Bypassing restrictions that should not exist to begin with


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 475 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Then make it a Divine Obeisance. Give them this ability after worshiping at the right type of Idol for however long is appropriate [1 month maybe?] Until they either worship at a different one of those special Idols or 'recharge' their Obeisance.

No. At least 3/4s of the point is to have martial characters showing off their faith without being divine casters and thats the sort of flavor you get from the companion line

Quote:


none of this necessitates worshiping Shelyn. These may be common traits of Shelynites, but it's certainly not exclusive to them.

Doing it that well takes a little help, or a mindset you can only get through faith. Thats the entire point of faith related options. You can't say it's stupid because there's no way it makes sense, ignore how it might make sense, or ask that only one reason be given JUST so you can argue around it. If you don't like that that's how the option works change it. Its a fairly minor detail (like removing the combat expertise feat tax from things)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.
Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Then make it a Divine Obeisance. Give them this ability after worshiping at the right type of Idol for however long is appropriate [1 month maybe?] Until they either worship at a different one of those special Idols or 'recharge' their Obeisance.
No. At least 3/4s of the point is to have martial characters showing off their faith without being divine casters and thats the sort of flavor you get from the companion line

Did you miss the part where the above-stated thing is something any worshiper can do? That's a practice of faith, not of being a Divine Caster.

Quote:


none of this necessitates worshiping Shelyn. These may be common traits of Shelynites, but it's certainly not exclusive to them.
Doing it that well takes a little help, or a mindset you can only get through faith. Thats the entire point of faith related options. You can't say it's stupid because there's no way it makes sense, ignore how it might make sense, or ask that only one reason be given JUST so you can argue around it. If you don't like that that's how the option works change it. Its a fairly minor detail (like removing the combat expertise feat tax from things)

It's more than not liking how the option works, it's not liking the entire line of thought that goes into creating mundane things and gating them behind a freaking god.


thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:


That's still all just training. There are plenty of real world examples of people who train or live like that, from training in martial arts to cooking to making music. It doesn't necessitate divine influence or favor with a particular deity (though plenty in history have believed so I'm sure).

And you don't think that on a world with magic and gods that that sort of training and living MIGHT be a little more effective than it is in our world? That when you spend your life contemplating a deity that actually exists all day, every day, it's possible that it gives you a little boost?

Why is a divinely granted charles atlas superpower so nonsensical in a world where the deities grant actual superwpowers?


Pointing out that you can use rule zero is not appropriate in a discussion like this. Rule zero can be used to shut down literally any discussion and it is extremely unhelpful to invoke it.

It's like going to your doctor to find out why you're sick and him saying, "We could talk about your illness and how to treat it, but you're going to die anyway so why bother?"


So what makes elves swords actually so goddamn special that humans can't use them without burning a feat?
Or dwarven axes?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:
Pointing out that you can use rule zero is not appropriate in a discussion like this. Rule zero can be used to shut down literally any discussion and it is extremely unhelpful to invoke it.

"This rule makes no sense

"<reasons how it could make sense>"

"It shouldn't work like that!

"Why not?

"Because it doesn't make sense.

"<more reasons why it makes sense>"

"I want it to work differently

What other answer is there than "then make it work differently" ?

Quote:
It's like going to your doctor to find out why you're sick and him saying, "We could talk about your illness and how to treat it, but you're going to die anyway so why bother?"

that analogy makes no sense at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:

Pointing out that you can use rule zero is not appropriate in a discussion like this. Rule zero can be used to shut down literally any discussion and it is extremely unhelpful to invoke it.

It's like going to your doctor to find out why you're sick and him saying, "We could talk about your illness and how to treat it, but you're going to die anyway so why bother?"

Luckily, that's not what I did.

You're making up fluff that in your mind doesn't fit the rules. One way around that is Rule Zero. Another way is to make up different fluff.
No actual fluff is given. Therefore the rule doesn't contradict it. Any contradiction is just in your assumptions.

Mind you, there are two separate issues here: one is the more philosophical "mechanics shouldn't be restricted by roleplaying choices", the other is "I don't think this particular restriction makes sense".


Envall wrote:

So what makes elves swords actually so g#*%&~n special that humans can't use them without burning a feat?

Or dwarven axes?

200 years of experience picking things up or 75 years working in the mines as a wee little intern.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
drumlord wrote:


That's still all just training. There are plenty of real world examples of people who train or live like that, from training in martial arts to cooking to making music. It doesn't necessitate divine influence or favor with a particular deity (though plenty in history have believed so I'm sure).

And you don't think that on a world with magic and gods that that sort of training and living MIGHT be a little more effective than it is in our world? That when you spend your life contemplating a deity that actually exists all day, every day, it's possible that it gives you a little boost?

Why is a divinely granted charles atlas superpower so nonsensical in a world where the deities grant actual superwpowers?

A divinely granted charles atlas superpower is totally fine...

... so long as it isn't kept away from the real charles atlas superpower people who aren't affiliated with the god handing it out.

The whole point of a charles atlas superpower is that it has no origins, it evolves explicitly out of the person who develops it.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.

just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force though your faith in Shelyn.

Pretty obviously mystical.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I'm sooooooooooo sick of this.

It's NOT "flavor;" it's not some superfluous secondary consideration, it's REAL. It's why the game exists, and what separates it from, say, checkers and blackjack. When you're playing the game, the gameworld and everything in it are REAL, so think of it that way! It's called "suspension of disbelief," and if you don't do that, then you are, indeed, not playing the game right.

...That is, in fact, precisely why I reject 90% of flavor prerequisites. Because if the the Gameworld is real, than the knowledge of how to do something simply will not remain secret forever. If it's worth doing, and can be physically done, than *someone* else will figure out how to do it.


Rysky wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.

just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force even though you happen to believe in a higher power than yourself.

Pretty obviously martial.


Quote:
And you don't think that on a world with magic and gods that that sort of training and living MIGHT be a little more effective than it is in our world?

That's not how the feat is presented.

Quote:
That when you spend your life contemplating a deity that actually exists all day, every day, it's possible that it gives you a little boost?

That's still not how the feat is presented.

Quote:
Why is a divinely granted charles atlas superpower so nonsensical in a world where the deities grant actual superwpowers?

It's not nonsensical. Superpowers like that abound in the ruleset. Divine classes get spells. Paladins even get to smite things purely by the power of their own faith. This feat merely says you can swirly-whirly a glaive super good and provides absolutely no indication that a god is granting this power other than the requirement line.

In fact, the book this feat comes from is chock full of magical things you can get by worshipping a god. But ultimately, being able to do physical things with your physical body should never be hidden behind worshipping a deity. It breaks verisimilitude. Many in this thread have come up with their house ruled reasons for why you have to worship someone and how that affects you but none of that is in the actual text.

Quote:

"This rule makes no sense

"<reasons how it could make sense>"

"It shouldn't work like that!

"Why not?

"Because it doesn't make sense.

"<more reasons why it makes sense>"

"I want it to work differently

What other answer is there than "then make it work differently" ?

I and others point out why it doesn't make sense. You and others provide house rules.

I'm done though. You're venturing into jerk territory by willfully misrepresenting what others have said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.

There are whole tons of stuff in the setting and the rules that aren't magical in the rules sense of turning off in an antimagic field, but nonetheless aren't things just anyone can learn.

Even the Charisma to attacks, which you seem to think makes more sense as "must be magic" isn't actually magical in the rules sense. This could be the same. Why not? It's the same kind of mechanic, granted by the same rules process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


A divinely granted charles atlas superpower is totally fine...

... so long as it isn't kept away from the real charles atlas superpower people who aren't affiliated with the god handing it out.

The whole point of a charles atlas superpower is that it has no origins, it evolves explicitly out of the person who develops it.

There's more than enough room in the game for both.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.

just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force even though you happen to believe in a higher power than yourself.
Pretty obviously martial.

1) "Even though" is incorrect, since the worship of Shelyn allows you to have the feat, not preclude it.

2) It's martial and mystical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


A divinely granted charles atlas superpower is totally fine...

... so long as it isn't kept away from the real charles atlas superpower people who aren't affiliated with the god handing it out.

The whole point of a charles atlas superpower is that it has no origins, it evolves explicitly out of the person who develops it.

There's more than enough room in the game for both.

Not when the existence of one prohibits the existence of the other.

With Bladed Brush in existence as it is, an identical 'finesse glaives feat' will never be made for the non-shaylenite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.

just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force even though you happen to believe in a higher power than yourself.
Pretty obviously martial.
1) "Even though" is incorrect, since the worship of Shelyn allows you to have the feat, not preclude it.

You can keep referencing poorly designed feats all day long. That doesn't make them better.

Quote:
2) It's martial and mystical.

Wrong.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly it's more than martial training involved.

My character has faith in Shelyn an i take Bladed Brush. It works.

That same character later changes his faith to Desna. Bladed Brush stops being usable...

How i wonder why?

Also no one is forcing you or any body to use a Campaign Specific feat from a Campaign Specific book.

Seriously i would understand your argument if it was part of the RPG line. But your complaining about using a Golarion based feat in a non-Golarian game.


Somethings are exotic and exclusive to different cultures.
This cannot be weird concept, we live and breath it.
You cannot really get it unless you go and become one of the natives.
Or become one of the faithful and experience their culture.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So come up with your own fluff that lets it make sense to you. Or don't and house rule it.

Don't come up with fluff that doesn't make sense to you and complain about it not matching the rules. And yes, "It's just martial training" is you coming up with fluff unless it's actually in the text.

Sure, you can claim 'it's just martial training' is fluff... but it's fluff that's actually backed up in the crunch by virtue of a lack of actual magic involved.

Also by virtue of what this does. It's just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force. There's nothing mystical or magical about it.

just dealing damage with your finesse rather than with force even though you happen to believe in a higher power than yourself.
Pretty obviously martial.
1) "Even though" is incorrect, since the worship of Shelyn allows you to have the feat, not preclude it.

You can keep referencing poorly designed feats all day long. That doesn't make them better.

Quote:
2) It's martial and mystical.
Wrong.

Um, Bladed Brush (which is an awesome feat) is what we're talking about so I have no idea what your first comment is about.

2) You have to worship a goddess in order to use it, and lose it if you no longer worship her. Don't get more mystical than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem with the "you are inspired, you live, eat,sleep, and embody the essence of the glaive, and through this mindset you are awesome with it" as an explanation for how the feat works is that I know that a lot of people are going to take Bladed Brush by writing down "Shelyn" on their character sheets and not paying any future attention to it, and the feat is still going to work just fine for them. This doesn't even necessarily mean that they're bad RPers; potentially everything unrelated to their character's religious life is top notch. The player just wanted that specific mechanical effect,so made sure they met the prerequisite, but aren't remotely interested in their character's religious life so won't bring it up again.

So as a GM should you lean on people who take Divine feats by only paying lip service to whichever deity? I imagine this is going to result in a lot more "should the Paladin fall?" type situations. It just seems odd to me that a character whose mention of Shelyn culminates in "writing it on the character sheet" can use the feat just fine, but someone who devotes their life to the glaive but happens to worship a different deity (perhaps because Shelyn's church just was not present during that character's formative years) cannot without converting somehow.


Rysky wrote:
2) You have to worship a goddess in order to use it, and lose it if you no longer worship her.

That's the entire reason we're all having this discussion and I just keep facepalming at some of the...

...

Logic? I keep reading.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
So as a GM should you lean on people who take Divine feats by only paying lip service to whichever deity? I imagine this is going to result in a lot more "should the Paladin fall?" type situations. It just seems odd to me that a character whose mention of Shelyn culminates in "writing it on the character sheet" can use the feat just fine, but someone who devotes their life to the glaive but happens to worship a different deity (perhaps because Shelyn's church just was not present during that character's formative years) cannot without converting somehow.

That sounds like more of a problem with the game being run than the feat and how its used.

Also...Lip Service doesn't equal worship.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
2) You have to worship a goddess in order to use it, and lose it if you no longer worship her.

That's the entire reason we're all having this discussion and I just keep facepalming at some of the...

...

Logic? I keep reading.

We get you personally don't like it.

It doesn't make your opinion better or more logical.

To me and others it's clear that a faith based ability/feat that requires worship and only functions for those that are faithfully clearly is more than learning a martial technique.

Just because you can't wrap your mind around that doesn't make it bad or wrong or illogical.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Also...Lip Service doesn't equal worship.

So a player takes Bladed Brush, and jots down "Shelyn" on their character sheet to meet the prerequisite, but never mentions Shelyn or any god or any religious belief whatsoever. What should the GM do?

Likely "talk to them" but "about what, exactly?" Isn't "sure, my character is religious but they don't like to talk about it" a valid cover for the "I wrote down Shelyn and that's the end of it" approach? Perhaps adding "I like to compose poetry, but I'm embarrassed to share it with others" for good measure.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

With Bladed Brush in existence as it is, an identical 'finesse glaives feat' will never be made for the non-shaylenite.

Then get your characters but to the sunday morning paint and take or convince your DM that it's dumb. Whats the problem?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think the problem with the "you are inspired, you live, eat,sleep, and embody the essence of the glaive, and through this mindset you are awesome with it" as an explanation for how the feat works is that I know that a lot of people are going to take Bladed Brush by writing down "Shelyn" on their character sheets and not paying any future attention to it, and the feat is still going to work just fine for them. This doesn't even necessarily mean that they're bad RPers; potentially everything unrelated to their character's religious life is top notch. The player just wanted that specific mechanical effect,so made sure they met the prerequisite, but aren't remotely interested in their character's religious life so won't bring it up again.

Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.

I don't think we're really adding new problems here.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Also...Lip Service doesn't equal worship.

So a player takes Bladed Brush, and jots down "Shelyn" on their character sheet to meet the prerequisite, but never mentions Shelyn or any god or any religious belief whatsoever. What should the GM do?

Likely "talk to them" but "about what, exactly?" Isn't "sure, my character is religious but they don't like to talk about it" a valid cover for the "I wrote down Shelyn and that's the end of it" approach?

Once again sounds like a player/game problem.

I guess as long as they aren't acting contrary to a worshiper of Shelyn it would be fine.

Side Note

What should a DM do if i write down Asmodeus on my sheet, just to use a feat, and my alignment is Chaotic Good?

Clearly I'm doing something wrong...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

With Bladed Brush in existence as it is, an identical 'finesse glaives feat' will never be made for the non-shaylenite.

Then get your characters but to the sunday morning paint and take or convince your DM that it's dumb. Whats the problem?

The problem is that this feat is the sort of thing ANYBODY should be able to take.

Whether they worship Sheylin

Or Erastil

Or Asmodeus

Or Rovagug

Or Abadar

Or Cayden Calean

Or Lamashtu

Or Nobody

The feat is about dedication to the Glaive, not dedication to a god.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


The feat is about dedication to the Glaive, not dedication to a god.

Wrong.

The prerequisite being "Worship Shelyn" would state otherwise. ;)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

With Bladed Brush in existence as it is, an identical 'finesse glaives feat' will never be made for the non-shaylenite.

Then get your characters but to the sunday morning paint and take or convince your DM that it's dumb. Whats the problem?

The problem is that this feat is the sort of thing ANYBODY should be able to take.

Whether they worship Sheylin

Or Erastil

Or Asmodeus

Or Rovagug

Or Abadar

Or Cayden Calean

Or Lamashtu

Or Nobody

The feat is about dedication to the Glaive, not dedication to a god.

Your opinion on that is different from the developers. Sorry.

Silver Crusade Contributor

8 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
With Bladed Brush in existence as it is, an identical 'finesse glaives feat' will never be made for the non-shaylenite.

Without Shelyn in existence as she is, a "finesse glaives feat" never would have been made anyway.


thejeff wrote:
Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.

This is a pretty good argument against the "cleric must worship a god" rule, I find.


Eyup, I can see I'm surrounded by Paizo worshipers who can't even see when their beloved pantheon has done something wrong.

Going back to producing my own game now, take it easy people.

EDIT: I'd like to edit this post into something less offensive, but nothing's really coming to mind. I value my time spent here and my relationships with some of the posters, but this atmosphere really doesn't bode well for my sanity.

Silver Crusade

PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.
This is a pretty good argument against the "cleric must worship a god" rule, I find.

No, it's not. The opposite actually.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Eyup, I can see I'm surrounded by Paizo worshipers who can't even see when their beloved pantheon has done something wrong.

Going back to producing my own game now, take it easy people.

EDIT: I'd like to edit this post into something less offensive, but nothing's really coming to mind. I value my time spent here and my relationships with some of the posters, but this atmosphere really doesn't bode well for my sanity.

Good... go take your self-rigtheous attitude and shove it.

All I've heard from you is "qq" and "qq" some more. Other people don't like my opinion.


Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.
This is a pretty good argument against the "cleric must worship a god" rule, I find.
No, it's not. The opposite actually.

From experience, I disagree. A player who wants to play a cleric, but has no interest in any of the deities around, if you just let them pick whatever two domains they want then they'll at least pick things they're interested in and will likely talk about Ice and Insanity, or whatever they picked, and you might even get a new God out of the character (the god of "Cabin Fever", say.)


When will your game be available Kyrt-Ryder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
When will your game be available Kyrt-Ryder?

I'm in a rough playtesting stage right now, been debating with myself on whether to shift into an open playtest [and expose my semi-complete material to the gaming community at large] or not.

At the pace I'm going right now it might be a year before it's actually ready. An open playtest could dramatically accelerate that, but my ego may not be ready for that shock lol.

Silver Crusade

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.
This is a pretty good argument against the "cleric must worship a god" rule, I find.
No, it's not. The opposite actually.
From experience, I disagree. A player who wants to play a cleric, but has no interest in any of the deities around, if you just let them pick two domains of whatever they'll at least pick things they're interested in and will at least talk about Ice and Insanity, or whatever, and you might even get a new God out of the character (the god of "Cabin Fever", say.)

Uh, if you make a new god for them (which is always an awesome thing ^w^) then they are, ya'know, worshiping a god.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.
This is a pretty good argument against the "cleric must worship a god" rule, I find.

Yeah!

Why should Clerics have to 'choose a god'?
Why should Sorcerers have to 'choose a bloodline'?
Why should Wizards need to 'choose an arcane school'?
Why should Psychics not be able to cast Divine spells?
Why should Fighters have to choose Combat feats? Why not metamagic?
Why are there classes?
Why do races have different stats?!

It is all just SO unfair! :[


Rysky wrote:
Uh, if you make a new god for them (which is always an awesome thing ^w^) then they are, ya'know, worshiping a god.

Most of the time this works like "None of these gods interest me, is it okay if I just worship an idea, and pick these domains", then I say "sure" and over the course of the campaign the two of us figure out the identity of whichever intelligence has administrative oversight over the portion of the divine wellspring they access and we get a new God out of it.

Sometimes it works out with the character worshiping the power itself, but asking for favors from the being in charge of it (not entirely unlike how some Catholics pray to Saints, but don't worship them.)

CBDunkerson wrote:
It is all just SO unfair! :[

Well, the CRB literally says:

Quote:
While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)

so I just do that; problem solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lots of people play clerics and do little more than write a name down on the character sheet. Many of them like the cleric's powers but aren't remotely interested in their religious life.
This is a pretty good argument against the "cleric must worship a god" rule, I find.
No, it's not. The opposite actually.
From experience, I disagree. A player who wants to play a cleric, but has no interest in any of the deities around, if you just let them pick whatever two domains they want then they'll at least pick things they're interested in and will likely talk about Ice and Insanity, or whatever they picked, and you might even get a new God out of the character (the god of "Cabin Fever", say.)

There's a difference between "not interested in any of the gods around" and "aren't remotely interested in their religious life". There's also a difference between "get rid of the cleric must worship a god rule" and "make up a new god that matches the player's interest".


BigNorseWolf wrote:


"This rule makes no sense

"<reasons how it could make sense>"

that analogy makes no sense at all.

It doesn't work if the reasons that are gave are quite bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Eyup, I can see I'm surrounded by Paizo worshipers who can't even see when their beloved pantheon has done something wrong.

Ad homs aren't particularly helpful, especially when they're blatantly false. If i think paizo done messed up I'm hardly shy about telling them.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

Clearly it's more than martial training involved.

My character has faith in Shelyn an i take Bladed Brush. It works.

That same character later changes his faith to Desna. Bladed Brush stops being usable...

How i wonder why?

The reason is: bad design.


What I find though is that oftentimes "I'm not interested in my character's religious life" is caused by "none of the pre-existing options interest me." If you let players pick whatever cleric-ey things they want, more often than not I find they end up constructing an interesting religious life around it. Maybe we'll end up with a new God out of it by the end of the campaign, perhaps we'll reach the conclusion that there cannot be a God or Goddess of it (this happened when I was a Cleric of Mathematics one time.)

Plus "cleric must worship a god" is only a setting specific rule, not a general one (I quoted the CRB above.) I don't run games in official settings, but if I did the "Cleric has to worship a God" would be the first one to go, and if I'm playing in an official setting I'll ask to have that rule lifted.

401 to 450 of 475 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bypassing restrictions that should not exist to begin with All Messageboards