Let's Take A Look At Pathfinder 2's Deities & Domains!

There's a new Paizo blog up about the way deities and domains work in Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It shows how deities are described, with the example deity Shelyn, along with new domains and domain powers.

​

Favoured weapons, edicts, and anathemas don't have mechanical effects for most characters, but provide strong roleplaying touchpoints. However, for clerics, a deity has alignment restrictions, bonus skills and spells, and more.

As for domains, there are 23 new domains (some of which were subdomains in PF1). New domains include Indulgence, Dreams, and Wealth, and come with basic and advanced powers accessed though Spell Points.

Read the whole thing here.

 

[Yaarel]

As a rule, any references to religions belong in the DMs Guide as part of world building, away from the Players Handbook. It is the DM who informs players how the world works and what the religious options are.

 

[Parmandur]

As a rule, any references to religions belong in the DMs Guide as part of world building, away from the Players Handbook. It is the DM who informs players how the world works and what the religious options are.

Well, if setting agnostic is what the core assumption the designers are going for. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, if setting agnostic is what the core assumption the designers are going for. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

It is possible for a book to have setting-neutral core rules, while at the same time, being dedicated to a particular setting. Explain how the rules apply to the setting in sidebars. Any setting-specific flavor for the core rules can go in sidebars.

Avoid ruining the core rules for every other setting.

 

[CapnZapp]

It is the possibility of zero gods that tends to be difficult.

Swapping one flavor of polytheism for an other flavor of polytheism is no problem. But when trying to build a world where there is no polytheism − or where polytheism is only one of various kinds of religious traditions − the rules are often unnecessarily cumbersome with inappropriate descriptions.

The rules for the cleric − as a core class − needs to make it straightforward to plug into a variety of possible worlds.

No flavor of D&D has ever supported this.

 

[Yaarel]

There are official flavors of D&D where monotheism and animism and other kinds of religion are in addition to polytheism, forming a diversity of kinds of religion. There are also official flavors of D&D where there are zero gods.

The D&D Eberron setting comprises diverse kinds of religions, including monotheism and animism.

The D&D Dark Sun setting moreorless has zero theistic traditions. Here, clerics preserve a sacred tradition that reveres the elements as abstract cosmic forces (somewhat similar to Daoism and its sacred tradition of the five motions). Dark Sun has four dry elements. (Arguably the ether Gray and aster Black can be understood as aspects of the fifth element, appearing as quintessence and void, respectively.)

AD&D has, for example, the divine spellcaster druid as a subclass of the cleric that reveres nature with zero gods.

Regarding Gygax, his AD&D cleric text is terse and vague about specific religious traditions, but mentions monotheism and polytheism, and the illustration even depicts a monotheistic tradition.

Basic D&D keeps religion vague, mechanically with zero gods, but for flavor acknowledges the possibility of a diversity of kinds of religion. Basic D&D can have monotheistic, animistic, philosophical, or cosmic force clerics.

D&D 5e has the paladin as a ‘divine’ spellcasting class that is philosophical, mainly revering alignment and an ethical code, with zero gods.

D&D 5e belatedly recognizes the need for nonpolytheistic clerics, where Xanathars legally allows clerics of a philosophy or an abstract force.

D&D 3e cleric class itself has always made nonpolytheistic clerics a legal option for players to choose. Likewise, the 3e SRD cleric makes religious diversity legal within the gaming rules.

 

[Shasarak]

No flavor of D&D has ever supported this.

It does if you just pretend that you get your spells from something else rather then a God.

Actually considering the amount of time that Gods get talked about during my game it actually works quite seamlessly.

 

[mach1.9pants]

It is possible for a book to have setting-neutral core rules, while at the same time, being dedicated to a particular setting. Explain how the rules apply to the setting in sidebars. Any setting-specific flavor for the core rules can go in sidebars.

Avoid ruining the core rules for every other setting.

I think you'll be disappointed, Paizo really have no reason to try and make PF2 good for homebrew settings. PF1 took advantage of 3e/4e changeover but pathfinder is now is own thing. And Paizo makes their money on all the Golarion specific stuff they sell, APs, Companions, modules etc. For them to really focus on Golarion and leave homebrew to some sections in a future GMG makes a lot of sense.

Keep playing 3.x used to be their USP, but PF2 is as far from 3e as 5e is - Golarion fluff and well written APs and splats is their USP now.

 

[Ancalagon]

Regarding spell points.

All casters
• have permanent known spells,
• selected while leveling,
• and use spell points to cast them spontaneously.

However, to cast a spell that you dont know, you do it from a spellbook in a fully vancian way, investing spell points to prepare the spell ahead of time, in the context of a ritual while reading the spellbook. These prepared spells work the same way as fire-and-forget, but actually they are more like grenades, being a pre-cast spell that goes of with a trigger. To cast a prepared spell, is more like following the instructions of a recipe book or a how-to manual. The mage isnt actually memorizing anything.

By contrast, the known spells, being cast spontaneously, are never forgotten.

Interesting! I think I missed this part, where was this announced?

And where to cantrips fall in this scheme.

 

[Yaarel]

Interesting! I think I missed this part, where was this announced?

And where to cantrips fall in this scheme.

It is my suggestion. It is a way to synthesize modern and classical spellcasting, in a way that makes sense and looks fun.

 

[Imaculata]

Why do deities need to have predefined alignments for the players? In my homebrew setting, I assume all commonly accepted deities are considered good, and their followers can be of ANY alignment.

Why would you need to restrict alignments at all? That seems like going overboard on the details. How about instead you just flesh out the deities so they are not cardboard cutouts, and leave the alignments of those that follow those religions up to the creativity of the DM and the players?

Favored weapons are another one of those details that seem unnecessary to me. The post makes it sound like choosing a deity is identical to choosing weapons and spells for your cleric, when I feel it should just be a role playing decision.