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.


PlaytestLogo.png



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.
 
Russ Morrissey

Comments

zztong

Explorer
Reading some of these posts sound a lot to me like: "Ugh, why didn't they account for my specific homebrew when making their game!"

Like, seriously folks?
Or, perhaps "I'm in the market for rules that could be used as a toolkit to implement my homebrew game." Why isn't that perspective serious? I think everyone gets that Paizo has reasons for integrating their game with their world. But consumers make choices based on their needs.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
Or, perhaps "I'm in the market for rules that could be used as a toolkit to implement my homebrew game." Why isn't that perspective serious? I think everyone gets that Paizo has reasons for integrating their game with their world. But consumers make choices based on their needs.
Because the language isn't "I wish this were more open to non-Golarion settings." its "What about meeeeee?"

It doesn't matter. It just doesn't. Will the game sell better if they make such a radical change to it? That's the real question, and I'm going to go with no.
If every change, other than very minor incremental ones, is likely to reduce sales, then why make a new game?

Surely Paizo must know something we don't?
 

prosfilaes

Villager
If every change, other than very minor incremental ones, is likely to reduce sales, then why make a new game?
Removing Vancian spellcasting is not "every change"; it's a change that's been argued over for 30 years. "We're exploring new directions" is entirely different from "we're going to remove something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E."
 

zztong

Explorer
Because the language isn't "I wish this were more open to non-Golarion settings." its "What about meeeeee?"
I'll admit that emotional part of me internally is saying "What about meeeee? If you're going to make a new game, why not make one I want?"

And the reasoned part of me is saying "I'm happy somebody will be getting something they want, but what's the best direction for me to go? I'd appreciate ease of implementation of a homebrew setting, among other things."

If anything, the PF2e announcement has been good for other companies. I've recently purchased C&C, RuneQuest, and HackMaster in order to take a look.

But anyways, we all make purchases for selfish reasons (unless we're buying a gift) so "what about meeeee" just seems natural. Or maybe I'm just nuts.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
Removing Vancian spellcasting is not "every change"; it's a change that's been argued over for 30 years. "We're exploring new directions" is entirely different from "we're going to remove something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E."
Spell Points has been in the game for almost 2 decades now. The Psionic classes have used the system in place of vancian casting for about as long.

I'm suggesting they go with a spell system that is more fluid and serves the same purpose, spell-points.

What they've got right now is just a horrifying mish-mash of everything.
 
Last edited:

prosfilaes

Villager
Spell Points has been in the game for almost 2 decades now. The Psionic classes have used the system in place of vancian casting for about as long.
Yet saying that Vancian casting is "something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our {Pathfinder's} audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E" is still true. The fact that it's been in the game for two decades is a bad sign; if it was to going to win, it should have won by now. Players could use Player's Options rules (2E) or play a sorcerer (3.x/PF) or a warlock (3.5) or favored soul (3.5) or an oracle (PF) if they didn't like Vancian casting. Yet players played and play clerics, wizards and druids.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Spell Points has been in the game for almost 2 decades now. The Psionic classes have used the system in place of vancian casting for about as long.

I'm suggesting they go with a spell system that is more fluid and serves the same purpose, spell-points.

What they've got right now is just a horrifying mish-mash of everything.
Actually, spell points gave been around since the 70's, Arneson preferred them to Gygax's system IIRC. But, Vancian has proven more popular over time on form or another, at least when computers aren't involved.
 

prosfilaes

Villager
If you want to limit how many "big spells" a person can cast per day, put the limit on the spell, don't bake the limit into the system.
That is baking it into the system. That's an ad-hoc method of having separate pools of spell points, at which point the best direction is the sorcerer, which is not really a spell point system. If you have good general-purpose high-level spells, characters will use up all their points on their biggest spells and then wait for the recharge point. (If you don't have good general-purpose high-level spells, you're making the game much harder to play.) In the current Vancian system, you can use magic missile without it reducing the number of times you can use fireball, or after you've run out of fireball.

I'd say nova-ing is one of the biggest complaints about Pathfinder, so switching a Vancian system for a system that encourages nova-ing is not a good idea.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Actually, spell points gave been around since the 70's, Arneson preferred them to Gygax's system IIRC. But, Vancian has proven more popular over time on form or another, at least when computers aren't involved.
Has it really though? I feel like this is kind of a New Coke situation, where even though the majority did actually prefer New Coke in focus testing, those who preferred Coke were much more passionate about it, and were able to sway people who hadn’t tried it or who’s preference wasn’t strong by appealing to tradition.

Like, you’d think if Vancian was more popular overall, you’d see it outside of D&D more. It’s not more popular, it’s just that it has become part of D&D’s identity, at least in the minds of some very dedicated fans, and that dedication holds more influence than a larger number of people with a weaker preference.
 

prosfilaes

Villager
feel like this is kind of a New Coke situation, where even though the majority did actually prefer New Coke in focus testing,
One of the arguments is that New Coke being preferred in focus testing does not equal New Coke being preferred in real life, that the tests did not match the experience of drinking a whole bottle, and possibly more importantly, just because abstractly New Coke was better at being Brand X than Coke was, it didn't mean that it was better at being Coke than Coke was.

Like, you’d think if Vancian was more popular overall, you’d see it outside of D&D more. It’s not more popular,
Among whom? In what ways? What matters is among Pathfinder players for their D&D variant. I'd say that D&D, with its level structure and (at least in later forms) rapid leveling, provides an obvious place for a leveled structure of spells which fairly obviously leads to either Vancian/wizard handling or sorcerer-style handling, not pure spell-points. (Whereas spell-points comes quite naturally to GURPS.) Beyond that, feelings and identity matter; what I want when playing Pathfinder is not necessarily how I would design an optimal fantasy RPG, but how I would design my D&D.

Also, if something is a feature of the most popular systems on the market, the fact that other, less popular, systems vary from it may say more about the need to distinguish themselves from the market leader than what is preferred.

I like my Moxie and I like my Coke, and I do not need Moxie to taste more like Coke or Coke to taste more like Moxie.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
One of the arguments is that New Coke being preferred in focus testing does not equal New Coke being preferred in real life, that the tests did not match the experience of drinking a whole bottle, and possibly more importantly, just because abstractly New Coke was better at being Brand X than Coke was, it didn't mean that it was better at being Coke than Coke was.

Among whom? In what ways? What matters is among Pathfinder players for their D&D variant. I'd say that D&D, with its level structure and (at least in later forms) rapid leveling, provides an obvious place for a leveled structure of spells which fairly obviously leads to either Vancian/wizard handling or sorcerer-style handling, not pure spell-points. (Whereas spell-points comes quite naturally to GURPS.) Beyond that, feelings and identity matter; what I want when playing Pathfinder is not necessarily how I would design an optimal fantasy RPG, but how I would design my D&D.

Also, if something is a feature of the most popular systems on the market, the fact that other, less popular, systems vary from it may say more about the need to distinguish themselves from the market leader than what is preferred.

I like my Moxie and I like my Coke, and I do not need Moxie to taste more like Coke or Coke to taste more like Moxie.
I don’t think I made myself clear enough, because you seem to be arguing in agreement with my point here, which was that demand is more complex than popularity alone. There are other factors that go into why Vancian might be the preferred casting system for D&D or Pathfinder than it simply being “more popular” than other casting systems. Brand identity being one of them.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Yet saying that Vancian casting is "something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our {Pathfinder's} audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E" is still true. The fact that it's been in the game for two decades is a bad sign; if it was to going to win, it should have won by now. Players could use Player's Options rules (2E) or play a sorcerer (3.x/PF) or a warlock (3.5) or favored soul (3.5) or an oracle (PF) if they didn't like Vancian casting. Yet players played and play clerics, wizards and druids.
Of course it's also true that a chunk of their audience moved to 5E, which also rid itself of Vancian casting in favor of a Pseudo-Vancian casting system. So I would say that there is a lot of options out there apart from "Vancian casting or go home" that satisfies the classic D&D feel for its playerbase.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Personal opinion alert:

I certainly hope PF2 abandons "pure" or "true" Vancian. Already in 3E I always played a Sorcerer, never a Wizard, because of this reason alone.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Has it really though? I feel like this is kind of a New Coke situation, where even though the majority did actually prefer New Coke in focus testing, those who preferred Coke were much more passionate about it, and were able to sway people who hadn’t tried it or who’s preference wasn’t strong by appealing to tradition.

Like, you’d think if Vancian was more popular overall, you’d see it outside of D&D more. It’s not more popular, it’s just that it has become part of D&D’s identity, at least in the minds of some very dedicated fans, and that dedication holds more influence than a larger number of people with a weaker preference.
Well, the overwhelming majority of RPGs in play (both of them, D&D and PF, utterly dominate the market share of actual play), and WotC actually tested out a number of variants to settle on the pseudo-Vancian free slot system as what is preferred. In your analogy, Pseudo-Vancian would be the New Coke, except it was embraced I'm the market.
 

prosfilaes

Villager
Of course it's also true that a chunk of their audience moved to 5E, which also rid itself of Vancian casting in favor of a Pseudo-Vancian casting system. So I would say that there is a lot of options out there apart from "Vancian casting or go home" that satisfies the classic D&D feel for its playerbase.
Certainly there's a bunch of minor modifications that could be done to it. Spell points, I don't think, are among the options that would satisfy its player base. From Pathfinder 2E's perspective, D&D 5E's wizard solution has the problem that everyone will say that they're just copying 5E. (Only half sarcastic on that.) I actually see it as a better solution for D&D 5E than for Pathfinder 2E; Pathfinder is hitting for an audience with less desire for such simplification than 5E.

I certainly hope PF2 abandons "pure" or "true" Vancian. Already in 3E I always played a Sorcerer, never a Wizard, because of this reason alone.
Those two sentences don't connect for me. In 3E the wizard being Vancian was never a problem for you, and Pathfinder 2E is still going to offer sorcerers; why should you want them to drop an option that never caused you a problem? I don't play rangers or rogues, because the archetypes hold little interest for me; I don't proclaim they should be removed from the game.
 

houser2112

Explorer
Those two sentences don't connect for me. In 3E the wizard being Vancian was never a problem for you, and Pathfinder 2E is still going to offer sorcerers; why should you want them to drop an option that never caused you a problem? I don't play rangers or rogues, because the archetypes hold little interest for me; I don't proclaim they should be removed from the game.
I'm not CapnZapp, but for me, the wizard being Vancian WAS a problem. I regard paleovancian casting to be a wart on the system and wish it to be summarily excised. I like my arcanists bookish smart. I didn't like having to pump what I otherwise consider a dump stat to be a good caster, but I did because I hate paleovancian that much.
 

mellored

Explorer
Personal opinion alert:

I certainly hope PF2 abandons "pure" or "true" Vancian. Already in 3E I always played a Sorcerer, never a Wizard, because of this reason alone.
I wouldn't mind "true" vancian if the number of prepared spells was drastically cut, compensated by allowing much faster spell preparing.

i.e.
You can have a number of prepared spell levels equal to your wizard level. So a level 5 wizard, could prepare 5 level 1 spells, a level 2 and a level 3 spell, or a single level 5 spell.
You can take 1 minute (30 seconds with a feat) per spell level to prepare any spell in your book. As an action, you can forget a prepared spell without casting it.
(Probably rebalance the spell list).


That still gives you the "I planned well" feeling, without having to have track and select 40 individual resources.
 

prosfilaes

Villager
I like my arcanists bookish smart. I didn't like having to pump what I otherwise consider a dump stat to be a good caster, but I did because I hate paleovancian that much.
In Pathfinder, you can take the Sage wildblooded bloodline, and you could stack that with Crossblooded. Or in any system, simply ask the GM for an exception. I can't say "Charisma should be a dump stat!" is a terribly convincing argument, though.
 

houser2112

Explorer
houser2112 said:
I like my arcanists bookish smart. I didn't like having to pump what I otherwise consider a dump stat to be a good caster, but I did because I hate paleovancian that much.
In Pathfinder, you can take the Sage wildblooded bloodline, and you could stack that with Crossblooded. Or in any system, simply ask the GM for an exception. I can't say "Charisma should be a dump stat!" is a terribly convincing argument, though.
If I'm ever lucky enough to play Pathfinder again, I'll certainly consider that combo if I can't play a DSP Psion.

If you don't care to be a "face" (specializing in skills such as Diplomacy and Bluff), and I never do, Charisma is a dump stat (primary ability notwithstanding). Every other ability has class-agnostic applications (for me) beyond its role as a primary ability, and gives me a reason not to dump it. Dex/Con/Wis are save abilities, Str gives carrying capacity, and Int gives skill points. I saw having to pump Charisma (in addition to the idiotic delayed spell progression) as a "cost" of throwing off the shackles of paleovancian casting.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top