracle specifically, it's been said probably a half-dozen times that oracles were *designed* to allow for 'clerics' of stuff like the Godclaw or the elven pantheon or the Arodenites or the Razmir-priests or Shimye-Magalla or Walkena or Shoanti totemists or the weird kid-in-the-box in Kaer Maga, and there has yet to be a Mystery that addresses any of these things, not even in Inner Sea Magic, which, one would expect, would be the exact place these things should have been placed.
It's hard to take the 'use Oracles for this' or 'this what Oracles are for' line that I've seen since before the APG was even released as meaningful when nobody actually cares to back that up with mechanics.
A thought on this... Oracles can say they follow whomever/whatever they want to, or not claim to follow anyone. An Oracle can represent himself as a "cleric of Aroden" or "cleric of Razmir", but their divine spells and powers are still granted by a deity or deities (or possibly other force in the game universe) capable of granting such things. There is no mystery that quite fits Aroden's or Razmir's followers because Aroden is dead and can't grant powers anymore, and Razmir isn't really a god-- an Oracle who claims to follow them is still really drawing their powers from another source. So, the lack of a perfect mesh between powers in these cases does fit the setting/background.
I don't know how well that explanation works for the other cases you mention. For the Godclaw-- I tend to think that there really ought to be a mystery of 'Law' or 'Justice'...
|
|
I think that the spontaneous and prepared casters should be the same class (with the same spell progression, no delayed acquisition for spontaneous casters), with a choice made at first level whether one is going to be a spontaneous caster, or a prepared caster. Instead of making a completely different 'spontaneous cleric' with the favored soul or the oracle, or a competely different 'spontaneous wizard' with the sorcerer, or even a 'spontaneous druid' with the spirit shaman, there could just be the core classes, with two possible paths to take, opening up the potential for their to be spontaneous paladins and rangers and adepts, and prepared bards, as well.
Interesting. I tend to see 'Mysteries' and 'Bloodlines' (both of which I really like, btw) as different enough from 'Domains' and 'Schools' that, along with spontaneous vs prepared casting, that it justifies separate classes (not a position I'm absolutely committed to, though). I do find the delayed acquisition of each higher level of spell for spontaneous casters to be really annoying, though, since I generally prefer playing spontaneous casters myself (discussion of clerics and their gods here not withstanding). If the classes were to be combined, with choice of spontaneous vs prepared tracks, I'd like to see that done in such a way that the coolness of mysteries (for divine casters) and bloodlines (for arcane ones) are retained.
I do like the oracle class better then the cleric myself and think mysteries are what domains should be, but I do see a difference in them.I do like the modularity of Mysteries, and the increased number of Revelations over the static two-ish abilities that come with a Domain (plus the option of learning new Revelations through Feat expenditures).
Some Domains, particularly the alignment Domains, kinda stink, and the fact that almost every deity has one or two of them cluttering up their choices irks me.
The existence of 'freebies' for some Domains (such as the +10 ft. movement speed for Travel or the free Scribe Scroll for Rune) is also a bit off-putting to me. (If the alignment Domains came with the old 3.X '+1 CL to [good] spells' thing, in addition to their junk spell lists and deadly dull powers, it might be a credible attempt to salvage them.)
Given the new hotness of sub-Domains, I could definitely see 'sub-Mysteries' showing up at some point, with a few different spell options, and a few unique Revelations...
I don't really like sub domains when you look at them next to Mysteries.
Domains are so stiff and rigid were as the Mysteries are more open ended and modular. You could easily add new powers to them. You have way more flexibility and customization form the Mysteries.At some point in the future when they look into 2e, i really home they kill domains and replace them with mysteries or something very much like them.
|
The thing is however, it is something they themselves have their own power invested into. They do not "share" as they take all the risk, it is their power poured into that vessel, why would you empower something then allow it to serve someone else for free? The good gods might get along, but they are very different being with very different idea's and portfolios.
. . .Oracles.
I do like the oracle class better then the cleric myself and think mysteries are what domains should be, but I do see a difference in them.I do like the modularity of Mysteries, and the increased number of Revelations over the static two-ish abilities that come with a Domain (plus the option of learning new Revelations through Feat expenditures).
Some Domains, particularly the alignment Domains, kinda stink, and the fact that almost every deity has one or two of them cluttering up their choices irks me.
The existence of 'freebies' for some Domains (such as the +10 ft. movement speed for Travel or the free Scribe Scroll for Rune) is also a bit off-putting to me. (If the alignment Domains came with the old 3.X '+1 CL to [good] spells' thing, in addition to their junk spell lists and deadly dull powers, it might be a credible attempt to salvage them.)
Given the new hotness of sub-Domains, I could definitely see 'sub-Mysteries' showing up at some point, with a few different spell options, and a few unique Revelations...
I don't really like sub domains when you look at them next to Mysteries.
Domains are so stiff and rigid were as the Mysteries are more open ended and modular. You could easily add new powers to them. You have way more flexibility and customization form the Mysteries.At some point in the future when they look into 2e, i really home they kill domains and replace them with mysteries or something very much like them.
New domains can easily be made and/or customised.
On Oracles, I don't like the detriments they receive, the curse. Polytheists/pantheists shouldn't be punished because they aren't mono clerics.
. . .Oracles.
Not the same thing and you know this. Notice the lack of rules to follow.
New domains can easily be made and/or customised.
On Oracles, I don't like the detriments they receive, the curse. Polytheists/pantheists shouldn't be punished because they aren't mono clerics.
Yeah...lets just make the new ones sooooooooooo much better then the old and make them even less wanted and more cherry picked.
And there you go again, they aren't Polytheists/pantheists "clerics", They can be priests but they are not clerics, which is by design a holy warrior of a God.
You have a real issue of thinking a cleric is a priest. That simply is not the case. I am also guessing you have an issue with paladins being LG as well?
|
|
Since no-one replied to my last couple of posts, I'm guessing my last formulation on actions by a cleric respecting other deities (with examples) don't present any conflict to a good cleric's relationship with his/her patron? (if I don't get a response to this post, I'll take that as a given-- Seeker, if you see a problem with those action examples, I'd particularly like to hear your comments on why-- this request is genuinely for discussion and information)
(particularly referring to post made by me 17Jan2012 at 11:54 AM)
I do not see any post with that time stamp on it man.
Since no-one replied to my last couple of posts, I'm guessing my last formulation on actions by a cleric respecting other deities (with examples) don't present any conflict to a good cleric's relationship with his/her patron? (if I don't get a response to this post, I'll take that as a given-- Seeker, if you see a problem with those action examples, I'd particularly like to hear your comments on why-- this request is genuinely for discussion and information)
(particularly referring to post made by me 17Jan2012 at 11:54 AM)
You might try posting a one paragraph query in the "ask James Jacobs" thread. He won't get into a back and forth with you about it (and he might be thoroughly sick of talking about clerics!). Nonetheless, he's pretty ridiculously approachable and diligent there - I suspect he'd offer confirmation (or otherwise) that clerics of Desna also offer thanks to Abadar after negotiating a deal or similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By "everybody" I mean all Clerics. And I am sure which domains are better when you optimize, and which are trap options best left alone.
If you allow cherrypicking, you'll have Clerics whose entire concept will be made to justify picking the most optimal domain combination. And suddenly, your desire to have a more creative environment with more tantalizing roleplaying will take a shot to the head, because people will abandon creativity for optimization.
Slightly off topic:
This is what DMs are for. And really, do people play like? Do people try to slip punpun past their DMs? It's like everyone thinks these games are like WoW. I'm not even talking about people optimizing, but people choosing their race, class, domains, everything based solely on the best one. Why don't these people play an mmo or something else if that's all they're interested in. To me, the draw of a pen and paper game is the ability to socialize, and play a character I find cool, not something I built to be the best in some competition only going on in my brain.
To say that no one will have a deity with their cleric if they don't have to because they can get better domains, I just can't even wrap my head around it, nor can I wrap my head around a DM seeing stuff like this and letting it slide. No one at my table would have the nerve to say "Guys I made a summoner whose eidolon can deal 8 million damage a round every round, and my summoner can pass diplomacy checks on a 1. Prepare to be totally useless! The DMs gonna hate it! I'm totally gonna win Pathfinder" If something like that happened, we'd tell him to quit being an idiot or leave.
What a strange world a lot of you seem to live in.
|
|
Seeker--
Here's the relevant "examples" paragraph from that post-- which is intended to represent examples of what a Cleric in Pathfinder (who of course has one Patron deity) can reasonably do as far as paying respect to other deities (while keeping his Patron first and foremost), without pissing off his Patron deity and/or having trouble with maintaining his "Cleric" status:
Is Sarenrae going to punish her cleric for occasionally (or even fairly frequently) attending services for Milani because her Cleric still honors and respects Milani and has very close ties to allies/friends who follow Milani? Is Iomedae going to zap her Cleric because that Cleric still offers prayers to Erastil every time he goes hunting, and gives a little offering at Erastil's shrine after every successful hunt? Is the Cleric of Sarenrae going to be in big trouble for accepting a commission/task/whatever from Milani's priesthood (or, since Gods/Goddesses can manifest in Golarion-- maybe even a vision from Milani herself), presuming it's a task that Sarenrae would also want to see done? Are any of these Clerics going to be in trouble for constant, close cooperation with Desna's servants or for partying with Shelyn's followers a lot? Speaking of shrine offerings... is the Sarenrae cleric going to be in trouble because she regularly leaves offerings for Desna, whom she still venerates to some extent (and especially because she travels a lot)?
(end pasted portion)
As I noted in the original post (which as of this writing still shows up as "yesterday, 11:54 AM" -- I put in the date rather than yesterday in case people follow up farther down the line)-- if the above examples of behavior are okay, and for that matter if they do not cross that line you've marked out as "deities do not share their clerics", I'm in agreement with your positions/arguments on Clerics in Golarion/official Pathfinder play. I get the implication from other posts that my examples above should be okay-- but I kind'a want to bounce all the sorts of specifics I'd be thinking about having characters sincerely do in a game, and make sure that there's not any problems you all can see with my view on acceptable respect to deities other than your patron.
Seeker, I'm particularly interested in your thought on the above list, since I started off not agreeing with a lot of your posts, but your arguments (along with Set's and Steve Geddes's) on this thread have largely convinced me (with the caveat that we are talking about Clerics *in* Golarion here).
|
|
You might try posting a one paragraph query in the "ask James Jacobs" thread. He won't get into a back and forth with you about it (and he might be thoroughly sick of talking about clerics!). Nonetheless, he's pretty ridiculously approachable and diligent there - I suspect he'd offer confirmation (or otherwise) that clerics of Desna also offer thanks to Abadar after negotiating a deal or similar.Since no-one replied to my last couple of posts, I'm guessing my last formulation on actions by a cleric respecting other deities (with examples) don't present any conflict to a good cleric's relationship with his/her patron? (if I don't get a response to this post, I'll take that as a given-- Seeker, if you see a problem with those action examples, I'd particularly like to hear your comments on why-- this request is genuinely for discussion and information)
(particularly referring to post made by me 17Jan2012 at 11:54 AM)
Steve-- I may do that at some point, after seeing if Seeker, Set, et al, think it's okay as is, or if there are some more problems I might want to work out before I toss it that way. I do appreciate the suggestion-- I just figured I'd complete forming a position acceptable to the most firm defenders of "Clerics are servants of a single Divine Patron" (if possible), since the defenders of that point of view have convinced me they're right, regarding Clerics in Golarion-- not just from RAW, but because the story/world background/design assumptions for that make sense and are coherent with each other and other assumptions about the world.
|
|
...(with the caveat that we are talking about Clerics *in* Pathfinder, because there are distinctly different assumptions explicitly made in past editions).In fact, we're talking about clerics in Golarion. As I understand things, despite what James would have liked, the core rules allow clerics without a specific deity.
The restriction is purely within the campaign setting itself.
*nodnods* will edit that line in previous post.
Seeker--
Is Sarenrae going to punish her cleric for occasionally (or even fairly frequently) attending services for Milani because her Cleric still honors and respects Milani and has very close ties to allies/friends who follow Milani? Is Iomedae going to zap her Cleric because that Cleric still offers prayers to Erastil every time he goes hunting, and gives a little offering at Erastil's shrine after every successful hunt? Is the Cleric of Sarenrae going to be in big trouble for accepting a commission/task/whatever from Milani's priesthood (or, since Gods/Goddesses can manifest in Golarion-- maybe even a vision from Milani herself), presuming it's a task that Sarenrae would also want to see done? Are any of these Clerics going to be in trouble for constant, close cooperation with Desna's servants or for partying with Shelyn's followers a lot? Speaking of shrine offerings... is the Sarenrae cleric going to be in trouble because she regularly leaves offerings for Desna, whom she still venerates to some extent (and especially because she travels a lot)?
I never said they would. 3.5 loy implied that, I never did. Golarion gods are not self contained, some gods might take offense but none you listed would. The god they serve is the one they have loyalties to, but they could and would still give thanks to others from time to time, clerics might even give service for the whole of the 20 if they are the only cleric/ priest in the area. They would say rites to whatever god the dead served for instance and everyone invokes they lady of graves at births and deaths.
Just because you serve one god as your god, does not mean you ignore all others. Yous simply place your god first always and look at things from their point of view/teachings.
Golarion is not a Monotheist world, why would clerics act as if it was?
|
|
I never said they would. 3.5 loy implied that, I never did. Golarion gods are not self contained, some gods might take offense but none you listed would. The god they serve is the one they have loyalties to, but they could and would still give thanks to others from time to time, clerics might even give service for the whole of the 20 if they are the only cleric/ priest in the area. They would say rites to whatever god the dead served for instance and everyone invokes they lady of graves at births and deaths.Just because you serve one god as your god, does not mean you ignore all others. Yous simply place your god first always and look at things from their point of view/teachings.
Golarion is not a Monotheist world, why would clerics act as if it was?
Sounds good. Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.
BTW-- my apologies if the tone on some of my earlier posts was off-putting; I kind'a got hung up on some of those implications I thought I saw (re-- 3.5 Loyalist's impressions of some of your positions) that may not have been intended or weren't there at all in your posts.