The idea here is to extend the gods with additional lesser gods, demi-gods and half-gods. If we take the ancient Greek god as an example, we can see that Zeus has children with almost anything with 2 legs.I couldn't get through the full thread without laughing at this and thinking, "And with more".
Sorry for the derail.
Anyways...I think AMiB would get a lot more conversions to his church if he stopped being a condescending person. His words make me angry, make me want to run quickly away from his ideas, and leave a bitter taste in my mouth. He wants to convince people of his "truth"? He'd better learn some diplomacy.
Granted, he's not the only one being a jerk. He's just the biggest example, not that that says much.
Anyways, now avoiding. Good day/evening/morning/tea-time.
Weird. I'm a fan of the separatist personally - I'd still choose it, even though I've now been persuaded that it is poorly designed, mechanically.
I can't see how he's being a jerk though - just blunt. I appreciate comments from people who understand the rules well and I appreciate them more when they are clearly articulating the problem rather than "argument by parody" or ridicule. My group just takes the rules as is and presume they are well balanced, if the designers of future options are reading these kinds of threads, future products can only be better designed, in my view (this is true even if they disagree with him).
|
Anyways...I think AMiB would get a lot more conversions to his church if he stopped being a condescending person. His words make me angry, make me want to run quickly away from his ideas, and leave a bitter taste in my mouth. He wants to convince people of his "truth"? He'd better learn some diplomacy.Soft speech is pleasing. A sharp tongue is memorable.
I sure do hope you're aware just which particular sort of "memorable" it is. :)
|
|
I sure do hope you're aware just which particular sort of "memorable" it is. :)Why would I want to be any other sort?
Reminds me of the 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar' line and the logical retort 'yeah, but who wants flies?'
And the even more logical "who wants the flies that you catch on vinegar"? Because it's going to be that sick, perverted sort of flies I'm afraid. ;)
If its rice vinegar it tastes nasty but I like white vinegar. Again people like different things.
The normal cleric is stronger than the Separatist cleric in all cases, unless some domains are dramatically weaker, because the Separatist gets weaker domain powers later in one domain.
I agree, except I would strike use the word "dramatically" from the sentence and I would use the phrase "domain combinations" instead of "domains". The loss of power the Separatist gets is almost never a "dramatic" loss, so why would it require a "dramatically" stronger domain to compensate for that loss?
Wizards are dissimilar. I'm not going to entertain an argument by analogy that doesn't make any case that the analogy is relevant.
Just to clarify -- you're saying that a wizard who could pick and choose abilities has no similarities with a cleric who could pick and choose abilities? If so, which classes am I allowed to use to make the same analogy?
Honestly, after reading all of this, I'm forced to come to the conclusion that the Separatist is a setting-specific archetype for Golarion - no different from Thassilonian wizards and Rondolero Duelists. It's readily adaptable to any setting where deities are absolutely required, but causes enough trouble when you try to integrate it into settings that stick to the Core on this subject that it doesn't belong there.
Why was it in Ultimate Magic (a rulebook nominally intended for EVERY setting)? Not totally positive, but the answers are probably out there.
Because, as others have pointed out, there are many established campaigns other than Golarion (including published settings such as Dragonlance and Eberron, and homebrew worlds) where philosophy-clerics don't exist, therefore the archetype is a necessary and viable choice in those campaigns.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Interesting. So, can inquisitors on Golarion worship concepts/deity portfolios (as opposed to individual deities)? There's a player in my Savage Skull game with an inquisitor of "those lawful evil gods," which annoys me six ways to sunday.
If there is such a rule, a reference to where it could be found would be much appreciated.
Because, as others have pointed out, there are many established campaigns other than Golarion (including published settings such as Dragonlance and Eberron, and homebrew worlds) where philosophy-clerics don't exist, therefore the archetype is a necessary and viable choice in those campaigns.Honestly, after reading all of this, I'm forced to come to the conclusion that the Separatist is a setting-specific archetype for Golarion - no different from Thassilonian wizards and Rondolero Duelists. It's readily adaptable to any setting where deities are absolutely required, but causes enough trouble when you try to integrate it into settings that stick to the Core on this subject that it doesn't belong there.
Why was it in Ultimate Magic (a rulebook nominally intended for EVERY setting)? Not totally positive, but the answers are probably out there.
I guess oracles don't exist in Golarion either? They get divine power but don't necessarily worship a god or gods just like the philosophy clerics.
I guess oracles don't exist in Golarion either? They get divine power but don't necessarily worship a god or gods just like the philosophy clerics.
I don't know why you'd assume that since they aren't the topic of conversation - philosophy clerics.
I guess oracles don't exist in Golarion either? They get divine power but don't necessarily worship a god or gods just like the philosophy clerics.I don't know why you'd assume that since they aren't the topic of conversation - philosophy clerics.
I'm merely pointing out the double-standards and inconsistencies in the game.
Because, as others have pointed out, there are many established campaigns other than Golarion (including published settings such as Dragonlance and Eberron, and homebrew worlds) where philosophy-clerics don't exist, therefore the archetype is a necessary and viable choice in those campaigns.Honestly, after reading all of this, I'm forced to come to the conclusion that the Separatist is a setting-specific archetype for Golarion - no different from Thassilonian wizards and Rondolero Duelists. It's readily adaptable to any setting where deities are absolutely required, but causes enough trouble when you try to integrate it into settings that stick to the Core on this subject that it doesn't belong there.
Why was it in Ultimate Magic (a rulebook nominally intended for EVERY setting)? Not totally positive, but the answers are probably out there.
And, as others have pointed out, an archetype was not the right solution.
This is not the first time this problem has come up. Flavor does not justify mechanical inferiority. If I have a given character concept, that can be represented perfectly well using the mechanics from the core rules, there should not be someone coming along with a rulebook saying "Oh, I'm sorry, because your concept matches this bit of fluff text, you get to be arbitrarily weaker! Have fun with that!"
|
I'm merely pointing out the double-standards and inconsistencies in the game.I guess oracles don't exist in Golarion either? They get divine power but don't necessarily worship a god or gods just like the philosophy clerics.I don't know why you'd assume that since they aren't the topic of conversation - philosophy clerics.
You'll be at it awhile then.
I guess oracles don't exist in Golarion either? They get divine power but don't necessarily worship a god or gods just like the philosophy clerics.
I didn't realize that oracles and godless clerics were the same thing. Wait... wait... they're not the same thing at all.
And, as others have pointed out, an archetype was not the right solution.
And as others have pointed out, it works just fine. Just because you don't agree with it, or don't see a need for it in your campaign, doesn't mean it's not the right solution.
The game is bigger than your home game or your sense of what should be in the game.
You'll be at it awhile then.I'm merely pointing out the double-standards and inconsistencies in the game.I guess oracles don't exist in Golarion either? They get divine power but don't necessarily worship a god or gods just like the philosophy clerics.I don't know why you'd assume that since they aren't the topic of conversation - philosophy clerics.
Been doing it for years already. I figure why stop now?
And, as others have pointed out, an archetype was not the right solution.And as others have pointed out, it works just fine. Just because you don't agree with it, or don't see a need for it in your campaign, doesn't mean it's not the right solution.
The game is bigger than your home game or your sense of what should be in the game.
And just because some people are using it and think it's fine, doesn't mean it wasn't the wrong solution, or that those same people wouldn't think it was fine to have a completely mechanics-free discussion of how to deal with splinter religious groups in a game. The game is bigger than your home game or sense of what should be in the game, too. (If it wasn't, then we'd all be happy here, and this entire thread wouldn't exist.)
If you're going to claim that this archetype was the right way to approach the concept of a separatist, then perhaps you should actually address the issues people have brought up?
If you're going to claim that this archetype was the right way to approach the concept of a separatist, then perhaps you should actually address the issues people have brought up?
And those issues are?
Yeah, I see no problem with the Archetype whatsoever.
The idea that creating-your-own-custom-deity is a class abilty built into the Cleric class is pretty funny though.
If you're going to claim that this archetype was the right way to approach the concept of a separatist, then perhaps you should actually address the issues people have brought up?And those issues are?
Well, let's start with:
A good archetype should be a no-brainer if you want to play the archetype. If you want play someone who study magic, you play a wizard, that's a no-brainer, do you think that's bad game design ? But If you want to play a heretic cleric, you don't play a separatist because there are better way to do so from a RP and a technical standpoint.
Or how about:
Well, I'm not going so far as to say it's not unusable as written, especially since it's a small power loss for one of the strongest classes in the game. I'm just baffled as to why it exists, when a discussion of splinter religions and divergent belief in general would serve the same purpose while also being much, much more useful.
And these are just a few examples; I'm sure I could come up with more if I actually went back through the whole thread again.
My personal issue is with the design philosophy that says it's ok for a basic game option to be mechanically inferior just because it has different descriptive text.
I mean, would you think it was ok to publish a self-taught wizard archetype that just removed one spell slot at each level? Yes, that's a more extreme example, but it's the same basic concept: an interesting character idea is rendered mechanically inferior simply because it has a different description than the base class.
And, as others have pointed out, an archetype was not the right solution.And as others have pointed out, it works just fine. Just because you don't agree with it, or don't see a need for it in your campaign, doesn't mean it's not the right solution.
The game is bigger than your home game or your sense of what should be in the game.
While I think an archetype works, I don't really like the implementation in the Separatist archetype. Mechanically it provides no encouragement for the cleric to not seek out another religion and deity that matches their vision and view. The flavor seems to indicate that the existing clergy would prefer that as well to one potentially creating a schism within the temple.
While I don't mind if it weaker than a standard cleric, I do dislike that it provides no advantage to taking a more standard cleric path. If it provided limited set of bonus feats at a few levels, like Alignment Channel, Iron Will, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Persuasive, Spell Focus, or other feats that might be drawn from the cleric either becoming more well trained with the path that they are taking or more dedicated to keeping themselves on that path, I don't think that it would make the class necessarily more powerful or balanced against the normal cleric, but it would give a mechanical reason why I would want to play a Separatist.
This archetype sort of feels like an option for a character to eat rocks. While it provides an option that background characters in the world may take because they really really want to, I would have rather had an option that myself or my players would have been more likely to take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let's start with:
A good archetype should be a no-brainer if you want to play the archetype. If you want play someone who study magic, you play a wizard, that's a no-brainer, do you think that's bad game design ? But If you want to play a heretic cleric, you don't play a separatist because there are better way to do so from a RP and a technical standpoint.
"I think there is a better way to do this" is not an "issue that needs to be addressed."
Or how about:
Well, I'm not going so far as to say it's not unusable as written, especially since it's a small power loss for one of the strongest classes in the game. I'm just baffled as to why it exists, when a discussion of splinter religions and divergent belief in general would serve the same purpose while also being much, much more useful.
"Let's have a discussion about splinter religions in a crunch-heavy book about magic" is not an "issue that needs to be addressed."
My personal issue is with the design philosophy that says it's ok for a basic game option to be mechanically inferior just because it has different descriptive text.
"I want to follow a path and gain powers different than 99.99% of the adventuring clerics of my religion" is more than just "different descriptive text." And that sounds like a choice that should be a little mechanically inferior. How inferior? You lose a favored weapon. Boo hoo. You don't lose access to higher-level spells, you don't have fewer spells per day--you just don't automatically get prof with your deity's chosen weapon. Unless you're playing the cleric who's focused on charging into melee with the deity's chosen weapon, you haven't really lost anything. My wife's 16th-level drow cleric hasn't made an attack roll with a weapon in the last ten combats.
I mean, would you think it was ok to publish a self-taught wizard archetype that just removed one spell slot at each level? Yes, that's a more extreme example, but it's the same basic concept: an interesting character idea is rendered mechanically inferior simply because it has a different description than the base class.
Wizards gain their power from study. Whether they're homeschooled or academy-trained shouldn't really affect their abilities, you can justify those differences as flavor. And nobody's talking about removing spell slots, we're talking about losing a free proficiency in a weapon.
Clerics gain their power from a deity. The deity decides whether or not to give them powers on a daily basis. Whether the cleric follows the standard orthodox teachings of that deity, or creates her own set of variant beliefs that are *mostly* in synch with that deity's teachings, in a world where that deity has a direct influence on the world in terms of announcing dogma and granting spells, yes, I think there should be a difference in the cleric's abilities because the second cleric isn't following all of the deity's rules ("In my version of Christianity, there are only Nine Commandments, and we can murder whenever we want"). Yet, still, the only difference in terms of power is the separatist cleric loses a weapon proficiency. Her magical powers are just as effective and valid as the orthodox cleric's magical powers.
Dragonlance has an entire age where the only clerics are philosophy clerics.
I was referring to post-Cataclysm, pre-Autumn Twilight Dragonlance, which is very much a D&D setting where, while the gods do exist, they aren't granting spells, and would-be clerics have no powers. In that time period, clerics of Mishakal, clerics of hope, clerics of humanity, and clerics of floopadoopadoo all get zero spells per day because in D&D Dragonlance only the gods grant spells, and the gods are pretty fickle about whether or not they're talking to mortals on any particular day. Other ages of DL where you don't have clerics because you're not using the D&D rules at all aren't valid for this discussion. (And by the way, if you want to argue D&D Dragonlance with me, first you should flip open your 3E Dragonlance hardcover book and check the credits page.)
The real problem is that this is a game-mechanical solution to a setting problem. Settings don't have clerics of a philosophy because divine powers require a patron. So why not just use the already-extant rules for clerics who aren't part of a mainstream faith and require them to have a patron, instead of these rules which charge the player and give back nothing other than the ability to play a way the designers didn't originally intend?
Because the existing rules that require setting clerics to have a patron don't give the clerics a way to choose a domain that's not part of the deity's portfolio.
While I think an archetype works, I don't really like the implementation in the Separatist archetype. Mechanically it provides no encouragement for the cleric to not seek out another religion and deity that matches their vision and view.
If you just see the cleric as a collection of game stats, yes, there's no reason for the cleric to not seek another faith. If you see the cleric as a person with a motivation for her decisions other than just power or game mechanical benefit, there are many reasons why they'd chose this archetype instead of seeking another faith. And "seeking out another religion" doesn't help if there are zero other religions that offer the exact domain combination the cleric wants. There's no deity with Death and Good, or Community and Fire, or Charm and Law. Without something like the separatist, players who want to explore those combinations (for whatever reason, mechanical or RP) have no option in the game rules.
This archetype sort of feels like an option for a character to eat rocks.
It's a sad day when "you get to pick whatever two domains you want for your cleric and all you have to give up in return is a bonus weapon proficiency your class didn't have before Pathfinder anyway" is an "eat rocks" option.
While it provides an option that background characters in the world may take because they really really want to, I would have rather had an option that myself or my players would have been more likely to take.
You can do whatever you want in your home game. If a GM is flexible, he can have an Eberron-style campaign where there are evil clerics of Iomedae. The GM can even have evil clerics of Iomedae with the Evil and Death domains. Options like the separatist exist for more hardline GMs who want an official, from-the-company rule, and if no such rule exists they're unwilling to houserule it. Not every GM is as comfortable as you are when it comes to throwing restrictions out the window.
|
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.
I'm fairly sure that before the topic of the Interplanetary Teleport spell came up, teleporting to a moon was not a regular campaign staple or concern.
"I want to follow a path and gain powers different than 99.99% of the adventuring clerics of my religion" is more than just "different descriptive text." And that sounds like a choice that should be a little mechanically inferior.
Holy crap you are awful at this whole "developing" thing.
Let me give you a protip - never intentionally create inferior options for the sake of doing so, and especially never admit to it, because you just stated "If you want to make a heretical cleric guess what, you have to suck."
Edit: Why does that even remotely sound like it should be inferior? Because it's different? We have to abide by Sean K Reynold's Rules of Roleplaying in order to have non-inferior characters?
Seriously?
The game is bigger than your home game or your sense of what should be in the game.
My wife's 16th-level drow cleric hasn't made an attack roll with a weapon in the last ten combats.
:allears:
Holy crap you are awful at this whole "developing" thing.
Remember, this is the guy that thought UM's Vow of Poverty was a good thing for 'roleplaying'.
Holy crap you are awful at this whole "developing" thing.
I don't think insulting a developer who is participating in a discussion is a very good idea.
Personally, I don't think the Separatist archetype is that bad. Being able to choose whichever two domains I want is a pretty good ability, especially for a setting with relatively few "core" deities, or any setting where the deities have a limited number of domains. There should be some drawbacks in return for that.
I don't think insulting a developer who is participating in a discussion is a very good idea.
It's embarrassing to watch. In my experience, whenever someone feels the need to "bolster" their argument with abuse or ridicule, it's a good sign they don't have a very good argument.
If you just see the cleric as a collection of game stats, yes, there's no reason for the cleric to not seek another faith. If you see the cleric as a person with a motivation for her decisions other than just power or game mechanical benefit, there are many reasons why they'd chose this archetype instead of seeking another faith. And "seeking out another religion" doesn't help if there are zero other religions that offer the exact domain combination the cleric wants. There's no deity with Death and Good, or Community and Fire, or Charm and Law. Without something like the separatist, players who want to explore those combinations (for whatever reason, mechanical or RP) have no option in the game rules.
That is why I mentioned the non-mechanical penalties as well. The descriptions of the archetype indicate that you aren't likely the favorite person by the current clergy. Sure your deity is still giving you power, but it is a slightly smaller portion than other clerics get. To me that isn't a happy indicator that your deity is backing you.
It is true that there are a limited number of religions and that every combination of domains isn't available with them. It just feels like a very thin benefit (especially with the number of deities in Golarion) that I don't see anyone especially going after, especially when that second domain gets weakened.
It's a sad day when "you get to pick whatever two domains you want for your cleric and all you have to give up in return is a bonus weapon proficiency your class didn't have before Pathfinder anyway" is an "eat rocks" option.
It isn't as much losing the weapon proficiency, but the loss of power from the extra domain ability with nothing really interesting. It feels more like you just misrepresented my complaint with your response.
Even if the archetype was, "you lose the deity's favored weapon and get to choose one of your domains from outside your deity's portfolio," it still would be "meh" option to me. It didn't add anything new or interesting to the class. The Separatist takes away power from an option that was already kind of boring to me. It's boring to eat gruel. It is boring and non-beneficial to eat rocks.
You can do whatever you want in your home game. If a GM is flexible, he can have an Eberron-style campaign where there are evil clerics of Iomedae. The GM can even have evil clerics of Iomedae with the Evil and Death domains. Options like the separatist exist for more hardline GMs who want an official, from-the-company rule, and if no such rule exists they're unwilling to houserule it. Not every GM is as comfortable as you are when it comes to throwing restrictions out the window.
Again, I think that you are misrepresenting what I was saying. I am not talking about throwing restrictions "out of the window" or houseruling anything.
This is just an option that I don't particularly like. It is worse for the fact that I like the concept to the separatist cleric, and that this version makes it so the chances of me seeing a version that I find appealing anytime soon is around nil doesn't help me appreciate this archetype.
I would say that I'm more likely to see a character that calls themselves a separatist from their own temple and built as either a normal cleric or another archetype (like Theologian) than actually using the Separatist archetype. It just isn't appealing to me because it doesn't have anything within that is special. Being able to choose the Law and Charm domains is special enough because I wouldn't have bet anything that there isn't such a deity out there in Golarion (stated or unstated).
"I want to follow a path and gain powers different than 99.99% of the adventuring clerics of my religion" is more than just "different descriptive text." And that sounds like a choice that should be a little mechanically inferior.
It's exactly "different descriptive text" - when compared to clerics who follow a philosophy. In fact, it's not even very different descriptive text: Do you follow philosophy X (that's similar to the tenets of god Y) while also paying service to god Y? Or do you follow god Y, but happen to believe that the regular clerics got things a bit wrong and thus hold yourself to the (heretical) philosophy X? Hm. Sounds like the same thing to me. Why should one be weaker than the other?
Wizards ... can justify those differences as flavor.
[sarcasm]But, one of the options I presented clearly sounds like a choice that should be a little mechanically inferior![/sarcasm] Why is it "flavor" in one place, and mechanics in another?
This leads back to my primary point: The core game rules should not present flavor and mechanics as things where you have to trade one for the other. Declaring that your wizard is self taught should not cost you anything in terms of game mechanics, as long as you're still following the normal rules for wizards. Declaring that your cleric has slightly heretical beliefs should not cost you anything in terms of game mechanics, as long as you're still following the normal rules for clerics.
Again, what bothers me is not so much this particular archetype, as the entire philosophy that interesting flavor text compensates for mechanical inferiority; this archetype is merely the most blatant representation of that line of thinking, since it offers absolutely zero mechanical advantage over an option that was already in the rules.
It's a sad day when "you get to pick whatever two domains you want for your cleric and all you have to give up in return is a bonus weapon proficiency your class didn't have before Pathfinder anyway" is an "eat rocks" option.
And if that was all the archetype gave up, it would be mechanically equal to an existing option - the philosophy cleric - and nobody would be in this thread complaining about poor game design.
Holy crap you are awful at this whole "developing" thing.
I don't think insulting a developer who is participating in a discussion is a very good idea.
What can I say? I speak with honesty.
This is hardly my first time at the rodeo. SKR and I have had rather severe differences of opinions before.
This is hardly my first time at the rodeo. SKR and I have had rather severe differences of opinions before.
The difference is that I don't go out of my way to insult you when we disagree. I wonder if you really think that your attitude and name-calling makes me inclined to listen to anything you say. (BTW, it doesn't.)
Declaring that your cleric has slightly heretical beliefs should not cost you anything in terms of game mechanics, as long as you're still following the normal rules for clerics.
Yeah, the gods are pretty lenient when it comes to heresy. They're not inclined to stop giving power to people who don't follow all the rules.
|
|
Yeah, the gods are pretty lenient when it comes to heresy. They're not inclined to stop giving power to people who don't follow all the rules.It's baffling to have you say that in the same thread where you're defending an archetype where the gods give less power to people who don't follow all the rules.
It's lenient compared to cutting off all powers anyway.
Yeah, the gods are pretty lenient when it comes to heresy. They're not inclined to stop giving power to people who don't follow all the rules.It's baffling to have you say that in the same thread where you're defending an archetype where the gods give less power to people who don't follow all the rules.
It's baffling that you didn't recognize I was being sarcastic.
|
|
It's baffling that you didn't recognize I was being sarcastic.Yeah, the gods are pretty lenient when it comes to heresy. They're not inclined to stop giving power to people who don't follow all the rules.It's baffling to have you say that in the same thread where you're defending an archetype where the gods give less power to people who don't follow all the rules.
It's only sarcasm when MiB does it, in any other case it's DEAD SERIOUS.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And defending the idea that separatists should get weaker divine powers doesn't absolve the Separatist archetype. it'd be perfectly reasonable to have the Separatist get weaker divine powers in return for something. Instead, they get weaker divine powers in return for nothing.
Here is the problem. You're looking at this at as fluff vs. crunch analysis with the point of view that only crunch mechanics have any value in weighing an archetype or a class. That roleplaying flavor options should be entirely off the table when it comes to making bargains about class power.
That's the irreconcilable difference you have with SKR and with those of us of similar opinions on this matter. The ability to be a cleric of a heresy has a real value to those who think that roleplaying considerations are more than just "fluff" to be dismissed.
As you might surmise, I really hate the use of the word "fluff" as it's tossed around in venues like these.
There's nothing forcing you to take this as a player. There's nothing forcing you to implement this as a GM. I do think that this archetype has value in a setting where godless clerics are not appropriate. Such as Golarian, or the Forgotten Realms, or any setting I create for my own use.
And don't bring up that "core rules" thing. Core rules is a tool box, not the holy writ on how every campaign should run. Not every campaign should be using all of the tools in that box.
And defending the idea that separatists should get weaker divine powers doesn't absolve the Separatist archetype. it'd be perfectly reasonable to have the Separatist get weaker divine powers in return for something. Instead, they get weaker divine powers in return for nothing. How is it good for the game for some character-building choices to be just plain weaker than others? This isn't even a matter of, say, Diplomacy versus Craft: Baskets. This is an option that gives you -2 to X in return for nothing.
You keep declaring it's nothing, but in settings without philosophy clerics, you gain a certain amount of freedom. You apparently consider that nothing, but I don't.
Imagine, if you will, a world in which the Separatist was never published.
In this world, a player wants to use the cleric of philosophy rules without actually being a deityless cleric to represent a divergent or heretical offshoot of an orthodox religion that gains access to a domain not normally granted by the deity.
Let's assume the concept itself is one that you accept.
Do you say 'no, the cleric of philosophy rules don't fit that concept'?
The only difference between allowing the separatist and the cleric of philosophy in this manner is arbitrary. Why not just use the cleric of philosophy rules?
Before you start saying 'but this setting doesn't allow clerics of philosophy', remember the premise: We are merely using the cleric of philosophy mechanics to represent the above concept.
|
Imagine, if you will, a world in which the Separatist was never published.
In this world, a player wants to use the cleric of philosophy rules without actually being a deityless cleric to represent a divergent or heretical offshoot of an orthodox religion that gains access to a domain not normally granted by the deity.
Let's assume the concept itself is one that you accept.
Do you say 'no, the cleric of philosophy rules don't fit that concept'?
The only difference between allowing the separatist and the cleric of philosophy in this manner is arbitrary. Why not just use the cleric of philosophy rules?
Before you start saying 'but this setting doesn't allow clerics of philosophy', remember the premise: We are merely using the cleric of philosophy mechanics to represent the above concept.
So, you get a bonus over the regular cleric (access to whatever domains you want vs a limited list) and give up, what exactly? This would seem to be better than the regular cleric and would result in a Drizzt of heretics.