Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Mapping the Pathfinder Deities to Role Features

Maxen
Bob and Team:

Do you plan to add any more Role Features for Clerics? If not, can you please map the remainder of the Pathfinder deities to the existing features so we know where we should be allocating XP? Thanks.

Maxen
Azure_Zero
We could use more Pathfinder deities since the current planned 9 force certain domains to alignment corners that might not ever get played.

Example, I'd want Kurgress in the game so the Strength domain would be open to the Heavy Weapon clerics, not just the Chaotic Evil corner and Pure Chaotic side of alignments.
Gross
Angradd for us fire cleric Dwarves!

Even if I am the only one…..
Mercenary monster hunter from Forgeholm
War priest of Angradd… patiently waiting on Goblinworks to deliver him (and greataxes, Dwarves need 2 handed axes).
Bob
Maxen
Do you plan to add any more Role Features for Clerics?

There's no immediate plan for adding more Cleric Feature Feats (Domains), but from a quick scan of the design docs, it's clear that Stephen originally intended to have more domains. We could certainly add more in, but there are some design/balancing decisions that would need to be made for each one added.

Maxen
If not, can you please map the remainder of the Pathfinder deities to the existing features so we know where we should be allocating XP?

This is a bit trickier, since it requires committing to a lot of those design/balancing decisions well in advance of implementation. Based on the design doc, it looks like the intention was to make sure each deity supported exactly 2 domains, chosen from the larger list of domains each deity supports in the tabletop version. Currently, that maps remarkably well to our current list of deities, in that all but Sarenrae happen to traditionally support exactly 2 of the domains that are currently represented by feature feats. In Sarenrae's case, of the domains we currently have feature feats for, she traditionally supports Fire, Glory and Sun, but we only have her support Fire and Sun.

So, if we commit to just having the current list of domains, then I could run through the exercise for the remaining deities (more likely a subset like core deities plus River Kingdom deities) and commit to 2 domains per deity from those domains. However, if we think we're going to add other domains, then it's a more complicated exercise. I'd probably have to commit to certain domains at the same time, probably chosen based on how well they map to that list of deities. That would likely open up some interesting questions, like whether or not some of those new domains are better matches for some of the existing deities. For example, if the Law domain were added, that could be a better match for Abadar than his current Protection and Travel domains. That in turn would open up the question of whether or not it would be better to just let deities support more than 2 domains so they can more easily map to their traditional domains. If so, then I could just say that for any deity, you'll be fine as long as you train up a domain that deity traditionally supports.

So let me throw this back to all of you for feedback: Which seems more important, balancing the deities such that they each support the same number of domains (which incidentally currently results in each domain being supported by from 1-3 deities, which is its own kind of imbalance), or letting deities support all of their traditional domains?


Bob
Azure_Zero
We could use more Pathfinder deities since the current planned 9 force certain domains to alignment corners that might not ever get played.

Example, I'd want Kurgress in the game so the Strength domain would be open to the Heavy Weapon clerics, not just the Chaotic Evil corner and Pure Chaotic side of alignments.

We've definitely always intended to add more deities to the game, we just wanted to start off with a smaller list and get those working properly first. The current 9 were chosen as the best balance that covered all of the alignments, mapped well to the current domains, and supported weapons that seemed likely to make it into the game relatively soon. Others could potentially be added relatively soon, but there's a multitude of design decisions and compromises that need to be made for each one.
Edam
It is worth noting that there are weapons in the game (Avengers Longbow for example) with no matching deity or feats. That could of course be rectified without a new deity by creating non-deity-specific sanctified bow feats.

There is also no traditional dwarven deity amongst the original nine.

As far as giving extra domains to existing deities, in some cases (such as Glory and Sarenrae) that will not even involve creating a new domain. Opening up these extra options for deities that have a third domain already in game seems a relatively simple change that adds a bit more flexibility to cleric builds.

One issue to consider if creating a large number of new domains is it is already a little too easy to pump WIS by taking the first three levels of every domain.
Bringslite
Off topic but…

While I realize that a great deal of work went into the ability advancement system, it was (since the beginning) and has been one of the least favorite requirements for general in game advancement. At least in the sense of how it works.

IMO, weaving in ways to mitigate the system significantly would be a turn for the best.

Edit: I mean look at Edam's example. Players do things like take ranks of Domains they will never really need or skills far outside their ideal builds to get around the restrictions of low ability scores. Something seems wrong with the system in those examples.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Edam
Bringslite
Off topic but…

While I realize that a great deal of work went into the ability advancement system, it was (since the beginning) and has been one of the least favorite requirements for general in game advancement. At least in the sense of how it works.

IMO, weaving in ways to mitigate the system significantly would be a turn for the best.

No thread in this forum ever stays on topic for more than three posts. Its called the Rule of Bob or something.

Overall I like the ability restrictions. It requires you put some thought in to your builds and cannot just login once a month and power build with your accumulated XP. With crafters you get a meaningful choice of whether to train "same ability" crafts or "same feature/armor-feat " crafts. With combat characters it limits the more interesting cross-abilty feats like fire-whirl and star-slinger and makes them difficult to train for - which is as it should be.

The main complaints seem to be from people that want to do whatever they want whenever they want.

That said, there are current issues especially with some abilities forcing a little too much cross training in very narrow areas. That is probably an artifact of the incompleteness of our current feat choice.

If I recall correctly the whole ability thing was a crowd-forged addin. People missed the old school ability system and complained and wanted something more like Gygax D&D so abilities (and roles) got shoehorned in later and have never quite worked.

If for some reason we do wnat to move more towards a dumbed down "train whatever you want" game more suited to casual play I would say, rather than mitigate ability so anyone can train anything, just consider removing abilities and roles from the game completely smile
Bob
We've generally known that as we add more and more feats, there will be more and more opportunities for learning early ranks of those feats to raise ability scores cheaply. The main trade-off in the design is that you can't slot all those feats at once, but sometimes it will still be worth learning the feat. For the most part, as long as you're willing to make that trade-off, we're fine with learning multiple feats you don't really put to use.

That said, the domain feats in particular may eventually require at least some connection to the deities associated with them before learning even their lower ranks, so you might have to jump through more hoops to learn very many of them in the future.
Edam
Bringslite
Edit: I mean look at Edam's example. Players do things like take ranks of Domains they will never really need or skills far outside their ideal builds to get around the restrictions of low ability scores. Something seems wrong with the system in those examples.

To be fair it is sort of realistic. People take up swimming and jogging to improve their overall performance at football for example.

I think the biggest issues with abilities is we are in a limited feat choice scenario. Entire roles that use personalty such as druid, bard and paladin are missing for example.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post