Two teleporting clerics. One of them is weaker because he has different flavor text. That's not good for the game, because it discourages people from taking that flavor text and punishes those that do for no productive reason.
This is wrong.
|
1. it is not copy pasta. those very changes you complain about at what stops it being copypasta.Wait. What?
3a. It can provide more fun, for people who say find their fun from making their characters in such a way as to fit with a concept.Wait. What?
3b. It is also an excilent tool for roleplaying, because you know, it can help you fit a characters mechanics to setting and a concept with greater verisimilitude.Wait. What?
And you're calling out people for being snarky. Heh.
I think the point here is that the Domain strength can be lower, that is not the problem. The entire archetype strength is lower when another option (building a cleric with the core rules) gives the same effect at no cost.
The class archetype as a whole would have been received better by those criticizing it if the class got something else in return for having lower power on one Domain.
Perhaps, gaining three Domains in total (two of the deity's, and a third outside of the normal choices), but they all are at -3 or more levels in power, as an example.
.
However, from my understanding, this is being done for similar reasons to the way Pathfinder handles Exotic Weapon Proficiency. A certain understanding of the fluff gives reason to addressing it in a certain way with mechanics. "Fluff-driven", so to speak.
I will treat these archetypes and rules additions similar to the exotic weapon proficiency stuff, and ignore them once I recognize them. I even won't mind playing in a game that enforces the rule instead of playing the house rule that I prefer (it's really not that big a deal for me).
However, my not pitching a fit, or being highly vocal over it, doesn't mean I'm okay with the design method. I feel a happy medium could be reached with striving towards balanced mechanics where we can while still addressing fluff in other ways.
Basically, leaving behind the idea of "system mastery". It's good for competitive games, but for storytelling and cooperative play, it's not as good.
1. it is not copy pasta. those very changes you complain about at what stops it being copypasta.Wait. What?
It isn't Copy Pasta.
Lets look at the weapon prof first.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). Clerics are also proficient with the favored weapon of their deities.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Separatists do not gain proficiency in their deity’s favored weapon (though they are not prohibited from using it or learning its use).
Clearly one is not a copy paste of the other.
A cleric's deity influences her alignment, what magic she can perform, her values, and how others see her. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to her deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if her alignment matches that domain. If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies.Each domain grants a number of domain powers, dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells. A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot. Domain spells cannot be used to cast spells spontaneously.
In addition, a cleric gains the listed powers from both of her domains, if she is of a high enough level. Unless otherwise noted, activating a domain power is a standard action. Cleric domains are listed at the end of this class entry.
Forbidden RitesA separatist selects one domain from her deity’s domain list, and a second domain that is not on her deity’s domain list. This second domain cannot be an alignment domain that doesn’t match the cleric’s or her deity’s alignment. For example, a lawful good separatist cleric of a neutral good deity cannot choose the Chaos or Evil domain with this ability, but can select the Lawful domain even though her deity isn’t lawful.
Granted powers from the cleric’s second domain function as if the cleric’s level, Wisdom, and Charisma were 2 lower than normal (minimum level 1) in terms of effect, DC, and uses per day. This also means the separatist doesn’t gain the domain’s higher-level ability until 2 levels later than normal. If the second domain grants additional class skills, the separatist gains these as normal.
In all other respects, this ability works like and replaces the standard cleric’s domain ability.
clearly one is not a copy paste of the other.
The speratist has not been spammed arcoss forums in the attempt to create a meme, or for any other reasons...
The very changes that make the speratists so unpalitable to you, are exactly what prevent it form ever being copy pasta of the cleric rule. Though I could be turned into copy pasta in its own right I supose.
I'll get around to the other two in a bit.
I think the point here is that the Domain strength can be lower, that is not the problem. The entire archetype strength is lower when another option (building a cleric with the core rules) gives the same effect at no cost.
The class archetype as a whole would have been received better by those criticizing it if the class got something else in return for having lower power on one Domain.
Perhaps, gaining three Domains in total (two of the deity's, and a third outside of the normal choices), but they all are at -3 or more levels in power, as an example..
However, from my understanding, this is being done for similar reasons to the way Pathfinder handles Exotic Weapon Proficiency. A certain understanding of the fluff gives reason to addressing it in a certain way with mechanics. "Fluff-driven", so to speak.
I will treat these archetypes and rules additions similar to the exotic weapon proficiency stuff, and ignore them once I recognize them. I even won't mind playing in a game that enforces the rule instead of playing the house rule that I prefer (it's really not that big a deal for me).
However, my not pitching a fit, or being highly vocal over it, doesn't mean I'm okay with the design method. I feel a happy medium could be reached with striving towards balanced mechanics where we can while still addressing fluff in other ways.
Basically, leaving behind the idea of "system mastery". It's good for competitive games, but for storytelling and cooperative play, it's not as good.
Well, that about summarizes it. Picking a deity is a setting concern, an in character roleplaying decision; fluff. Not to denigrate those sorts of decisions as unimportant or less vital to the experience, but they aren't issues of game balance. Look at the progressive generalizing of the Paladin's code over time for an example as to why they aren't and shouldn't be (not to mention the endless desire for holy warrior classes tied to the other alignments).
The point that we've belabored and insulted each other over is whether or not that sort of thing is something we want in our game design. Should entirely fluff choices within the framework of an existing class have mechanical consequences that put a character either ahead or behind other characters performing the same role in the game. Clearly, many of us believe that should not be the case, and others firmly do.
I'm in the first camp. Modeling fluff differences with mechanical effects is more or less what the entire game is about. On a macro level, it's the difference between a fighter and a rogue. I think that the design of the game should generally be geared toward maintaining the same character effectiveness when choosing to exercise a fluff option, even if that fluff option is supported through differing mechanics.
Is that really too much to ask? I'm not expecting designers to succeed all the time or even consistently. Just that a sense of balance be the goal when introducing new content. The separatist, for example, could easily have recieved an additional skill point at every level to represent its worldliness and the new talents its had to pick up without a church hierarchy to nestle comfortable in.
I'm not sure that's perfectly balanced, but it keeps the same flavor and at least then you're not penalizing a class for what amounts to entirely subjective reasons that could vary wildly from game to individual game.
|
Well, that about summarizes it. Picking a deity is a setting concern, an in character roleplaying decision; fluff.
Picking a God isn’t purely fluff.
Off the top of my head there are a number of spells that can only be cast by worshipers of certain gods, and there are summon lists that are god specific. So there are mechanical benefits to selecting a specific gods, and with them comes a limiting factor of having to choose one of the spells of the 5 domains listed.
Additionally worshipers of certain deities will have in game social advantages and disadvantages based on expectations of behavior from their God in exchange for them giving them spells, as well as perceptions of their Gods in society at large.
The Separatist allows you to ignore a restriction (having to choose from only 5 domains) of choosing a specific God in exchange for losing some of the benefits (weapon proficiency, acquiring the 2nd skill later and a -2 to the casting ability score for the spells cast from that domain).
Not choosing a God (not an option in Golarion, but an option in other settings) has the mechanical disadvantages of not having access to a God’s specific spell list and summons, in addition to needing a lot of hand-waving from your GM for some spells that allow you to contact your God...
Apparently a lot of people house rule. The game isn’t written for your home game.
And after you answer this question, the second question is: why would those game allow the "flexibility" of the separatist? I mean, why would a DM refuse the cleric of a cause with the glory and the murder domain and who happens to worship Iomedae, but accept the separatist of Iomedae with the murder domain?
Because one fits the character of the campaign and one doesn't. There's no real objective accounting for taste and preferences. I'm not a fan of philosophy clerics in my campaign worlds. Separatist doesn't bother me.
The board of the archetype is very narrow; because it is exactly the same as a core option, with a random -2. What's next? Do we need the the same option, but with a +2, and the same option again, but with a -3? And next, a separatist fighter which is the same as the core fighter, but with -2 to trip, and another with +1, and a third with -5?
Now this is where some of the critics start to irk me. Do you really think that -2 is random? Really? You can't be charitable enough to recognize that modifiers in multiples of 2, like the ol' circumstance bonus, are really common in PF, you have to find some way to ridicule it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dear Mister Reynolds,
How are you ? I am having a nice day reading some books i bought from Paizo Publishing. During my reading of Ultimate Magic i found some matter that i thought would need discussion if you don´t matter. I found that the separatist archetype deserve more to differentiate it from some core options like philosophic clerics. Maybe would be harder to recognize them as priest of the god with knowledge religion or a bonus to diplomacy as the cleric become used to defend his sect ideas in religious debates. I am sure it would be reasonable and i trust Paizo´s decisions but in my opnion this point could be improved so everyone can benefit.
Thank you for your hard work making such wonderfull products.
It is possible to use the cleric of a cause who worship Iomedae in Golarion. You simply create a cleric of a cause who worship Iomedae, and play him in Golarion.
Incorrect and I don't know why this has been repeated so often in this thread. According to the core rules...
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval).
Two things are important here. First, we should stop saying that a philosophy/cause cleric is equivalent to a separatist. A philosophy cleric can certainly acknowledge the existence of gods the same way all characters do, but they are not devoted to any single deity. It's right there in the rules.
The second important note is "subject to GM approval." Let's take PFS for example. Pretend philosophy clerics were actually allowed in Golarion. You may end up having your cleric simultaneously allowed and banned in PFS depending on who is GMing your table. The entire section allowing for philosophy clerics is a core rules way of saying that you may feel free to house rule any domain combination into existence, but that means they aren't devoted to a particular deity, like normal clerics.
Compare that to the Separatist:
A radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her deity's teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine expression. Though most members of her faith would call her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells from her deity. Charismatic separatists may develop a large following of like-minded believers and eventually found a splinter church of their deity—and they are just as likely to be the cause of a holy civil war as the branches of the religion fight to determine which is the true faith.
This sounds nothing like a philosophy cleric who does not follow any particular deity.
@drumlord
Let me get this straight, you are saying you can't use the rules of a godless cleric (assuming they were allowed in golarion) and re-fluff them and call yourself a seperatist but instead you have to use the the seperatist archetype, right?
So by the same thinking you can't yourself a pirate unless you are a rogue with that archetype, you can't call yourself a detective unless you are a bard with that archetype and so on....
Do you think that this makes sense?
@drumlord
Let me get this straight, you are saying you can't use the rules of a godless cleric (assuming they were allowed in golarion) and re-fluff them and call yourself a seperatist but instead you have to use the the seperatist archetype, right?
So by the same thinking you can't yourself a pirate unless you are a rogue with that archetype, you can't call yourself a detective unless you are a bard with that archetype and so on....
Do you think that this makes sense?
Don't put words into my mouth please. You know I didn't say any of those things. The question you should be asking yourself is whether a cleric choosing to worship a deity or not is fluff. I say it isn't. The core rules say it isn't. I also say feel free to house rule these things to your hearts content.
While the cleric of Iomedae with the murder domain isn't subject to the GM approval.
Wait. What?
According to these, yes, that works. Are we finally acknowledging that this does, in fact, allow for a different character than a philosophy cleric? If you are arguing its absurdity, there are examples of entire separatist movements in Golarion. Is there not an entire church of Sarenrae that accepts the slavery going on around it? That's the whole point of the archetype, to allow for clerics that break the mold, but are still partially backed by their deity.
Pointing out the DM approval can and should exist with all options doesn't invalidate my arguments. You could make plenty of absurd character builds without separatists existing. Take a philosophy cleric for example. He thinks really hard about air and charm for an hour a day and then can cast spells and channel energy.
I, at least, understand perfectly what the archetype offers people in Group 1. I just think the rules for clerics of a cause offer all the same things, with the added bonus of being better balanced.
And separatist gives a penalty because some people think that penalty adds something to the game.I think I can write the next Paizo book.
Thousand of archetypes! No fillers! There are the fighter with -2 to trip, the barbarian with -2 rounds of rage, the bard with -2 to damages, the sorcerer with -2 spell known, the wizard with -2 feats... Each of them brings something completely new to the game!
Rather, it's the fighter that gets to chose his class skills but gets -2 to trip, the barbarian that may be lawful but gains -2 rounds of rage, the bard that has a wider spell list but gains a -2 to damage, the sorcerer with more spells known but -2 caster level, and the wizard with two feats less that gets to pick ANY feat for his bonus feats.
Contributor
|
So I guess this thread means that people would be happier if the archetype section included text as follows:
Note- Not all archetypes are suitable for all games. Some are designed with a specific campaign style in mind. Check with your GM to see if a given archetype fits the game.
I can see both sides of this argument- yes, it is weaker than a GM approval only option from the Core Rules. I guess people's mileage will vary on whether this is a worthwhile archetype for their game.
|
|
So I guess this thread means that people would be happier if the archetype section included text as follows:
Note- Not all archetypes are suitable for all games. Some are designed with a specific campaign style in mind. Check with your GM to see if a given archetype fits the game.I can see both sides of this argument- yes, it is weaker than a GM approval only option from the Core Rules. I guess people's mileage will vary on whether this is a worthwhile archetype for their game.
And again, there are advantages for having a god, including extra spells and summon lists.
To many candy store DM's out there...
Is there not an entire church of Sarenrae that accepts the slavery going on around it?Do the clerics of those church receive domains related to slavery or tyranny?
Only James Jacobs can answer that. I'm referring to a discussion involving him where he said there is a large church of Sarenrae somewhere where slavery abounds and they tolerate it. He then said despite that church's size, many Sarenrae followers would speak against it. I'm sorry I don't have a link handy for that discussion.
Pointing out the DM approval can and should exist with all options doesn't invalidate my arguments.Since your argument is "one of the options is submitted to GM's approval", yes, it does invalidate your "argument".
You are being deliberately obtuse. 99% of rules in the book do not explicitly call out a GM's approval being required. Philosophy clerics and Wish are two examples I can think of off the top of my head.
It's clear at this point you're just being belligerent and thick-headed so I'm done. I put my beliefs forward. You can disagree with them like an adult if you choose or you can attempt to belittle my "arguments" by putting the word in "quotes."
Senior Software Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, this thread is a great example of the kind of thing we do not want on our messageboards. Insults, snark, accusations of thickheadedness, attacks on Paizo employees' honesty and dedication, etc.
I'm not going to remove any posts even though there have been several that are clearly over the line ("the line" being "don't be a jerk"). We all have much, much better things to do. And if you're wondering, "I wonder if he's talking about my behavior here," the answer is YES. Yes, I am talking about you.
If you want to start a new thread to discuss whatever it is you think you're discussing here, go ahead. But this one is done.