|
I had overlooked this before, but upon closer reading of ultimate magic, I find that an Inquisition may be taken in place of a domain for a cleric. Seems legal, but I'm double checking in case I missed something.
This is found page 41 of ultimate magic, third paragraph under the heading "Inquisitions."
Is it PFS legal for a cleric to take an inquisition in place of a domain? Furthermore, does this mean a cleric could have two Inquisitions instead of two domains (at the cost of no bonus spells, of course)?
|
I can find nothing preventing you from taking two inquisitions instead of two domains. However, there may be a few issues for you, depending on your build:
1. You're limiting you deities to the ones listed in Ultimate Magic, unless there is another official resource naming the inquisitions of the expanded deity list.
2. Domains give additional domain spell slots and domain spells so you are taking essentially a weaker option overall
3. They way I read the "Inquisitions" section, you would be using your cleric level to determine the strength of your inquisition and so probably wouldn't stack if you later on took levels of inquisitor, which would use inquisitor levels to determine inquisition strength
|
|
I can find nothing preventing you from taking two inquisitions instead of two domains. However, there may be a few issues for you, depending on your build:
1. You're limiting you deities to the ones listed in Ultimate Magic, unless there is another official resource naming the inquisitions of the expanded deity list.
2. Domains give additional domain spell slots and domain spells so you are taking essentially a weaker option overall
3. They way I read the "Inquisitions" section, you would be using your cleric level to determine the strength of your inquisition and so probably wouldn't stack if you later on took levels of inquisitor, which would use inquisitor levels to determine inquisition strength
All good points.
Dunno if I can make 2 inquisitions worth 2 domains, but I figured I'd ask if it was legal before messing with it too much.
Thanks for the double check.
|
Allips too!My 5 Charisma Dwarf Cleric loves his Conversion Inquisition =).And psychic stalkers and ghosts love 5 Charisma dwarves =PAllips target wisdom not charisma. Totenmaskes can be annoying but I have only ever seen them in two scenarios.
Charisma damage is really quite rare.
GAHH!!
Must've run into an allip myself to have forgotten that.
Ungol Dust does a number on low Charisma PCs.
(well, any PC - just hits that Cha-based casters & the low Cha folks harder)
|
|
Indeed. A few archetypes give it up.
Being a Dwarf, Cleric, high Wisdom, from the 5 Kings Mountains, who's not a frontliner, I figured he'd be moderately safe against Charisma damage.
And, if he's not, I don't think it's a terrible thing to have an Achilles Heel.
I've found channel really useful, but I do see the logic of having a dump stat. Might go that route with my next cleric.
Any clue if we can swap domains for inquisitions if an archetype modifies the domain option? The Theologian, for example.
|
Indeed. A few archetypes give it up.
Being a Dwarf, Cleric, high Wisdom, from the 5 Kings Mountains, who's not a frontliner, I figured he'd be moderately safe against Charisma damage.
And, if he's not, I don't think it's a terrible thing to have an Achilles Heel.
I've found channel really useful, but I do see the logic of having a dump stat. Might go that route with my next cleric.
Any clue if we can swap domains for inquisitions if an archetype modifies the domain option? The Theologian, for example.
Archetype stacking is the place to start from. You can extrapolate from there.
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.
In the case of the theologian the domain ability is fundamentally changed, so you can't take an inquisition. If you were looking at a different archetype that gave up one domain completely but made no changes to the other (crusader, for example), you could take an inquisition in place of your remaining domain.
|
Inquisitions are not archetypes, they are additional domain options much like sub domains. You should be able to select them alongside an archetype which modifies the domain ability.
See Ultimate Magic, page 41:
To remedy that problem, this section introduces inquisitions—new, specialized domainlike class features for inquisitors that grant abilities appropriate to their deity’s portfolio. Following the inquisitions are new inquisitor archetypes.
I agree as well.
If your archetype limits you to one Domain, or delays the level at which you receive your Domain (such as the Exalted PrC), then you could freely choose an Inquisition as that Domain.
If your archetype modifies your Domain in a way that clashes with how your Domain works (such as the Ecclesitheurge modifying the Domain spells of your Domain), then you could not choose an Inquisition as that Domain.
|
|
Inquisitions are not archetypes, they are additional domain options much like sub domains. You should be able to select them alongside an archetype which modifies the domain ability.
See Ultimate Magic, page 41:
To remedy that problem, this section introduces inquisitions—new, specialized domainlike class features for inquisitors that grant abilities appropriate to their deity’s portfolio. Following the inquisitions are new inquisitor archetypes.I agree as well.
If your archetype limits you to one Domain, or delays the level at which you receive your Domain (such as the Exalted PrC), then you could freely choose an Inquisition as that Domain.
If your archetype modifies your Domain in a way that clashes with how your Domain works (such as the Ecclesitheurge modifying the Domain spells of your Domain), then you could not choose an Inquisition as that Domain.
I don't see how you're coming to this ruling. Inquisitions are not archetypes and, as such, should not be impacted in any way by archetype ability modification or replacement as far as when it's legal to select them.
|
|
Read the Ecclesitheurge.
Although that's the only instance I can think of off the top of my head that would prevent the selection of an Inquisition.
|
|
I don't see how you're coming to this ruling. Inquisitions are not archetypes and, as such, should not be impacted in any way by archetype ability modification or replacement as far as when it's legal to select them.
Lets say you make a cleric archtype that makes them super awesome at bashing things with large heavy objects.
To compensate you take away their domain spells.
You then trade out the domain for you inquisition
|
|
I don't see how you're coming to this ruling. Inquisitions are not archetypes and, as such, should not be impacted in any way by archetype ability modification or replacement as far as when it's legal to select them.
Domains can be archetypes, though. Look at the Snake Domain for the Druids, actually swaps out class abilities.
But as for the topic at hand, I can see it either way, but I'm not really looking to debate it much. I'm just happy I got an expanded list of domain options.
|
|
Read the Ecclesitheurge.
Although that's the only instance I can think of off the top of my head that would prevent the selection of an Inquisition.
I read it before I posted and re-read it at your suggestion. Sure, it screams "loophole!" - selecting an inquisition as the secondary, then pulling spells from an actual domain - but I'm not sure that it's necessarily imbalanced. Moreover, I don't see any reason that it wouldn't be legal as it's just a domain selection. Selecting an inquisition as your domain is not a modification of the domain ability.
IMO, whether it's legal would be a separate ruling rather than something covered by the archetype rules. To my knowledge, such a ruling does not exist. Noted cleric-hater Serisan isn't about to run off and build this as some dominator character based on that, though.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I don't see how you're coming to this ruling. Inquisitions are not archetypes and, as such, should not be impacted in any way by archetype ability modification or replacement as far as when it's legal to select them.Domains can be archetypes, though. Look at the Snake Domain for the Druids, actually swaps out class abilities.
But as for the topic at hand, I can see it either way, but I'm not really looking to debate it much. I'm just happy I got an expanded list of domain options.
Swapping out class abilities or changing them doesn't turn them into an archetype. It's still technically a domain.
|
|
IMO, whether it's legal would be a separate ruling rather than something covered by the archetype rules. To my knowledge, such a ruling does not exist.To be clear, that was Belafon making the claim about archetypes.
I'm of the opposite view.
I was reading your response earlier to say that there is a distinction of some cases where an inquisition was not a legal selection. Is that an incorrect interpretation of what you said?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, whether it's legal would be a separate ruling rather than something covered by the archetype rules. To my knowledge, such a ruling does not exist.To be clear, that was Belafon making the claim about archetypes.
I'm of the opposite view.
My statement was "start from the archetype FAQ and extrapolate from there."
The point is that if you are modifying the domain ability with an archetype then - because there are no rules specifying how an inquisition would be modified - you can't take an inquisition.
In a home game... sure, I'd probably allow it. If your theologian wants to give up all her domain slots and the ability to prepare domain spells in normal slots (since you wouldn't have any domain spells) in return for taking an inquisition, no problem. I'll even let those inquisition powers function as if you were two levels higher. But that's a house rule.
|
|
I was reading your response earlier to say that there is a distinction of some cases where an inquisition was not a legal selection. Is that an incorrect interpretation of what you said?IMO, whether it's legal would be a separate ruling rather than something covered by the archetype rules. To my knowledge, such a ruling does not exist.To be clear, that was Belafon making the claim about archetypes.
I'm of the opposite view.
Indeed.
I'll shorten the previous quotation for brevity:
Inquisitions are not archetypes, they are additional domain options much like sub domains.I agree as well.
What I went on to do afterwards was give a specific example of a combination that wouldn't work (the Ecclisitheurge), since in that specific instance you can't give up something you don't have (domain spells) for something else.
That wasn't me claiming that it was illegal under the general archetype rules.
|
|
I was reading your response earlier to say that there is a distinction of some cases where an inquisition was not a legal selection. Is that an incorrect interpretation of what you said?IMO, whether it's legal would be a separate ruling rather than something covered by the archetype rules. To my knowledge, such a ruling does not exist.To be clear, that was Belafon making the claim about archetypes.
I'm of the opposite view.
Indeed.
I'll shorten the previous quotation for brevity:
Inquisitions are not archetypes, they are additional domain options much like sub domains.I agree as well.What I went on to do afterwards was give a specific example of a combination that wouldn't work (the Ecclisitheurge), since in that specific instance you can't give up something you don't have (domain spells) for something else.
That wasn't me claiming that it was illegal under the general archetype rules.
It seems like your specific case for the Ecclisitheurge is using the general archetype rules as the basis for claiming that it's not legal to select an inquisition instead of a domain. That's the part where I'm getting confused.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. It's just a general practice of "in order to barter you have to have something to give up".
The Ecclisitheurge swaps out the Domain spells of a single Domain for the Domain Spells of another Domain.
But Inquisitions don't have Domain Spells. Ergo, you have nothing to give away.
|
|
My tengu paladin started as a cleric of Andoletta with the Conversion Inquisition, but had either the fortune of reaching L2 when I'd put forth questions about building a paladin, so she went a bit different path...
It worked reasonably well at L1, but I suspect at higher levels it'd have a power-curve issue?
|
Any clue if we can swap domains for inquisitions if an archetype modifies the domain option? The Theologian, for example.
This issue came up in my group as well. I tend to say Yes, while a friend states a PC use the whole domain ability to exchange inquisition, so he must have the whole domain ability, including domain power, bouns spells and domain spell slot. And the Theologian do not have bouns spells or domain spell slot.
All the GMs are convinced, so we follow this way for now.