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.
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.
Its for a cleric who says "i want to worship X god but he only has one good domain" and splits the difference between not worshiping that god and not having any good domains.
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.
What about people that want to worship a certain god but still get domains that god normally doesn't offer?
It's not as if the favored weapon is a big deal in all cases, anyways. (lol, unarmed strike)
I think it grants acess to druid domains the way it is worded because those are domains not on the gods list and if you really wanted one you could get it. And if the diety has a favored simple weapon it does not matter.
PFS?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Separatist cleric of Norgorber.
Domains: Evil.... and Good.
"Why of course I'm not an evil cleric! Could an evil cleric do this?!"
EDIT: Damn, couldn't actually do that, upon reading the rules. But you could take Healing or Glory or some other "goody-goody" domain that isn't actually alignment-opposed.
I think it bothers me because BEFORE THIS ARCHETYPE a player would have been perfectly fine calling himself a separatist from the mainstream religion and getting the full benefits of both domains. That's really no different from following a different philosophy or religion altogether.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I think it bothers me because BEFORE THIS ARCHETYPE a player would have been perfectly fine calling himself a separatist from the mainstream religion and getting the full benefits of both domains. That's really no different from following a different philosophy or religion altogether.
I see what you're saying. The base cleric has the option of choosing to follow a "philosophy or concept" instead of a specific deity and choosing pretty much whichever domains he wants at full power, and could very easily just say that he's a "separatist" cleric for roleplay purposes as opposed to actually taking the archetype.
In light of that, yeah, the archetype is pretty much pointless. IMO, the separatist archetype should give up the favored weapon in exchange for an ADDITIONAL (i.e. 3rd) domain that operates at a lower power level as per the current archetype rules, to reflect some kind of "deviant ritualization" of the faith. The favored weapon is a pretty small sacrifice, though, so I would probably reduce the archetype's channel energy strength by one die size, meaning d4s instead of d6s, to reflect the characters "less powerful connection" with their deity.
Two clerics of the same god fighting for different beliefs...Air Breathers do that all the time. The Crusades, Road Rules vs Real World, Fox vs anybody.
Cleric of Sarenrae, Fire and Destruction. Redemption is weakness cleanse the world with holy fire.
Cleric of Sarenrae, Sun and Healing, purge the unclean and heal the harmed.
ROUND 1 FIGHT!
IF you wanted a one level dip for some reason of cleric then you could use it to get a domain that does not need to scale. Then I do not tihnk there is a loss travel domain gets this ability.
Because in some campaigns/worlds (such as Golarion), clerics have to choose a deity, they can't just play a cleric of a philosophy.
Because in some campaigns/worlds (such as Golarion), clerics have to choose a deity, they can't just play a cleric of a philosophy.
So it is only a worthwhile archetype in those specific kinds of campaigns? If that's the case, why not put the archetype in a Golarion specific book, rather than a general supplement?
Also, where does it say Golarion clerics MUST choose a deity?
Also, where does it say Golarion clerics MUST choose a deity?The Player's Guide to Golarion.
My copy of this book is on backorder, sadly, so I can't give you a page number.
Isn't that a paperback supplement? If it's not in one of the main campaign books (Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting or The Inner Sea World Guide) than I don't see how most groups would readily identify it as a rule (as many people don't buy those flimsy supplements to begin, choosing instead to stick to the main line of core books for the setting).
So now we have an archetype that would only ever see use in Golarion campaigns, and even then only IF they also bought the Player's Guide to Golarion.
If this archetype is indeed so limited in scope, why was it printed at all? Surely there was something that would see more wide spread use that could have been put into its place?
So this arch trades deity's favored weapon proficiency for the ability to pick one domain outside your deity's options.
Plenty of characters could use that. Maybe the deity has a crappy favored weapon (like Abadar's crossbow) or a weapon that the cleric is proficient with anyway (it happens) and you want to mix and match domain spells and powers in a way that doesn't normally work with that deity. Flexibility in domains is definitely worth dropping a weapon prof you don't care to use. Now... a Cleric of Gorum wouldn't want this, because his favored weapon is desirable.
You want to talk about sub-optimal cleric archetypes, let's rag on the crusader. Never in a million years would I trade an entire domain and a spell per day (which carry a terrible synergy between them) in exchange for a feat from a sad list every five levels. A vanilla cleric could just whoop a crusader outright. I shake my fist at the crusader.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it is only a worthwhile archetype in those specific kinds of campaigns? If that's the case, why not put the archetype in a Golarion specific book, rather than a general supplement?
Because not everyone who plays PFRPG buys stuff from the Campaign Setting line, and it's a perfectly valid feat for GMs who run their worlds that way and a useful feat for cleric PCs in those worlds.
Basically, "worthwhile" is not solely defined as "something Ravingdork would choose."
Plenty of characters could use that. Maybe the deity has a crappy favored weapon (like Abadar's crossbow) or a weapon that the cleric is proficient with anyway (it happens) and you want to mix and match domain spells and powers in a way that doesn't normally work with that deity.
Ravingdork's argument is that there's no such thing as "doesn't normally work with that deity" because you can always invent a new deity "B" (and/or philosophy) that is the same as deity "A" except with different domains.
That sounds highly campaign-dependent to me, personally.
That sounds highly campaign-dependent to me, personally.
So is the idea that "these weapons are exotic, these weapons are not."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So it is only a worthwhile archetype in those specific kinds of campaigns? If that's the case, why not put the archetype in a Golarion specific book, rather than a general supplement?Because not everyone who plays PFRPG buys stuff from the Campaign Setting line, and it's a perfectly valid feat for GMs who run their worlds that way and a useful feat for cleric PCs in those worlds.
Basically, "worthwhile" is not solely defined as "something Ravingdork would choose."
Actually I was thinking Dragonlance as another example. Spontanious divine magic aside, there are no clerics of a philosophy there either.
I sort of want to count how many deities you would need then including subdomains. its huge. I calculated it by giving each deity 4 domains and the 33 domains in the core rulebook choosing 4 by combinations. then subtracting the remainging 2 times the remaining for both being lawful and chaotic at the same time and good and evil at the same time so 31 domains choosing an additional two others is also subtracted giving me a grand total of 19,530 deities represented by ravingdorks rules without even subdomains. Why would you want to play in a multiverse where the are 19,530 deities? That kills verisimilitude.
Why would you want to play in a multiverse where the are 19,530 deities? That kills verisimilitude.
Vudra?
Why would you want to play in a multiverse where the are 19,530 deities? That kills verisimilitude.
Wouldn't that basically be the Vudrani/india ?
From what i read of the ability, it allows you to pick subdomains that aren't in the list of the deity you serve, so with that archetype you can have the (wonderful) demon subdomain without being a cleric of either lamasthu or rovagug.
Roleplaying, perhaps?
I like the option, personally and will probably use it should I ever play a cleric again. Pretty much all of my clerics have been 'mild heretics' and this gives me a good way to distinguish them mechanically and tie the 'roleplaying side' of the character into what he actually does.
The flexibility of domain choice it entails is worth something (none of the campaigns I've played in have ever allowed god-less clerics. It just doesnt gel with our idea of what a cleric is).
Absolutely nothing. Domains are balanced on a per domain, not per deity basis if they're actually balanced at all and there don't seem to be any pairs that would break the game if combined and some of the best domain combos (eg. luck/travel) are already available.
Well, there was an ATTEMPT at balance. Whether or not they succeeded, i'm sure that somewhere there's as combination this would be good if not munchkiny for.
@OP: sorry, I can't answer your question; a sane DM wouldn't forbid clerics without deity "for RP reasons" while accepting separatists.
How about forbidding clerics without deity based on golarion canon? If you still allow separatists is that insane too?
Considering the option to play a cleric of a philosophy or other off-base religion [...] why would anyone ever player a cleric of the Separatist archetype?
Roleplaying, perhaps?
Oh boy, here we go again.
I see it as a way to make gimped characters a little better.
Explanation: Let's say i want to play a cleric of a deity that has sucky domains just because i want to play a cleric of that deity, and because of the sucky domains my cleric is gimped and this archetype helps me to get at least one good (although weakened) domain.
How about forbidding clerics without deity based on golarion canon? If you still allow separatists is that insane too?Yes.
The deities don't grant powers to non-worshipper clerics who follow their cause, but grant power to worshippers who don't follow their cause? And who grants the "special" domain to the separatist? If it's the deity, why doesn't she grant this domain to all cleric? If it's "something else", why doesn't "something else" grant powers to clerics without deities?
It doesn't make any sense to forbid cleric without deity and to accept separatists in the same game.
Because there are various facets of the same God - the mainstream church worships one aspect, the new heretical cleric worships another?
It may not match your view of a cleric or of how Gods work in a fantasy world but insane seems a little strong to me.
From my perspective, a DM allowing godless clerics is much harder to understand than them deeming that mortal churches have an imperfect representation of the multi-faceted divine being they worship. I don't see anything wrong with something as incomprehensible as a deity having more than one aspect granting differing domains - in the context of a newly forming heretical splinter group, it makes perfect sense to me that the newly granted domains would be weaker, too.
|
|
seriously I like several archetypes, other are just ok, but the clerics archetype mostly are bad
I've noticed that as well. 'CoDzilla-fear' seems to still dominate development, because Cleric and Druid archetypes are almost universally worse than playing a stanard Cleric or Druid, instead of 'equal but different.'
seriously I like several archetypes, other are just ok, but the clerics archetype mostly are badI've noticed that as well. 'CoDzilla-fear' seems to still dominate development, because Cleric and Druid archetypes are almost universally worse than playing a stanard Cleric or Druid, instead of 'equal but different.'
I can't speak for cleric archetypes but for the druid ones i think that the lion shamen, the saurian shaman and the storm druid seem equal but different to me.
Ravingdork's argument is that there's no such thing as "doesn't normally work with that deity" because you can always invent a new deity "B" (and/or philosophy) that is the same as deity "A" except with different domains.
That sounds highly campaign-dependent to me, personally.
While my personal campaign has a great spread of deities, I personally don't let my players "pick and build" their own gods. It destroys the campaign's immersion. Plus traditionally, in many products there are domains that are almost NEVER given to specific alignments (i.e. there are little to no Evil gods with the Healing domain and no Good gods with the Death domain). Seperationalist, like many of the archetypes that people like Ravingdork don't like (no offense, Raving) are designed with heavy RP implications. They don't always give you the best bang for your buck in terms of sheer power (a good archetype / feat / spell / prestige class shouldn't be an absolute no-brainer, or it's not actually a choice) but for people who want those rules to make interesting, story-driven characters, archetypes like the Seperationalist are invaluable.
A number of posters are citing roleplay as the reason for the Separatist's existence.
I think that's wrong. I think it is more "roleplay" to create a wholly new concept using existing rules than it is to introduce new mechanics such as archetypes.
Which of the following sounds more like a creative player willing to roleplay, and a player picking a mechanical option:
1) John wants to follow Obad-hai, but only really likes one of his domains. So he decides to play a heretical offshoot follower of the god, picking up one normal domain, and one unusual domain using the rules provided in the Core rulebook for people who want to play characters of philosophy, homebrew deities, or heretics/cultists.
2) Billy notices that there is a Separatist archetype and says "hey, that could be fun" and builds a cleric using the "new" archetype and its mechanics.
While I absolutely agree that equal but different should be the goal, I'm really not that upset that most archetypes are something of a nerf. Consider the alternative... if they were to overshoot (as has been the case with most games' splatbooks ever made) we would have a power creep far worse than presently.
As it stands, some concept-focused players might choose a weaker arch whose specificity suits their concept. The weakest of the arches are kind of wasted space, but this is a necessary evil I think, to keep the design erring on the side of caution. I think the Separatist is one of those hyper-specific arches. If your diety has a crappy favored weapon you are not going to use, and you want a domain from outside the scope of your deity, it is a good option.
As it stands, some concept-focused players might choose a weaker arch whose specificity suits their concept. The weakest of the arches are kind of wasted space, but this is a necessary evil I think, to keep the design erring on the side of caution. I think the Separatist is one of those hyper-specific arches. If your diety has a crappy favored weapon you are not going to use, and you want a domain from outside the scope of your deity, it is a good option.
Until you realize that you could do it without the archetype.