I say the clerics of philosophy don't fit in my world. That's an important difference.
You ignored the premise and answered illogically.
Your premise ignores the entire point of our position. In that the Separatist cleric has a place where clerics MUST be tied to a diety to be a cleric. Man in Black's position is that the DM should set that aside and allow a player to play a concept cleric so that the player can have the two domains he wants.
Your premise is a strawman question.
It's only a strawman if it sets out to misrepresent the opposition's argument by setting up a false argument that is more easily refuted. The entire point of your argument is predicated on a published option that added nothing to people that were already using the philosophy rules to represent that option prior to its arrival and seemed a poorly designed replacement.
Would you demand that players playing heretics using the philosophy rules (in worlds that do not allow philosophy clerics otherwise) stop playing as they are and switch to the separatist archetype?
The entire point of your argument is predicated on a published option that added nothing to people that were already using the philosophy rules to represent that option prior to its arrival and seemed a poorly designed replacement.
I think you misunderstand "the entire point" here. Perhaps you should think about your answer to Paul Watson's question.
If you allow all clerics to pick one domain from the deity list and then one other, say personal ethos, domain of their choice. That's a reasonable take on the rules. One DM I play for does this with his campaign setting. Every cleric gets one free choice.
But not all campaigns work that way, nor do the rules themselves even before the separatist. Cleric PCs do not get free choice of any domains willy nilly. They pick from limited lists associated with their chosen deity or they pick two associated with a philosophy subject to DM approval (and I would say subject to their ability to spin two domains into a coherent philosophy).
How do you square allowing some clerics free choice but not others? I feel the need to do so. From the course of the discussion, I'm guessing you don't. The separatist suggest a tool for doing so that I can choose to use in my campaigns.
I don't, and I don't believe you do either. I'm not sure your words match how you would play. I don't believe you would allow a separatist free rein of all the domains as their non-deity-granted choice. Nor would I allow a philosophy cleric representing a separatist to do that either.
|
I don't, and I don't believe you do either. I'm not sure your words match how you would play. I don't believe you would allow a separatist free rein of all the domains as their non-deity-granted choice. Nor would I allow a philosophy cleric representing a separatist to do that either.
It doesn't matter if its free reign or not. They still have more options than a normal Cleric. This is a power up on the Cleric. Oh, and please don't accuse people of lying as you just did (although I'm not sure who you accused). It's really not good form or a way to keep the conversation even slightly pleasant.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
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'?
If I'm playing PFS (or any number of other campaigns) I say "No, I'm sorry, but philosophy clerics aren't allowed in this campaign, even if you reskin them."
Let's see if I can give a 'real world' example of how this works for me:
In my home setting, there are no clerics of philosophy. All clerics must worship a deity.
Let's say a player wants to make a cleric of Ennan, the Frozen Tomb (Law, Good, Water, Repose, Glory) but wants the character to be of a splinter sect that believes that as Ennan was a martial warrior before his ascension, they should pray to him for strength of arms and divinely-granted might (strength domain).
I would answer: That sounds neat. Use the cleric of philosophy rules. Pick one of Ennan's domains plus strength. You miss out on the weapon proficiency but can pick it up again with a feat.
(I'd probably also take that idea to build the sect itself into the world and write some info about it for the player before the game starts but that's irrelevant to the main point)
There was no need for a separatist archetype to do that. For me, there is no need for one now. GMs are not robots. Unless you are playing PFS, all it takes is a single sentence to retool cleric of philosophy as desired.
By your mechanics, there's no incentive to be a STANDARD cleric.
By the same token, there's no incentive not to be, should your desired domains lie within the god's normal selection. It's the same either way.
Where it differs is in the roleplaying. The example cleric of divergent faith would be treated very differently by the orthodox and would have a much different roleplaying experience. It'd be far harder to get help from the church, for example, but there may be other opportunities that would not occur to orthodox clerics.
I would never say 'you can pick any one other domain you like'. As with the separatist, this option requires negotiation. If the player asked for the fire domain, I would say no. If I allowed the separatist archetype and the player wanted the fire domain, the answer would be the same and the reason for it would be as well (that is, fire is a silly choice for a god of ice).
I don't, and I don't believe you do either. I'm not sure your words match how you would play. I don't believe you would allow a separatist free rein of all the domains as their non-deity-granted choice. Nor would I allow a philosophy cleric representing a separatist to do that either.It doesn't matter if its free reign or not. They still have more options than a normal Cleric. This is a power up on the Cleric.
No, it isn't. The normal cleric already has that option in the Core Rules. If the designers actually considered free domain choice unbalanced, then they should have eliminated philosophy clerics altogether.
If you don't want heretics, mystery cults, and splinter religions to have divinely-granted power for thematic reasons, that's great. If you find it ludicrous from a roleplaying standpoint that a god can grant domains they don't have, fine. But in that case, you shouldn't be allowing the Separatist any more than a philosophy cleric who describes themselves as 'a cleric of Desna who worships her Night aspect and gets the Darkness domain.' Thematically, there is no difference between the two whatsoever.
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.
Then why (assuming your reply was sarcasm) does this archetype exist at all?
Either it makes sense for a separatist cleric to exist - in which case pre-existing rules (perhaps with a discussion on the potential social and game-world drawbacks) would have served better than this archetype. Or it makes no sense, in which case it shouldn't have been published.
No, it isn't. The normal cleric already has that option in the Core Rules. If the designers actually considered free domain choice unbalanced, then they should have eliminated philosophy clerics altogether.That's not accurate. The PLAYER has the option to play an alternate cleric focused on philosophy. The philosophy cleric is not the normal cleric. The normal cleric is one that's tied to a deity and is limited to the domains that said deity offers.
One might as well say that a cleric of Saerenrae is a 'normal' cleric, and a cleric of Torag is 'abnormal'. Choosing to be a cleric of a philosophy is, mechanically speaking, on the same level of choice as selecting a god to worship. It's not an archetype, not an alternate class, and the rules are in Core in the base description of the Cleric.
And even if you disagree about it being normal, that does nothing to counter the larger point of my argument--normal or not, it's an absolutely Core option, and if the designers actually thought having total choice of domains was cheesy, it would not be.
RD also seems to have nothing but game sessions where the highly improbable seems to just fall into place given a succession of some very "lucky" circumstances. Like the situation he described in the OP.
Isn't the whole point of roleplaying to allow for highly improbable things that would not, or could not, actually occur in real life?
Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.
Without using the excuse - yes, excuse - of "Roleplaying!"
( The joke is that I won't be getting an answer )
Aren`t jokes supposed to be funny?
I see it no so much as Role-Playing on the player`s side of things (although that`s the side that so many seem to focus on in these boards, given that is their vehicle for personal Ego fantasy, as opposed to how things affect NPC`s, etc) as much as in-world verisimillituded... Just as some game worlds ONLY have Clerics who receive powers thru (a limitd number of) Deities and not from Ideals, etc, those game worlds` Clerics may not be as `powerful` as if they follow all the rules... Just like if you break some of the rules of whatever class, some of your Class Abilities are taken away. Of course, if you`re focused enough, these small impediments shouldn`t really stop you, but they do perhaps explain why these splinter cults are splinter cults and not more succesful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.
Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.
|
|
Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.
No, I don't think anyone would argue that all options are equal. However, providing for equal skill of the players, most options are somewhere closer to spitting distance rather than shouting distance of each other, as are most archtypes.
I think it's questionable as to whether this archtype is close enough. I have my doubts about the hidden cleric in inner sea guide to magic as well.
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.
For flavor? For background, For roleplaying purposes?
Maybe some options are there that a PC would never play. Maybe they are there for GMs to apply to a schismatic. Besides, if I figured that the PC is doing it for roleplay purposes, knowing that it will be harder to play, then I'm liable to award more XP to those players. Sorry, but not everything in the game is for the min/maxers.
Why would anyone ever player a cleric of the Separatist archetype?For flavor? For background, For roleplaying purposes?
Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.
...while I can accept they aren't, is there some reason that without undermining the core mechanical features of the assorted classes that they shouldn't be?
Particularly as an idealized design goal?
For flavor? For background, For roleplaying purposes?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.
You mean the same flavor, background and roleplaying I get out of using the pre-existing, standard, Core Rules for a philosophy cleric, and calling it a schismatic/seperatist/heretic/mystery cultist/what have you?
You mean the same flavor, background and roleplaying I get out of using the pre-existing, standard, Core Rules for a philosophy cleric, and calling it a schismatic/seperatist/heretic/mystery cultist/what have you?
For flavor? For background, For roleplaying purposes?
They doesn't matter since you are not allowed to apply that rules.
Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal....while I can accept they aren't, is there some reason that without undermining the core mechanical features of the assorted classes that they shouldn't be?
Particularly as an idealized design goal?
Because its impossible.
No two groups have entirely identical play styles, and play style influences effectiveness of character options.
The best they can honestly go for is generalised balance for games which closely follow the core assumptions of the game.
'balanced, four(or was it five) man part with love levels of optimisation undertaking ten(I think, off the top of my head) encounters a day with a range of CRs.'
You can play a separatist in a game like that, using other fairly optimal choices to make up for the weaknesses, and be maintain performance. Its only an 'inferior choice' in a game where every character is pushed to breaking point to be optimal, and every encounter is pushed to breaking point to keep up with the PCs.
Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.
...while I can accept they aren't, is there some reason that without undermining the core mechanical features of the assorted classes that they shouldn't be?
Particularly as an idealized design goal?
Because its impossible.
No two groups have entirely identical play styles, and play style influences effectiveness of character options.
I'll accept that as true, but that hardly means it should be discarded as a general goal for game design.
The best they can honestly go for is generalised balance for games which closely follow the core assumptions of the game.
'balanced, four(or was it five) man part with love levels of optimisation undertaking ten(I think, off the top of my head) encounters a day with a range of CRs.'
I'll give you the encounter balance assumptions, but I don't think character optimization is as much of an impossible to guess quantity as you're making it out to be, particularly with Paizo's history of playtests, nor do I think Pathfinder requires you to build characters with so little concern for their mechanical choices before it tears open at the seams.
You can play a separatist in a game like that, using other fairly optimal choices to make up for the weaknesses, and be maintain performance. Its only an 'inferior choice' in a game where every character is pushed to breaking point to be optimal, and every encounter is pushed to breaking point to keep up with the PCs.
Well, no, it's always suboptimal. It just presumably matters less in the scenario you've suggested. The thing is, I don't at all see why it has to be that way. Even if we accept that game imbalance is probably inevitable, that isn't a justification for creating obviously imbalanced choices. To analogize, we're all going to die someday, but that's not a justification for stabbing the person next to me on the bus.
Your argument seems to be, if the other characters in your party aren't intentionally optimized, then it's acceptable that you're using an obviously subpar option. I suppose that's true, but why does there need to exist subpar options in the first place? It's still playable, but it could be playable and not mechanically inferior.
Is there any reason it must be mechanically inferior at all? And, presuming there isn't, why would you want it to be?
Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.I had worried that the original thought process behind this archetype was that the player should have to pay to play in a way the game designers didn't intend. I'm not sure if it's reassuring or not to be told that, no, they just don't care.
It is to me.
So what, they have givven me yet another option that chances are that i never take in a home game AND given an option for PFS play (where you can't have godless clerics), that counts as something ok in my opinion.
They doesn't matter since you are not allowed to apply that rules.You mean the same flavor, background and roleplaying I get out of using the pre-existing, standard, Core Rules for a philosophy cleric, and calling it a schismatic/seperatist/heretic/mystery cultist/what have you?
For flavor? For background, For roleplaying purposes?
If you mean the rules about godless clerics then ok but if you mean that you can't call yourself a seperatist if you are a godless cleric then i say that this is BS.
Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.
Did you just use "We were bad at developing" as an excuse for making a bad development choice?
That's pretty hilarious.
Protip: I don't think all the options in the Core Rolebook are mechanically equal.
Protip the second: I think this is a poor decision to make if made intentionally.
Protip the third: The guy that created your edition agrees with me.
Making mechanically inferior options shouldn't be a point of pride, no more then I pride myself when a lesson plan for the day doesn't work.
I mean when the guy who created the actual rules you dudes use said years ago "You are doing it wrong" I'm not sure what else to say.
Other then "Don't take pride in this" I guess???
Apparently, this is an archetype that a lot of people seem to think validated and useful, and a lot of people find useless. It takes up little space in the book.
It's apparently useful in Golarion, it's useful in PF:S, and it's useful in a LOT of people's home campaigns, judging by the comments here.
So then what's the big deal? Giving rules support for a common playstyle, even though it's not core, is a great thing IMO. I'd like to see more of that.
An option that 30% of the customers might use is a win, and far more than many other published archetypes.
And this about having to "pay to do stuff in another way than the developers had in mind" is utter BS. It's a bit like saying that you shouldn't have to spend a talent on minor/major magic because you shouldn't have to pay just to play the rogue you want.
For some people, the godless cleric rules are fine to use for separatists. However, it is NOT RAW and claiming that the rules for separatists where already there is wrong. The rules that are are very easily adaptable for that, but they're not there as it is; there's no RAW support for playing a godless cleric of a god, short of pure DM fiat. Now there is a RAW way to play separatists.
I mean when the guy who created the actual rules you dudes use said years ago "You are doing it wrong" I'm not sure what else to say.
Other then "Don't take pride in this" I guess???
Mmmm... Monte did it wrong to back then too...
I mean there is PLENTY of imbalance through out the whole of 3rd ed. When an additions writer said years ago 'i'm doing it wrong' it makes it a little harder to consider that his opinion on this specific matter is definative.
Much respect to monte, but he isn't "the source of ALL TRUTH." He is just one "pretty good games designer with an oppinion on the subject". Last I checked, SKR is also a "pretty good games designer with an oppinion on the subject"