Are the Domains in 2E a mess?


Rules Discussion

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I finally picked up Gods & Magic at my FLGS on last Saturday, and I think there's a lot of well-written content in the book, but I also feel it underlines the problems with the domain system in 2E. It wasn’t exactly perfect in 3E, either, and I could understand that while 1E revised the domain list and domain powers, they had to maintain backwards compatibility as much as possible. As a result, many 1E deities got odd choices to fill up their mandatory 5 domains (I always felt it had to be 5 due to alignment domains ”consuming” one or two right out of the gate), such as Urgathoa getting Strength and War, or quite a few deities granting Luck and/or Protection to their followers. When subdomains came out in APG, they helped a bit in ”finetuning” each deity’s list of domains to better suit their portfolios. A small step, but a step forward nonetheless.

[Begin rant]

Before 2E was published, I remember James Jacobs saying they are going to revise the domains to better suit the Golarion pantheon. Well, if so I’m not seeing it, and although I love 2E a lot, I think the cleric class is a bit of a mess now (for example, Warpriests of the God of War get the short end of the sti… er, sword, so to speak). But speaking of domains and domains alone, I honestly think the list is more confusing than ever before.

First of all, there are still weird choices in the core rules that (to me) don’t make sense, such as Lamashtu granting Family as one of their primary domains… I mean, Soothing Words, really? Urgathoa has Magic and Might, because Necromancy, plus undead being tough? And Erastil's priests apparently love gold and riches (Wealth), while Rovagug grants Air to their worshippers? I think those are a few examples of domains that IMO don't just fit these deities, mainly due to spells that their followers will receive by choosing them.

It helps that there are 18 new domains in Gods & Magic, and many of them are actually quite good. In fact, almost all of them feel like they should have been published in the Core Rulebook. Or what do you think of such domains as Cold, Decay, Duty, Plague, Repose, Soul, Star, Time and Void?
I think it’s sad that all of them are just ”alternate domains” (representing ”lesser known aspects” of a deity) for the most popular Inner Sea deities, meaning your cleric cannot gain them until picking a 4th level cleric feat (Domain Initiate is required, by the way). An example: if your [Cloistered] Cleric of Pharasma wants to select Time or Soul[s] domain, it’s not possible until 4th level, because Pharasma is not really about having power over souls or time. It’s also super-annoying that these gods don’t have their ”primary domains” listed in Gods & Magic, you need your CRB to look those up. I mean, it would have been a single line per deity...

There’s a feat called Splinter Faith that lets you make up a cult-type group of followers, or as the book says: ”Your faith in your deity is represented in an extremely unusual way that some might call heretical.” Such a character is part of a fringe group of worshippers, which is not apparently part of the church hierarchy. They can cherry-pick domains among their deity’s primary and alternate domains, and also get to choose one outside of both lists (which still must suit the deity, however). That is actually the only way (per RAW) to create clerics of the goddess of disease (Urgathoa) that have access to Plague domain, or Kuthites that emphasize sorrow and loss (i.e. want to pick Sorrow domain) as a means to inflict mental and spiritual pain.

Secondly, it now includes quite a few that are (again, in my opinion) oddly named, or only marginally different from each other, at least based on the [literal] meaning of domain names. For example, I personally think Ambition and Confidence could have been just one domain, likewise with Change and Perfection (=Evolution? Transformation?). There are a few that made me raise my eyebrows, such as Delirium (Madness toned down, with some illusion vibes thrown in), Dust (Desert gods only, I guess?), Vigil (”You watch over those long passed and guard their secrets”…err, what?) and Cities (why is this not called Urban or Civilization, to better counterbalance Nature?). And what was wrong with War (or Battle, for that matter) as a domain name, how does Zeal describe better what this domain does?

And speaking of Zeal, there are other domains beside it that I think are a poor fit for what they’re trying to do, considering both the name and the spells they grant. Mostly it’s because IMO they represent ideals that in my opinion would fit nearly ALL the faiths (e.g. Ambition, Change, Confidence and Zeal), and some that are accessed by only one or two deities (e.g. Cities, Delirium, Dust, Secrecy). For example, I could very well see most Kuthites or priests of Asmodeus being extremely zealous and ambitious. Is it because I don’t speak English as my native language, and I’m missing some nuances here?
Finally, there also some ”areas of concern” or portfolios I feel are still missing, like Justice, Laws or Glory/Nobility, but I guess you can make it work with Truth and Duty, at least if you make slight changes to their descriptions.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the game, and many of the minor deities published in Gods & Magic now have domains that finally make sense. However, I think Paizo had a golden opportunity to create a more robust list of domains (or some other subsystem for the cleric) that would also serve the needs of the game and make the cleric class play better than its D&D and 1E counterparts. And by ”the needs of the game” I mean I wish I could use the rules for any setting, such as convert the FR deities to 2E as I did 10 years ago, but I honestly feel it wouldn’t work nearly as well as it did with the 1E rules.

[End Rant]

So yeah, summa summarum, I personally think domains in 2E are a huge mess, and the cleric class likely underwent many iterations before the designers just ran out of time. There’s a lot of good in there, but to me it seems like it barely holds together. I’m glad that at least as a GM, I don’t have to use domains for NPCs and monsters with divine innate spells or class features.

I'd honestly like to hear how others feel about this subject; what do you think about the available Domains and how they work in the context of the 2E rules?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like a lot of the domains associated with gods are fine, in theory. I don't really have a dog in that fight.

But I think the mechanical benefits of having a domain range from weak to decent. I have the same issue with a majority of focus spells; they're mostly weird, niche, or ineffective for Cleric/Sorcerer/Wizard, while Druid/Monk/Paladin are largely pretty good. Some domains decent (Knowledge and Luck are both solid), but things like the Glyph Domain's level 1 focus spell. I have no idea when I would use that.

Focus spells are an all day resource, true, so balance is a big consideration, but they should be something you can build a character around even for casters.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, you've got a point there; I haven't really considered focus spells and how they're balanced against each other. After taking a quick look I agree with you about the Glyph domain; that 1st level focus spell exists for storytelling reasons, and it probably works as a GM-only spell, at least that is how I see it. As a GM, I can easily come up with plots that exploit this, but for players its usefulness is circumstancial. However, I think it is also a very, very dangerous spell in wrong hands, since a 7th+ level caster can make permanently replace names and titles in official documents.

If Redact needs to be a focus spell, I think it should be under Trickery domain; it's evident it is about forgery or censorship, and a poor fit (IMHO) for the domain that is about having "power over written word and glyphs" (yeah, you do, but it's not about understanding or reading obscure texts, it's about erasing or altering names in them).

I'll personally delete the whole Glyph domain and make this a rare spell that has to be hunted down. There's a ton of ways clever PCs and NPCs could abuse it, and like I said, it would work well as a "GM-only" plot device -- especially in a detective-style campaign. Actually, I wonder if this Domain was created for the Agents of Edgewatch AP?

I'm going to start a new campaign, and I was going to suggest (to a certain player) that a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae might be a solid choice for them. After taking a look at the class I realized Warpriest is a terrible Doctrine for, well, followers of most deities, but especially those who are more zealous and warlike (which is contradictory to what this class is supposed to do). I guess we'll go with a "simple" choice, i.e. a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae or Torag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I would go with each god having a single "most common" domain, a paragraph saying gods often benefit from having servants with other domains, so clerics can pick any common domain. Then I would make lists like "tyranny, pain, and undeath are uncommon for good aligned deities", and players should talk to their GM's if they want to make a good cleric with pain domain (messed up follower of Vildeis).

So, new players can easily play the "most common" domain for their PC's god, experienced players don't have to worry about whether Plague domain is available for Urgathoa or not, and GM's can decide if they want to put up "necromancy isn't evil because I have a cleric of Sarenrae with the undeath domain."


Asgetrion wrote:


I'm going to start a new campaign, and I was going to suggest (to a certain player) that a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae might be a solid choice for them. After taking a look at the class I realized Warpriest is a terrible Doctrine for, well, followers of most deities, but especially those who are more zealous and warlike (which is contradictory to what this class is supposed to do). I guess we'll go with a "simple" choice, i.e. a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae or Torag.

I've seen some posters around here have a great time with Warpriests, and in particular I think MaxAstro(?)is playing in a group with a Warpriest of Gorum who seems to be doing pretty well. What doesn't match up for a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae in your view? From what I can see they seem like perfectly viable mechanically and flavor-wise for a zealous or war-like god.

Also, yeah, Glyph seems like something that might work better in a world like Eberron, maybe. Where official documents are actually a pretty big deal. Here, though, I'm not too stoked on it as my Cloistered Cleric's first level bonus feat, nor as something I'd spend a feat on generally.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:


I'm going to start a new campaign, and I was going to suggest (to a certain player) that a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae might be a solid choice for them. After taking a look at the class I realized Warpriest is a terrible Doctrine for, well, followers of most deities, but especially those who are more zealous and warlike (which is contradictory to what this class is supposed to do). I guess we'll go with a "simple" choice, i.e. a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae or Torag.

I've seen some posters around here have a great time with Warpriests, and in particular I think MaxAstro(?)is playing in a group with a Warpriest of Gorum who seems to be doing pretty well. What doesn't match up for a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae in your view? From what I can see they seem like perfectly viable mechanically and flavor-wise for a zealous or war-like god.

It's because the main things the Warpriest gets from the First Doctrine are the Shield Block reaction and bump to the weapon damage die, but only if the deity's favored weapon is simple. If your deity's favored weapon is martial you don't get the bump, and it's even worse if it's a two-handed weapon (because you are not wielding a shield). Gods & Magic implies most followers want to wield their deity's favored weapon, even suggesting lay followers tend to do so as well, so a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae wielding a simple weapon + shield might be frowned upon by their brethren.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the real draw for Warpriest is medium armor, so you can afford less dex.


Asgetrion wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:


I'm going to start a new campaign, and I was going to suggest (to a certain player) that a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae might be a solid choice for them. After taking a look at the class I realized Warpriest is a terrible Doctrine for, well, followers of most deities, but especially those who are more zealous and warlike (which is contradictory to what this class is supposed to do). I guess we'll go with a "simple" choice, i.e. a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae or Torag.

I've seen some posters around here have a great time with Warpriests, and in particular I think MaxAstro(?)is playing in a group with a Warpriest of Gorum who seems to be doing pretty well. What doesn't match up for a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae in your view? From what I can see they seem like perfectly viable mechanically and flavor-wise for a zealous or war-like god.

It's because the main things the Warpriest gets from the First Doctrine are the Shield Block reaction and bump to the weapon damage die, but only if the deity's favored weapon is simple. If your deity's favored weapon is martial you don't get the bump, and it's even worse if it's a two-handed weapon (because you are not wielding a shield). Gods & Magic implies most followers want to wield their deity's favored weapon, even suggesting lay followers tend to do so as well, so a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae wielding a simple weapon + shield might be frowned upon by their brethren.

Ahh, ok then. I think I agree with PossibleCabbage here, where medium armor proficiency is really the draw of Warpriest to start with. Bumping simple weapon damage doesn't seem to be a "bonus" for Warpriest so much as it's an olive branch to those deities who have simple weapons. Shield Block is always nice to have, but I would agree that the option between Shield Block and something else would have been nice to have. Of course, if you're the DM then I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to swap that out for something else.

That said, as far as a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae goes, I think Shield Block is still pretty useful even if Deadly Simplicity(?) isn't. Longsword and shield for Iomedae is iconic. Gorum would be perfectly happy, I think, with a Warpriest wielding just about any weapon, so long as they're pursuing combat. And even if the Warpriest usually wields a Greatsword, having a shield and sidearm can be useful where you just need some DR and that extra AC.

I guess I wouldn't let the favored weapon be the end-all-be-all for the Warpriest, and martial deities without an edict to do so would almost certainly support their followers wielding another weapon to serve their interests. I think Iomedae actually mentions this too in Gods & Magic.


Just chiming in on redact from the Glyph domain.

Sure it is less potent in a hack and slash campaign, but I don't think I have run or been in a campaign that I wouldn't have gotten a decent amount of usage from it in my last 10 years of play.

One of the great things about how domains work is how they grant those focus spells imo, so if it doesn't suit your character then other options are usually more appealing imo.

Redact would be 100% a choice for near any character though and I like that it is a focus spell that can be reliably chosen vs a rare/uncommon spell that cannot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, yeah. The campaigns in which redact would not be useful are ones where you probably wouldn't want to take the Glyph domain anyway.

More of an issue is that there are deities who grant the glyph domain for which "using redact" would probably be anathema.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


One of the great things about how domains work is how they grant those focus spells imo, so if it doesn't suit your character then other options are usually more appealing imo.

Yep, this can be very useful for multi-classing with other classes that has good focus feats.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
More of an issue is that there are deities who grant the glyph domain for which "using redact" would probably be anathema.

Asmodeus - suits

Nethis - suits
Gruhastha - correct misinformation, stop the spread of ignorance, expose misdirection (harder to use than for the other two, but not directly against anathema and very thematic).
Sivanah - suits best out of those so far

Because each domain spell is an optional thing I really don't see it as a mechanical issue, if something seems too hard to apply then it is simple enough to just select another option for that feat as everything has a minimum of four domain choices available to them and it doesn't lock you into the domain for later level choices.

Dark Archive

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Just chiming in on redact from the Glyph domain.

Sure it is less potent in a hack and slash campaign, but I don't think I have run or been in a campaign that I wouldn't have gotten a decent amount of usage from it in my last 10 years of play.

One of the great things about how domains work is how they grant those focus spells imo, so if it doesn't suit your character then other options are usually more appealing imo.

Redact would be 100% a choice for near any character though and I like that it is a focus spell that can be reliably chosen vs a rare/uncommon spell that cannot.

It depends; in some campaigns Redact might be useful, but this is up to the GM and also the nature of the campaign. For example, in a wilderness, Darklands or planar campaign it might not see much use at all. On the other hand, in a political or urban campaign you could permanently insert your own name in any documents, transferring property to your name, or even making yourself the Royal Heir or the High Priest of a temple (a bit of hyperbole, I know, but the spell makes it possible).

You could always fudge the rolls so that this sort of tampering is automatically detected, but it doesn't change the fact that this spell might be problematic and (IMO) should not be a common focus spell. A veteran GM can handle this sort of "cleverness" from their players, but a novice GM might find their campaign seriously sidetracked. I think a couple of my players might try to accumulate property in this way, and from a worldbuilding POV an Asmodean spy with this domain could economically ruin whole cities with this. Just to be sure I'm going to houserule that the Glyph domain does not exist in my campaigns.

It's true that you can always pick other domains; in this case it's also fortunate that Glyph is at best an Alternate Domain for the two core deities that grant access to it. Most domains actually give you decent and fun focus spells; probably there are other "problematic" or unbalanced spells among them, but so far I've spotted nothing like Redact.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:

I think I would go with each god having a single "most common" domain, a paragraph saying gods often benefit from having servants with other domains, so clerics can pick any common domain. Then I would make lists like "tyranny, pain, and undeath are uncommon for good aligned deities", and players should talk to their GM's if they want to make a good cleric with pain domain (messed up follower of Vildeis).

So, new players can easily play the "most common" domain for their PC's god, experienced players don't have to worry about whether Plague domain is available for Urgathoa or not, and GM's can decide if they want to put up "necromancy isn't evil because I have a cleric of Sarenrae with the undeath domain."

That is actually exactly what I also had in mind when I thought how to improve the cleric class! :)

I mean, one "primary" domain for each deity, and then you could pick among the others according to how you and your GM interpret each deity's portfolio/areas of interest. Obviously, as you said, you couldn't pick a domain if it's related to your deity's anathema or in violation of their alignment.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Just chiming in on redact from the Glyph domain.

Sure it is less potent in a hack and slash campaign, but I don't think I have run or been in a campaign that I wouldn't have gotten a decent amount of usage from it in my last 10 years of play.

One of the great things about how domains work is how they grant those focus spells imo, so if it doesn't suit your character then other options are usually more appealing imo.

Redact would be 100% a choice for near any character though and I like that it is a focus spell that can be reliably chosen vs a rare/uncommon spell that cannot.

It is an odd choice but I could see it being useful and somebody who is picking that domain in the first place is doing it because that kind of stuff interests them. I have seen a number of games where being able to seemlessly alter official documents/bounty postings could be damn useful. Have a rogue steal it then you can just easily alter it and then have the rogue put it back. Just look at the play through of the oblvion oath at one point they basically needed to do something exactly like this. They wound up managing but it was a bunch of pretty hard rolls that they had to succeed at whereas here a simple focus spell and boop it is now cleanly altered to point to somebody else instead of you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Still feels to me like it'd be better as an Uncommon spell or a ritual or something.

Focus spells, in my mind, should strive to not be so narrow, they should be something that takes advantage of the rechargeable nature of focus points and have generally applicable use on most day-to-day dungeoneering. Druid, Paladin, and Monk are excellent examples; I can find a use for Lay on Hands every day. I can Ki Rush just about every combat. I can transform into an animal for scouting or sleuthing or combat.

There were a lot of domain/bloodline/school/etc. abilities in P1e that had very narrow uses. My players never picked them. I was never enthusiastic about them. They picked things that they could use daily, and reserved powerful but niche abilities for scrolls/wands/potions.

Of course, this is all preference, and certainly depends on the campaign. I think my previous comment was a bit more negative towards it than I actually feel. This is also I think an optional(?) domain for only a few gods in a book that mechanically targets a very narrow part of the game, so it doesn't necessarily need broad applicability. I think I would get significantly more use out of Redact in an Eberron campaign than a Pathfinder campaign, or if I were in something like Curse of the Crimson Throne rather than Reign of Winter. Redact is a big improvement and much more interesting than a lot of the lame P1e abilities, but it's right on the edge there for me.


Puna'chong wrote:
There were a lot of domain/bloodline/school/etc. abilities in P1e that had very narrow uses. My players never picked them. I was never enthusiastic about them. They picked things that they could use daily, and reserved powerful but niche abilities for scrolls/wands/potions.

I feel that where it excels over PF1e is that PF1e you were locked into your choice of a domain for all the spells you gained from it and those spells were also locked into competing with your general slots as well as the DC system where many would fall off in usefulness if they had any opposed DC and were low leveled.

This is where domain spells like redact really shine for me, it only gets better as you level up and you are never locked into just one set of choices (even though you have to spend more resources overall to get those choices)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:


Focus spells, in my mind, should strive to not be so narrow, they should be something that takes advantage of the rechargeable nature of focus points and have generally applicable use on most day-to-day dungeoneering.

These are my thoughts too. A good focus spell can dramatically increase the longevity of a caster over the course of an adventuring day, while others provide really niche benefits.

It can feel bad to look at one caster and see them basically get an extra 3-4 spells per day via refocusing and then look at another caster and see them get this fringe benefit that might only be relevant a few times a campaign, yet these options are treated as equivalent.

Redact (and etc) make good second or third focus spells, but the game doesn't always structure them that way with the way packages are bundled together.

This is, admittedly, a bit of a bigger deal for things like Schools and Bloodlines than domains, since another Domain spell is a feat away but a Sorcerer is just stuck with their bloodline.


With the domains, you have to consider the deity's origin and lore as well as portfolio.

Asgetrion wrote:
such as Lamashtu granting Family as one of their primary domains… I mean, Soothing Words, really?

Even bad guys love their children. Why else do they turn to her? She is the mother of monsters and wants you to survive childbirth. She has followers from "respectable human" backgrounds too, as a fertility deity.

Asgetrion wrote:
Urgathoa has Magic and Might, because Necromancy, plus undead being tough?

I believe this one is from lore. Urgathoa died. Pharasma said Urgathoa had to go away now. Urgathoa said "no" and made herself into the first undead.

Asgetrion wrote:
Erastil's priests apparently love gold and riches (Wealth)

Fair, Erastil makes no sense. In my headcanon he is "Abadar but for primitives in tiny villages" and is slowly vanishing as modern city culture spreads.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that Erastil having wealth as a domain is that difficult to imagine, honestly. He's a god who supports hardworking, salt of the earth folks. Their wealth is a plentiful harvest and fertile land, full pantries, abundant game to hunt, rivers that never run dry, children to carry things over to the next generation, etc. He represents the cornucopia, horn of plenty.

Erastil's about old-school practical wealth; he'd probably view gold as inherently worthless because you can't eat it, you can't plant it, you can't hunt with it. It might be given worth, and is certainly supported by Abadar, but Erastil looks to a more holistic type of plenty. wealth doesn't have to be emperors in gold-trimmed robes. Nor is Erastil a god of primitives. Even in a world like Golarion the vast majority of a given landmass will be farms and rural villages, not cities.

It's a pretty prevalent religious archetype throughout human history, really.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Urgathoa's domains in PF1 : Death, Evil, Magic, Strength, War

I do not see how her PF2 domains are that different.


Asgetrion wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:


I'm going to start a new campaign, and I was going to suggest (to a certain player) that a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae might be a solid choice for them. After taking a look at the class I realized Warpriest is a terrible Doctrine for, well, followers of most deities, but especially those who are more zealous and warlike (which is contradictory to what this class is supposed to do). I guess we'll go with a "simple" choice, i.e. a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae or Torag.

I've seen some posters around here have a great time with Warpriests, and in particular I think MaxAstro(?)is playing in a group with a Warpriest of Gorum who seems to be doing pretty well. What doesn't match up for a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae in your view? From what I can see they seem like perfectly viable mechanically and flavor-wise for a zealous or war-like god.

It's because the main things the Warpriest gets from the First Doctrine are the Shield Block reaction and bump to the weapon damage die, but only if the deity's favored weapon is simple. If your deity's favored weapon is martial you don't get the bump, and it's even worse if it's a two-handed weapon (because you are not wielding a shield). Gods & Magic implies most followers want to wield their deity's favored weapon, even suggesting lay followers tend to do so as well, so a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae wielding a simple weapon + shield might be frowned upon by their brethren.

You're looking at it wrong. A simple weapon that's been bumped up a die step is still a bit worse than a martial weapon. Deadly Simplicity is just there to make otherwise useless deity favored weapons not objectively bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:

I don't think that Erastil having wealth as a domain is that difficult to imagine, honestly. He's a god who supports hardworking, salt of the earth folks. Their wealth is a plentiful harvest and fertile land, full pantries, abundant game to hunt, rivers that never run dry, children to carry things over to the next generation, etc. He represents the cornucopia, horn of plenty.

Erastil's about old-school practical wealth; he'd probably view gold as inherently worthless because you can't eat it, you can't plant it, you can't hunt with it. It might be given worth, and is certainly supported by Abadar, but Erastil looks to a more holistic type of plenty. wealth doesn't have to be emperors in gold-trimmed robes. Nor is Erastil a god of primitives. Even in a world like Golarion the vast majority of a given landmass will be farms and rural villages, not cities.

It's a pretty prevalent religious archetype throughout human history, really.

You just proved why the Wealth Domain is wrong for Erastil. The Wealth domain's spells are not about prosperity, they're about coins and money.


I read them again.

The first level spell doesn't say anything about coins or money. Just material wealth, which can be any number of things, and the illusion actually seems tailored to whatever the viewer would be enticed by. In fact, the 4th level domain spell is really only a practical transmutation for material attributes, and specifically calls out transmuting coins as impossible with the domain spell.

And that's just the domain spells, which are narrow and specific. That doesn't mean Erastil can't still be a god of wealth.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Precious Metals in particular seems useful for Erastilites. Living on the borders of civilization has high threats from things like fey. Being able to have the right material to protect your homestead at a moments notice seems like a jolly appropriate boon.


The Raven Black wrote:

Urgathoa's domains in PF1 : Death, Evil, Magic, Strength, War

I do not see how her PF2 domains are that different.

That was kind of OP's point. Her domains didn't make a ton of sense then and still don't, particularly when you note that, even though she is a goddess of disease, she can't take the plague domain.


Perpdepog wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Urgathoa's domains in PF1 : Death, Evil, Magic, Strength, War

I do not see how her PF2 domains are that different.

That was kind of OP's point. Her domains didn't make a ton of sense then and still don't, particularly when you note that, even though she is a goddess of disease, she can't take the plague domain.

I get that the Might and Magic Domains don't make much sense based on their names, but looking at the Spells they grant, they make perfect sense based on the information provided about Urgathoa in the book.

The spells all either amplify other abilities, or grant survivability. These fit her themes of excess and strength. "Only the weak fear to indulge those yearnings they mislabel as strange and taboo, for even poison can be savored as a sweet nectar upon the tongue if one is strong enough to relish its torment".

Disease honestly comes off as more of a sub theme. She doesn't care about disease for disease's sake, only because it's a part of everything.

Changing her to simply "NE goddess of gluttony and undeath" seems more appropriate.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Are the Domains in 2E a mess? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.