RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Am I the only person who has created a campaign world where all the allowed philosophies/causes are defined ahead of time? My world has a list of deities and philosophies that can have clerics. Philosophies outside the list might exist, but they don't provide divine magic. I find the separatist archetype sufficiently useful.
Basically, in a world where clerics can already pick any two domains, yes, the archetype has less value. But it does have value in some settings so let it be useful there, and don't use it in settings where it is trash.
|
"Godless" Clerics = Player Advocacy Movement saying for "screw you DM, sorry, Mister Cavern, you will NOT limit my choice of domains in ANY way, you opressive rule-0 mongering weasel!"Why do you hate PAM, Gorbacz?
Maybe because I'm a [REDACTED] GM who enjoys making those [REDACTED] players cry their [REDACTED] off? And I enjoy my ULTIMATE POWER over their sorry existences as well as the comforting thought that if they haven't quit playing with me for the last 15 years it means I've brainwashed them well enough?
Or maybe I just enjoy baiting PAMs because they're so funny when they get worked up. Cref: Cartigan, GatFromRandomCaps.
Dunno, I'm not sure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Godless" Clerics = Player Advocacy Movement saying for "screw you DM, sorry, Mister Cavern, you will NOT limit my choice of domains in ANY way, you opressive rule-0 mongering weasel!"Is there any difference with the separatist?
Actually, the separatist is the ultimate PAM:
Player: I will play a godless cleric, because [blah].
DM: No, because [blah].
Player: then I'll play a separatist.
DM: What is a separatist?
Player: that's exactly the same, except Gorbacz on the Paizo's board says it's fine! Screw you, DM, you will NOT limit my choice of domains in ANY way, you opressive rule-0 mongering weasel!That's actually what's happening in PFS:
PFS: a cleric with the healing and the death domain makes no sense in Golarion.
SKR: screw you, PFS, you will NOT limit my choice of domains in ANY way, you opressive rule-0 mongering weasel!
Didn't you see that's one of the main reason people are using this archetype?That's why the archetype is so bad: the option existed before, but instead of allowing/refusing the former option, now peoples like you are using it as a Player Advocacy Movement because "SKR said it's cool, then you can't refuse it".
...Oh, sorry if I killed your poor strawman.
You're one of the funniest things that happened to this forum since Roy, sorry, CoDzilla left. :)
So in the case of the Separatist cleric archetype, you have to take it if you want the Separatist class feature.Except that the core rules just let you have that normally.
I do not believe that the core rules allow you to worship a god and select a domain that is not available to that god. I could be wrong, I guess.
Players should not be penalized for having greater freedom. Having more options available at one time can (and usually does) make a character more powerful. It's reasonable to want to offset that increase in power somehow. However, having the ability to have more options at character creation is not an increase in power.
Suppose wizards could pick and choose whichever school specialization powers they wished (e.g. the level 1 ability from Conjuration and the level 8 ability from Universal). You wouldn't consider that an increase in power?
Something I haven't mentioned: this is not an archetype. This is an alternate class feature.
I don't make a distinction between the two.
EDIT: Actually, as I phrased it that's not true. What I mean is that I consider them both to be class variants and I don't particularly distinguish between a variant that changes one ability and a variant that changes multiple abilities.
|
|
Actually, I asked google to translate "accent circonflexe" from French to English. I didn't know how it's called in English before.
Anyway, this circumflex is here to annoy peoples who don't have it on their keyboard, therefore you are requested to put the accent. It's also here because my whole pseudo is "Gâterie from random caps", but the primary goal is to annoy peoples.
Dammit, I should have picked the name "Górbąćz".
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
That's actually what's happening in PFS:
PFS: a cleric with the healing and the death domain makes no sense in Golarion.
SKR: screw you, PFS, you will NOT limit my choice of domains in ANY way, you opressive rule-0 mongering weasel!
Didn't you see that's one of the main reason people are using this archetype?That's why the archetype is so bad: the option existed before, but instead of allowing/refusing the former option, now peoples like you are using it as a Player Advocacy Movement because "SKR said it's cool, then you can't refuse it".
...Oh, sorry if I killed your poor strawman.
At work, so I can't really make an in depth post, but just wanted to say this is absolutely right! A god with both the healing and death domains makes no sense in Golarion!
...well except for Pharasma, you know, the goddes of birth, death, and prophecy? She has both those domains. But other than her, yeah, nonsensical combination!
To be more accurate Separatists are what they are because they stray from the church DOGMA.That's not what the text say. The text talk about deity's teaching
What do you think is the intended meaning of "the unorthodox teachings of a deity"?
Also, given the circumflex discussion, is English your first language?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder gives a toolbox so GMs can create they campaign setting they want. Options are just that, options. If separatist doesn't work for you, leave it out! Easy as pie. MMmm. I like pie.
It's kind of weird to have the idea that Mormons and Protestants and Shi'a Muslims go to hell encoded in the game rules.
Fortunately, we're not talking about Mormons, Protestants, and any stripe of Muslims with this feat, nor are we doing so with separatists. We're talking about player characters in an environment where the gods really do things and can directly affect a PC's life and afterlife.
I see what you're saying. The base cleric has the option of choosing to follow a "philosophy or concept" instead of a specific deityNot on Golarion, no. James Jacobs recently stated that on Golarion you NEED a god to grant you spells and powers as a cleric.
Unless *your* DM says otherwise. I'm pretty sure James Jacobs isn't going to come over to your house and rough you up if you allow Clerics of a Philosophy in Golarion.
(And someone really smart said something a couple of pages back about why Clerics of a Philosophy make sense and have a real world precedent. That guy also explained why calling them "Godless Clerics" is misleading at best and seems like purposeful spin at worst. I don't remember who it is, but that guy's awesome).
I see what you're saying. The base cleric has the option of choosing to follow a "philosophy or concept" instead of a specific deityNot on Golarion, no. James Jacobs recently stated that on Golarion you NEED a god to grant you spells and powers as a cleric.Unless *your* DM says otherwise. I'm pretty sure James Jacobs isn't going to come over to your house and rough you up if you allow Clerics of a Philosophy in Golarion.
Of course. But with this argument you can end any rules discussion.
BTW if you allow spellcasting clerics in Golarion that do not worship a actual god, you will have to change the setting a bit (Razmiran).
You'd prefer the players' choices be irrelevant? I find most players like to feel that their decisions matter.Their decisions don't matter when they are between "the weak choice" and "the strong choice" with near-identical flavor text.
Save that one may be setting appropreate, while the other might not.
Save that one may suit a character concept, while the other may not.
The relative strength of an option is not the only factor at play when building a character. Stop acting like it is the only thing that matters.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You'd prefer the players' choices be irrelevant? I find most players like to feel that their decisions matter.Their decisions don't matter when they are between "the weak choice" and "the strong choice" with near-identical flavor text.
Two clerics choosing different deities have 'near-identical flavor text'?
Naw. I don't agree with that.
Just thought I'd let you all know that this thread is hysterical.
Really, you people have nothing better to think about? And I have nothing better to do but read it.
Two clerics with the same domains, deity, and beliefs, one using the separatist rules and one using the philosophy clerics rules.
And there's the crux of the difference. There are campaigns in which the philosophy cleric rules don't apply. I don't use them, for example. So the separatist gives my players a way to pick an off domain of their choosing.
Different tools for different purposes. If you allow your cleric players to pick domains willy-nilly, don't use the archetype. If you are strict about your deities and domains, the archetype might work for your campaign.
Save that one may be setting appropreate, while the other might not.
Save that one may suit a character concept, while the other may not.
The relative strength of an option is not the only factor at play when building a character. Stop acting like it is the only thing that matters.
When is a Separatist setting appropriate, but a cleric with the exact same set of beliefs and affiliations using the philosophy clerics rules setting-inappropriate?
There's no reason to create new, pointlessly redundant rules that screw up character balance for no good reason. Stop pretending like my argument is "It's weak, therefore it's bad."
Two clerics choosing different deities have 'near-identical flavor text'?
Naw. I don't agree with that.Two clerics with the same domains, deity, and beliefs, one using the separatist rules and one using the philosophy clerics rules.
Pathfinder gives a toolbox so GMs can create they campaign setting they want. Options are just that, options. If separatist doesn't work for you, leave it out! Easy as pie. MMmm. I like pie.It's a crap tool. It's reasonable to complain about being sold bad merchandise, on the forum made specifically for discussing that merchandise.
Any setting in which a cleric would take a hit for their deviancy from the set out gods of the gampaign setting. I have listed five broad examples of such up thread.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Two clerics with the same domains, deity, and beliefs, one using the separatist rules and one using the philosophy clerics rules.Two clerics choosing different deities have 'near-identical flavor text'?
Naw. I don't agree with that.
But the philosophy cleric doesn't worship a deity! She is, by the rules, "not devoted to any particular deity."
That's again an entirely different flavor than the standard cleric and the separatist.
If we allow clerics devoted to a god to just pick any two domains they want and call it a 'philosophy', what's the point of assigning domains to the gods in the first place?
I will simply throw in my $.02 In my campaign I do not allow Clerics of a philosophy either. Clerics Pick a god and pick 2 domains from that god.
This Archtype gives MY players more options. And to pay for that option the "off" domain is slightly weaker then the main. It works really well.
I can see why this option does not work for everyone, but for ME, and apperently several others it works fine.
This archetype doesn't allow everything at once, either. It only allows two domains. You can use all sorts of derogatory language to refer to settings where domains aren't as restricted as in Golarion, but those restrictions exist because of in-universe reasons, not because of power reasons.Why is it good for the game for a cleric of one god to be weaker than a cleric of another god, despite having exactly the same domains?
Because even though they both have the same domains, one person is worshiping a God thematically tied to that domain, and the other person isn't.
It makes sense that Gozreh, Goddess of the sea, is going to have more influence over water (and thus grant a stronger version of the Water domain to his/her clerics) than Shelyn, Goddess of art (who might have a sect dedicated to ice sculpture or fountains or something, but who has no real thematic tie to or influence over water).
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for Cayden Cailean to grant the Liberation domain to the point that it seems like the only reason he doesn't is that deities can 'only' grant 5 domains, and the other 5 were equally important.Or for him to grant the Heroism subdomain of Glory. Or a worshiper of Desna with the Darkness domain (especially with the Night Subdomain). Norgorber with Darkness. Zon-Kuthon with Tyranny.
It seems to me like telling the player 'select one domain from the list, and then we'll discuss appropriate alternatives for your second domain if you don't like any of the other possibilities' is an infinitely better way to both give the player what they want, and to preserve deity flavor, than the Seperatist archetype, which could give you a Gozreh worshiper with the Artifice domain, Caileanites with the Tyranny domain, or Shelynites with Destruction, and only DM fiat to reject the cleric with the completely antithetical choices.
Two clerics with the same domains, deity, and beliefs, one using the separatist rules and one using the philosophy clerics rules.Two clerics choosing different deities have 'near-identical flavor text'?
Naw. I don't agree with that.But the philosophy cleric doesn't worship a deity! She is, by the rules, "not devoted to any particular deity."
That's again an entirely different flavor than the standard cleric and the separatist.
If we allow clerics devoted to a god to just pick any two domains they want and call it a 'philosophy', what's the point of assigning domains to the gods in the first place?
I think Man in Black's point is that the crunch is bad - why not allow the separatist the same breaks as one would allow a "cleric of a philosophy"?
If the philosophy-cleric is balanced (which it presumably is, since the designers/developers have deemed it appropriate for inclusion in the rules) then allowing a separatist (with different flavor material) to operate with the same underlying rules will presumably also be balanced.
I may have misunderstood him, however he makes a lot of sense in my view. If my interpretation is right, he isnt discussing the choice any DM makes with regard to flavor material or background - merely the rules the designers have made available for those who only allow deities with clerics but also allow separatists.
That's not my argument, but it's another reasonable argument that this is a badly-designed archetype. It could pass like all other badly-designed archetypes as filler, except that it's a badly designed archetype that arises from a poisonous mindset: that players must be charged for not playing the way the designers intended.
Ah well.. In that case, I agree with my misconception of what your argument is whilst not understanding what your actual argument is. (Although I suspect it's strong).
I'd be interested to hear an argument from someone with a solid understanding of the rules as to why a separatist should be penalised more for their domain flexibility than a cleric-of-a-philosophy.
I see a lot of insistence that there are only two ways to get different domains: separatist or cleric of philosophy. This is wrong. It's not even subjectively wrong. It's factually wrong. There are at least three ways.
In my games, I do not allow the separatist archetype. I do not allow clerics of philosophy. Part of the theme is that the old gods are mutable and sway with the tides of belief, so a player may, with negotiation and good reason, play a cleric of an existing god with a different domain, as if this domain were one of that god's allowed domains in the first place.
I've been doing this for ages. So much so that a couple of the gods now have about seven domains (with some restrictions amongst them) such as one granting animal, plant, weather plus any one element (cannot choose two elements).
The separatist archetype does nothing new and is pointless for me. If others adopted the same 'negotiate with the GM for a different domain' approach, it would be just as useless for them.
I see a lot of insistence that there are only two ways to get different domains: separatist or cleric of philosophy. This is wrong. It's not even subjectively wrong. It's factually wrong. There are at least three ways.
In my games, I do not allow the separatist archetype. I do not allow clerics of philosophy. Part of the theme is that the old gods are mutable and sway with the tides of belief, so a player may, with negotiation and good reason, play a cleric of an existing god with a different domain, as if this domain were one of that god's allowed domains in the first place.
I've been doing this for ages. So much so that a couple of the gods now have about seven domains (with some restrictions amongst them) such as one granting animal, plant, weather plus any one element (cannot choose two elements).
The separatist archetype does nothing new and is pointless for me. If others adopted the same 'negotiate with the GM for a different domain' approach, it would be just as useless for them.
And that is great in a setting that works that way. But not all do.
Separatist gives yet another way of handling it. One more tool in the box. Thats all.
And that is great in a setting that works that way. But not all do.
Separatist gives yet another way of handling it. One more tool in the box. Thats all.
Yes, but then your tools are "give your clerics access to any two domains freely with varying justifications required or implied" or "screw clerics who select domains outside of deity proscribed lists."
If the first option is balanced, why is the second one justified?
Flavor reasons are all good and well, but they don't require balance changes. At least, they shouldn't, and if that's the case, what use is the separatist? Why not just offer some roleplaying advice on handling splinter groups in churches instead?
Or is the argument that a new flavor option requires adjusts to game balance to be significant?
Two clerics with the same domains, deity, and beliefs, one using the separatist rules and one using the philosophy clerics rules.
Certainly one is stronger than the other, but it's also clear to me that the philosophy cleric is stronger than the "normal" cleric (assuming the philosophy cleric gets to choose any two domains and a favoured weapon without restriction). It's less clear that the "normal" cleric is stronger than the separatist cleric, since that's highly campaign-dependent.
What's your opinion of my example of a wizard variant who can pick and choose any school powers he likes (without giving up any other abilities)? Does that sound like a good idea to you, or not?
Certainly one is stronger than the other, but it's also clear to me that the philosophy cleric is stronger than the "normal" cleric (assuming the philosophy cleric gets to choose any two domains and a favoured weapon without restriction).
This isn't a perfect truth. There's several deities that offer synergistic domains. It follows, that if it's alright for those clerics to exist, then deity domain lists aren't a real check on cleric power.
Or are clerics of Desna really just supposed to be better?
Certainly one is stronger than the other, but it's also clear to me that the philosophy cleric is stronger than the "normal" cleric (assuming the philosophy cleric gets to choose any two domains and a favoured weapon without restriction).This isn't a perfect truth. There's several deities that offer synergistic domains. It follows, that if it's alright for those clerics to exist, then deity domain lists aren't a real check on cleric power.
Or are clerics of Desna really just supposed to be better?
I understand what you're saying -- your preferred domain choices and favoured weapon choice may exactly match a particular deity, in which case there would be no benefit from being a philosophy cleric. (Desna is a fair example, although I suspect I wouldn't choose a starknife as a favoured weapon if I had my druthers).
But that doesn't mean that the philosophy cleric is equal to the theistic cleric; it just means that in a single case they're equal. Similarly, adding all cleric spells to the wizard spell list is a power boost for wizards even if one particular wizard refuses to use cleric spells. As long as there's at least one case where the philosophy cleric is more advantageous, that means it's a stronger class. (Not much stronger, I'll grant you, but still stronger.)
But that doesn't mean that the philosophy cleric is equal to the theistic cleric; it just means that in a single case they're equal. Similarly, adding all cleric spells to the wizard spell list is a power boost for wizards even if one particular wizard refuses to use cleric spells. As long as there's at least one case where the philosophy cleric is more advantageous, that means it's a stronger class. (Not much stronger, I'll grant you, but still stronger.)
Well, you win on the starknife. Milani's not terrible either if you want a slightly more sane weapon.
Anyway, I still think your point misses the mark. If there's the option to already play roughly as powerful a cleric as you could without refluffing the philosophy cleric, in what real sense is the philosophy cleric stronger? It offers more options, but the maximum power you could squeeze out of those options is no more than what you could get under the original system regardless.
Plus, you can just as easily pick non-synergistic domains using the rules that way as you can within the cleric of a deity model.
Given that domains are a one time choice, and given the number and variety of gods already out there, and the potential for DMs to make many more, I'm not at all sure why this option is more powerful at all. At least, no more powerful than any cleric with travel and liberation is than a cleric with two elemental domains, and that power discrepancy is already baked into clerics with deities.
|
Considering the option to play a cleric of a philosophy or other off-base religion (presumably costing you a favored weapon, but allowing you to pick any two domains*), why would anyone ever player a cleric of the Separatist archetype?
The latter is a strictly inferior option!
* Which both work at full power and without any penalties.
Because some people prefer to play a ROLEplaying game rather than a ROLLplaying game.
And certainly not inferior if used with a proper character background.
Creativity... try it some time.
Considering the option to play a cleric of a philosophy or other off-base religion (presumably costing you a favored weapon, but allowing you to pick any two domains*), why would anyone ever player a cleric of the Separatist archetype?
The latter is a strictly inferior option!
* Which both work at full power and without any penalties.
Because some people prefer to play a ROLEplaying game rather than a ROLLplaying game.
And certainly not inferior if used with a proper character background.
Creativity... try it some time.
*snark* Somebody has a superiority complex. /snark
I've always found it humerus how people constantly use this straw man to totally ignore the real issues.
Just because someone calls me a "rollplayer" doesn't mean there isn't a problem in need of fixing.
Just because someone calls me a "rollplayer" doesn't mean there isn't a problem in need of fixing.
This archtype works great for my home campaign, it works great for several other poster's campaigns as well.
If it works well for us, and you can simply ignore it, why does it "Need fixing" at all?
Just because someone calls me a "rollplayer" doesn't mean there isn't a problem in need of fixing.This archtype works great for my home campaign, it works great for several other poster's campaigns as well.
If it works well for us, and you can simply ignore it, why does it "Need fixing" at all?
Because it sets a bad precedent. If it isn't addressed now we will likely see more of this rubbish in the future. It's already happening in fact.
I can already name a few examples of the game limiting old options with new material. Take the Inner Sea World Guide's Interplanetary Teleport for example. Suddenly, no one was allowed to use Greater Teleport to go to the moon. Nay I say. Things like that need to stop.