http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pr/20090605
In the Divine Power preview, it talks about domains, which are linked to certain gods, and that worshiping a god opens up the feats connected to the domain. However, it only says that domains for the PHB and DMG gods will be listed.
In addition, while I haven't seen anything, I'd be very surprised if there weren't deity specific paragon paths and epic destinies too.
Does anyone know how this is likely to work in LFR? Is there going to be in the CCG a 'divine power god = forgotten realms god' table, or similar lists of how to meet the prerequisites for these abilities? Will divine power include notes for transferring use of the powers to different settings?
Or is a significant proportion of the book going to be unusable in LFR?
For example: Erathis is associated with Gond. Erathis' portfolio (domain wise) as listed in that preview includes civilization, creation, and justice. Gond fits one of those (creation). Civilization and Justice fits Torm in the FR.
They'll really need to make a list of deities and what domains they cover for it to be effective.
The problem is you can't really gowith the Core Deity = FR Deity translation because while they may be similar, they dont' neccessarily cover the same portfolios.
For example: Erathis is associated with Gond. Erathis' portfolio (domain wise) as listed in that preview includes civilization, creation, and justice. Gond fits one of those (creation). Civilization and Justice fits Torm in the FR.
They'll really need to make a list of deities and what domains they cover for it to be effective.
Oh I agree, that is why I would love to see it in Dragon or Dungeon, but I think that is all we are likely to get unless people really complain.
/crosses fingers
For example, we recently did some work on deity domains and portfolios for an upcoming core sourcebook; there's a lengthy sidebar in that section that provides the corresponding info for the Realms pantheon.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17044153&postcount=287
Looks like we already have our answer.
Just stumbled across this quote from Rich Baker in another thread ...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17044153&postcount=287
Looks like we already have our answer.
Good find. Glad to see they are on the ball for this one. I say that sincerely as my main is a cleric...
Good find. Glad to see they are on the ball for this one. I say that sincerely as my main is a cleric...
Happy with this part from AVII as well:
Chapter 1: Magic Items: This chapter focuses on superior implements, a new type of masterwork item to give implement users more options, and magic items, the favorite equipment of PCs. New items include ammunition, wondrous tattoos and lairs, and consumable immurements.
This part caused me to immediately think DiabloII: :D
Chapter 2: Magic Item Sets: Expanding on the idea of story items, this chapter focuses on thematically linked item sets that a PC, or a group of PCs, can acquire, which give added benefits for each item in the set that are together.
Oh noes! 4e now equals WoW and Diablo!
We are all doooomed.
Oh noes! 4e now equals WoW and Diablo!
This was happening back in 3.5 as well with the Magic Item Compendium (MIC). I think it's a fun concept, as long as the sets aren't terribly overpowered (which they traditionally haven't been).
We are all doooomed.
Wait, what, we have Doom being mixed in there too?
-np
So rejoice! Your Kelemvorite can officially take the Raven Queen PP.
Wait, what, we have Doom being mixed in there too?
-np
Poor handling of vertical element? Check.
Yep, we've got Doom in the mix.
CCG 1.9 has a rule that the realms deity equivalent serves as a proxy for meeting all prerequisites.
So rejoice! Your Kelemvorite can officially take the Raven Queen PP.
What will be perfect is if the Raven Queen PP turns you into an undead.
What will be perfect is if the Raven Queen PP turns you into an undead.
Then they can all run around full of self loathing... like Edward. Where's Buffy when you need her?
Where's Buffy when you need her?
She's busy shacking up with a vampire ;)
She's busy shacking up with a vampire ;)
At least he isn't SPARKLY!!!!
Just stumbled across this quote from Rich Baker in another thread ...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17044153&postcount=287
Looks like we already have our answer.
Sadly, no such sidebar appears in Divine Power. I'm a bit bummed, since my cleric worships Torm. But, hey, if it's been written I expect it'll show up somewhere eventually. And the Domain rules are not so awesome that I feel like I'm really suffering.
I'm of a different opinion to Thanlis, I guess--I love the Sun Domain stuff and my Invoker of Amaunator will be taking full advantage of page 8 of CCG 1.9 until somebody tells me he can't! :D
Sadly, no such sidebar appears in Divine Power. I'm a bit bummed, since my cleric worships Torm. But, hey, if it's been written I expect it'll show up somewhere eventually. And the Domain rules are not so awesome that I feel like I'm really suffering.
Care to post the domains? Maybe we can, as a group, hash out what Gods should have what domains.
Care to post the domains? Maybe we can, as a group, hash out what Gods should have what domains.
I'm gonna err on the side of caution and not post 'em, since pre-release blah blah blah. But you'd probably be right if you guessed. Nothing weird here.
I will discuss this with Chris, since it does seem a bit odd. Furthermore, the deities in the FR are assigned one sphere of influence in the FRCG, while having only one domain seems a bit odd, but so does more then two or three ;) If the sidebar was cut, we might be able to add it to the CG and post it here.
Did a little searching... got the list. Add to that the fact that some sphere's don't correspond to a domain. For example, Ilmater. His Sphere is suffering which doesn't directly correlate to a domain. Strength would fit (strength in the face of adversity), so would protection (protecting those who are suffering), and possibly Hope.
Although we can fall back on his old 3e domains (Good, Healing, Law, Strength, Suffering). Only strength correlates to a new domain. Law could be swapped for Justice. (though i was never sure why he had law in the first place)
For example, Ilmater. His Sphere is suffering which doesn't directly correlate to a domain. Strength would fit (strength in the face of adversity), so would protection (protecting those who are suffering), and possibly Hope.
Well, under the Torment domain it describes how a good god could possibly fit in. It sounds like they were looking at a description of Ilmater when they wrote it. "Mortals might ask such a divine martyr for the ability to endure the pains they face or to take on their troubles."
Law could be swapped for Justice. (though i was never sure why he had law in the first place)
'Cause he was Lawful Good -- for the most part, deities in 3E/3.5E had the domains associated with their alignments in addition to domains associated with their spheres of influence. So Bane has both Law and Evil, Malar has both Chaos and Evil, and Silvanus, as a Neutral deity, has no alignment domains.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
--
Pauper
So, for example, Torm is a greater god, so he could have Civilization, Justice, and Protection. Ilmater is an god, so he could have Torment and... soemthing. Hope? Protection/ Strength? And then an Exarch like Shevarash would have 1, War. And so on.
Good point, Pauper. Another questionwould be: Howmany domains? 3 for greater gods, 2 for gods, and 1 for exarchs?
Haven't seen Divine Power yet, so not sure how they're doing it for 4.0.
For 3.5, greater gods tended to have six domains, lessers four, demigods three. (There are exceptions for flavor, particularly in FR.) Since clerics would select two of their deity's domains for their own, you'd need at least three to make that a meaningful decision.
Three, two, and one would certainly seem a reasonable 4.0 alternative, presuming you only get to 'pick' one domain from which to derive powers. You could also go four, three, and two, if you wanted even an exarch-worshipping divine character to have options, rather than simply making it an option of which exarch to worship.
--
Pauper
Virtue's Touch Paladin Feature Your gentle touch removes affliction. Daily (Special) Divine
Minor Action Melee touch
Target: One creature
Effect: You remove one condition from the target: blinded, dazed, deafened, slowed, stunned, or weakened.
Special: You can use this power a number of times per day equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1), but only once per round.
Once Paladins have both Virtue's Touch and Snap Out of It at a table the result a is brutal combo. Because by spending the card and using two minor actions he can free himself from the daze, grant a save to one player via Divine Mettle, and remove a condition from the another with Virtue's Touch.
Haven't seen Divine Power yet, so not sure how they're doing it for 4.0.
For 3.5, greater gods tended to have six domains, lessers four, demigods three. (There are exceptions for flavor, particularly in FR.) Since clerics would select two of their deity's domains for their own, you'd need at least three to make that a meaningful decision.
Three, two, and one would certainly seem a reasonable 4.0 alternative, presuming you only get to 'pick' one domain from which to derive powers. You could also go four, three, and two, if you wanted even an exarch-worshipping divine character to have options, rather than simply making it an option of which exarch to worship.
I haven't seen it yet, but I have seen info on it from the web. It doesn't seem to follow any set pattern. although the only two Gods I know are Lolth and Sehanine. Of course Sehanine is no longer an FR god, and I don't remember if she was a greater or lesser deity in 3e. ( I think she was a lesser deity.)
In 4.0 Main setting, Lolth has 2 domains (Darkness & Trickery) and Sehanine has 3 (Love, Moon & Trickery). So it seems to be based more on "what fits."
I haven't seen it yet, but I have seen info on it from the web. It doesn't seem to follow any set pattern. although the only two Gods I know are Lolth and Sehanine. Of course Sehanine is no longer an FR god, and I don't remember if she was a greater or lesser deity in 3e. ( I think she was a lesser deity.)
In 4.0 Main setting, Lolth has 2 domains (Darkness & Trickery) and Sehanine has 3 (Love, Moon & Trickery). So it seems to be based more on "what fits."
I just got my copy earlier today. All 11 of the listed Good/Lawful Good/Unaligned deities received 3 Domains each.
All 9 of the listed Evil/Chaotic Evil deities received only 2 Domains each.
I will discuss this with Chris, since it does seem a bit odd. Furthermore, the deities in the FR are assigned one sphere of influence in the FRCG, while having only one domain seems a bit odd, but so does more then two or three ;) If the sidebar was cut, we might be able to add it to the CG and post it here.
That sidebar was indeed cut, and replaced with a small generic sidebar that basically tells you to use common sense to assign Domains to your own pantheon if you don’t use the default one.
An official list of domains for the LFR gods who are not represented in the CCG conversion chart would be highly appreciated.
Or are they gonna release a dragon magazine article with a deity-domain list?
On this related topic:
Is there any chance we're ever going to get 4e publications with more information on realms deities than the minuscule amount of information in the FRCS/FRPG? It would be great if Dragon released more info on that stuff, especially since there seem to be no plans to release more FR books. Mostly my agitation is rooted in that a lot of the deity-related and religious aspects of FR have changed, and yet we're not really aware of a lot of those changes.
Bold = Greater God
Regular = God
Italics = Exarch
1. Corellon - Arcane Skill, Wilderness (in the DP book)
a. Deep Sashelas - Sea
b. Erevan Ilesere - Trickery
c. Fenmarel Mestarine - Strength
d. Labelas Enoreth - Life
e. Shevarash - War
f. Solonor Theladria -Wilderness
2. Angharradh - Knowledge, Protection
3. Garl Glittergold - Luck, Protection, Trickery
a. Baervan Wildwanderer - Wilderness
b. Baravar Cloakshadow - Trickery
c. Callarduran Smoothhands - Earth
4. Torm - Civilization, Justice, Protection
5. Ilmater - Freedom (or Torment), Strength
6. Bahamut - Luck, Protection
7. Silvanus - Creation, Earth, Wilderness
9. Mielikki - Protection, Wilderness
a. Shialla - Life
10. Moradin - Creation, Earth, Protection (in the DP book)
a. Clangeddin Silverbeard - War
b. Dugmaren Brightmantle - Knowledge
c. Marthammor Duin - Freedom
d. Thard Harr - Wilderness
e. Vergadain - Trickery/Skill
11. Berronar Truesilver - Civilization, Protection
12. Amaunator - Civilization, Justice, Sun
a. Siamorphe - Knowledge
13. Waukeen - Civilization, Skill
14. Kelemvor - Death, Fate, Justice
a. Jergal - Fate
15. Selune - Creation, Moon, Protection
16. Sune - Freedom, Love, Protection
a. Lliira - Hope
b. Sharess - Trickery
17. Tymora - Luck, Skill
18. Chauntea - Creation, Earth, Life
19. Sheela Peryroyl - Earth, Love
a. Arvoreen - Protection
b. Brandobaris - Darkness
c. Cyrrollalee - Hope
20. Oghma - Arcana, Creation, Knowledge
a. Milil - Skill
21. Gond - Creation, Knowledge
22. Tempus - Justice, Strength, War
a. Red Knight - Skill
c. Uthgar - Strength
d. Valkur - Sea
Akadi - Freedom, Trickery
Grumbar - Earth
Kossuth - Change, Destruction
Istishia - Sea, Storm
Discuss!
Here are my thoughts on Domains for the Deities.
Discuss!
I like it! Hopefully they will have some way to map the Dieties to the Domains figured out in the Character Builder's update. I know the LFR data set isn't fully accurate, but it would really be nice to see at least this bit make it in, and correct.
I'll be able to retrain the never used Divine Strength for the more powerful Virtue's Touch class feature.
Virtue's Touch replaces Lay on Hands, not Divine Strength.
Do we need official restrictions on which domains people can take for their characters? Shouldn't which god your character worships be more of a role-playing choice than a power-gaming choice?
That's a good sentiment, but it's at least 2 editions out of date. :P
Do we need official restrictions on which domains people can take for their characters? Shouldn't which god your character worships be more of a role-playing choice than a power-gaming choice?
Not sure what you mean. You mean re: Domains? First off, Domains are tied to a God's portfolio. If you want to talk roleplaying, it makes no sense RP-wise for a worshiper of Amaunator to have the Poison domain. Secondly, if your concern is choice of God based on which domain they offer... they failed that with the deity specific Channel Divinity feats.
... they failed that with the deity specific Channel Divinity feats.
They failed that with Specialty Priests in 2E, and carried it through 3.x and into 4.
Not sure what you mean. You mean re: Domains? First off, Domains are tied to a God's portfolio. If you want to talk roleplaying, it makes no sense RP-wise for a worshiper of Amaunator to have the Poison domain. Secondly, if your concern is choice of God based on which domain they offer... they failed that with the deity specific Channel Divinity feats.
Granted, some combos are ludicrous. Hopefully there would be some self-policing in that regard. But, as you've said, the Channel Divinity feats already really favor certain gods over others. How many people have you played with who play Tempus worshipping characters because Tempus has the best Channel Divinity? Is it better to compound that even more?
Suffice to say, self-regulation is my preferred position, if for no other reason than to avoid that very slippery slope of over-documentation.
I'm trying to remember how many hundreds of pages the Living Greyhawk Deities document was but can't recall off-hand.
210 pages, 194 of which were devoted to 1 deity per page. It really could have been much more concise in the formatting, but I'm sure it was done that way to allow someone to just print out the deity relevant to their character...
Granted, some combos are ludicrous. Hopefully there would be some self-policing in that regard. But, as you've said, the Channel Divinity feats already really favor certain gods over others. How many people have you played with who play Tempus worshipping characters because Tempus has the best Channel Divinity? Is it better to compound that even more?
I have seen quite a few Tempurans. The Glitterbrights have a nice one too.
I don't see being compounded too badly. After all, normally you can only use 1 Channel Divinity power per encounter. Yeah, there's some items that allow another use, but even so the player is left having to choose which one to use. They can't use all of them or spam them over and over.
Ultimately though, it may be interesting to see what happens when the CB is updated. Whether or not the FR gods will have their domains built in or not. People will buy DP and will want to use the domains. For that reason alone, they'll need to know what domains go with what god.
They failed that with Specialty Priests in 2E, and carried it through 3.x and into 4.
Since the release of 4e I have blissfully forgotten everything prior as a bad memory.
Granted, some combos are ludicrous. Hopefully there would be some self-policing in that regard. But, as you've said, the Channel Divinity feats already really favor certain gods over others. How many people have you played with who play Tempus worshipping characters because Tempus has the best Channel Divinity? Is it better to compound that even more?
If you want to see a larger diversity of PC deity choices, you should realize that not listing domains for half of them isn't going to help that. By actually spreading information on the deities (and options presented for followers of them), you'll see a more interesting diversity out there.
Code of my edits:
+ designates I think this domain should be added
? designates I’m not sure why that domain was listed or disagree with that choice or offer a suggestion that I’m shaky on.
Reasons listed in parentheses…(3) means it was listed in 3rd ed as a domain for that deity.
1. Corellon - Arcane Skill, Wilderness (in the DP book)
a. Deep Sashelas – Sea +Knowledge(3), +Creation(3)
b. Erevan Ilesere – Trickery, +Skill (he’s a rogue deity), +Luck(3)
c. Fenmarel Mestarine – Strength?, +Wilderness (he’s a nature deity), +Life (goes with the whole verdant plant thing),
d. Labelas Enoreth – Life?, +Knoweldge(3), +Fate (sort of…he’s all about choices at junctures in time, this seems to be the closest related domain)
e. Shevarash – War, +Vengeance (he is the elven god of vengeance), maybe also Skill or Wilderness
f. Solonor Theladria –Wilderness, +Skill (ranger god), +War(3)
2. Angharradh - Knowledge, Protection, +Life(god of fertility, plants, and renewal)
3. Garl Glittergold - Luck, Protection, Trickery
a. Baervan Wildwanderer – Wilderness, +Life (for association w/ plants and animals)
b. Baravar Cloakshadow – Trickery, Protection(3), +Skill (for assoc. w/ rogues?)
c. Callarduran Smoothhands – Earth, +trickery (for association w/ stealth and illusion?)
4. Torm - Civilization, Justice, Protection
5. Ilmater - Freedom (or Torment), Strength, +Life (for association w/ healing?)
6. Bahamut - Luck, Protection, +Justice (listed as the current god of Justice.)
7. Silvanus - Creation, Earth, Wilderness
9. Mielikki - Protection, Wilderness, +Sun(3)
a. Shialla – Life, +Love?, +Hope?
10. Moradin - Creation, Earth, Protection (in the DP book)
a. Clangeddin Silverbeard – War, +Strength(3), +Justice
b. Dugmaren Brightmantle – Knowledge, +Creation (for assoc. w/ magical crafting)
c. Marthammor Duin – Freedom, +Protection(3), +Skill?
d. Thard Harr – Wilderness, +Minidwarf (You know you want the minidwarf domain.)
e. Vergadain - Trickery/Skill, +Luck(3)
11. Berronar Truesilver - Civilization, Protection, +Life (for assoc with motherhood/fertility, healing)
12. Amaunator - Civilization, Justice, Sun
a. Siamorphe – Knowledge, +Civilization (god of nobility), +Justice (divine right to rule, gov’t)
13. Waukeen - Civilization, Skill, +Protection(3)
14. Kelemvor - Death, Fate, Justice
a. Jergal – Fate, +Death (also associated w/ death/necromancy), +undeath (for association w/ necromancy), debatably even Strife(though that’s less his thing nowadays)
15. Selune - Creation, Moon, Protection
16. Sune - Freedom, Love, Protection
a. Lliira – Hope, +Love(for connection to Joy etc), +Skill ( for association with Trade, Performance?)
b. Sharess – Trickery, +Love(hedonistic aspects/prostitution)
17. Tymora - Luck, Skill, +Protection(3)
18. Chauntea - Creation, Earth, Life
19. Sheela Peryroyl - Earth, Love, +Wilderness or Civilization? (For assoc w/ farming)
a. Arvoreen – Protection, +War(3), +Civilization?
b. Brandobaris – Darkness, +Trickery(3), +Luck(3)
c. Cyrrollalee – Hope, +creation(for assoc. w/ crafts)
20. Oghma - Arcana, Creation, Knowledge
a. Milil – Skill, +Civilization (poetry/stories/theater/education), +Knowledge(3)
21. Gond - Creation, Knowledge, +Earth(3)
22. Tempus – Justice?, Strength, War, +Protection(3)
a. Red Knight – Skill, +War (goddess of tactics, intelligent warfare), +Knowledge (for assoc with educated tacticians, etc)
c. Uthgar – Strength, +War(3), +vengeance ?(for assoc. w/ retribution)
d. Valkur – Sea, +Protection(3), Storm (for assoc. w/ weather, holy symbol)
Akadi - Freedom, Trickery, +Storm (Air)
Grumbar - Earth
Kossuth - Change, Destruction, +Torment? (For assoc. w/ suffering)?
Istishia - Sea, Storm, +Destruction(3)
Okay so I went through your list and cross referenced old listed domains. I tried to mostly shoot for the 3 domains per deity.
Yeah, i went with the 3, 2, 1 scheme. It just seems to me that an Exarch shouldn't command as many domains as a greater deity.
So it sort of illustrates their power level.c. Fenmarel Mestarine – Strength?
The choice was based on two things: 1) an attempt to switch up which domains were used by which exarch, and 2) this line: "Those most likely to worship Fenmarel Mestarine are pariahs and tribes of wild elves struggling to survive in a world hostile to their kind. The clergy of Fenmarel Mestarine offer training in techniques considered underhanded by some, including poisoning, guerilla warfare, and deception." So strength seemed to fit (since there wasn't a survival domain). Although technically, I guess poison could work well too.
d. Labelas Enoreth – Life?
Not sure why I chose this one to be honest. As a God of time it actually would be fitting to be Change. Knowledge would work too.
e. Shevarash – War, +Vengeance (he is the elven god of vengeance), maybe also Skill or Wilderness
Actually, i agree with you that, if 1 domain, Vengeance would be better than War.
6. Bahamut - Luck, Protection, +Justice (listed as the current god of Justice.)
Oo... good catch. Missed that. Yes, shoudl have Justice. So perhaps Justice, Protection?
d. Thard Harr – Wilderness, +Minidwarf (You know you want the minidwarf domain.)
19. Sheela Peryroyl - Earth, Love, +Wilderness or Civilization? (For assoc w/ farming)
That's what the Earth domain is for as it can be used for agrarian Gods. "Others have aspects of agriculture or mineral wealth."
22. Tempus – Justice?, Strength, War, +Protection(3)
I chose Justice due to his encouragement of resolving differences by force of arms. He really doesn't seem to protector type. Even though it says some protection gods do so by engaging the enemy through force of arms, Tempus doesn't seem the type to do it for such reasons. I could be wrong.
I've been wrong before, though, and don't have time to check at the moment.
[indent]Erathis is the god of civilization. She is the muse of great invention,
founder of cities, and author of laws. Rulers, judges, pioneers, and devoted citizens revere her, and her temples hold prominent places in most of the world’s major cities. Her laws are many, but their purpose is straightforward:
✦ Work with others to achieve your goals. Community and order are always stronger than the disjointed efforts of lone individuals.
✦ Tame the wilderness to make it fit for habitation, and defend the light of civilization against the encroaching darkness.
✦ Seek out new ideas, new inventions, new lands to inhabit, new wilderness to conquer. Build machines, build cities, build empires.[/indent]
She has a lot going for her that Gond doesn't deal with, so I don't think they make a good match for Domains. YMMV.
Yeah, i went with the 3, 2, 1 scheme. It just seems to me that an Exarch shouldn't command as many domains as a greater deity.
I'm not a fan of making lesser deities less attractive than they intrinsically are.
Considering that some of the non-greater gods already have three domains (Tymora and Gond, for example, per the equivalence table) and in fact are likely to end up with more than three (since the likely end result will be that priests of Gond can use either the Erathis-equivalent or Gond-specific list, similar to the channel divinity rules), I'm even less a fan of limiting domains to less than three per deity.
The problem with making a custom domain association list is that the DH domain association was less about assigning appropriate domains to each god and more about balanced domain distribution of the domains that were in the book. One of the custom lists on this thread has protection on it 16 times, but doesn't even mention winter.
Auril would be winter, but she's evil, and thus not on the list. (Note none of the listed deities are evil. Dragon9's list as started was for viable gods that a PC can worship in the campaign which does not include the evil ones.)
There definitely is some repetition on my list though. Sometimes its pretty blatant that many of the realms gods have crossover, with some domains in particular. I think that's legitimately going to happen a lot with FR gods, but that also doesn't mean I think these lists could use some more work. Also if you're trying for 3 domains per deity, on a list of ~50 deities w/ 3 each out of a pool of ~30 domains, with a bunch of those mostly being cut out for being evil, and some being very specific domains while others being general in application, yeah protection shows up a lot. Mostly that was just me pulling it as a domain listed from that deity from 3rd ed. I know these lists aren't perfect, so I think discussing, editing, and overall improving them could be useful.
If we want to go strictly by sphere listings in the FRCG, Garl Glittergold is the god of Protection. He's a gnome deity though. I don't know if in 4e humans are worshipping him as the god of protection, but by older editions there were plenty of human gods associated with that domain/idea.
Labelas - yeah, Change instead of life does work well, I think. Also in retrospect Arcana may be a decent domain for him.
Anyways.... obviously these lists aren't anything official. I believe they can still be useful to people though, in certain cases:
1. If they (the RPGA/WotC) say something along the lines of "just use your discretion picking appropriate domains for your deity" and sort of leave it up to people to not try to abuse it, I think Dragon9's list / my list are fairly useful as guidelines for what would be reasonable.
2. If the RPGA/WotC take some really massive amount of time coming up with a FR deities by domains list, these would be fairly educated guesses to what that list might look like. This could be useful to players for planning purposes. For instance, I have a friend who's making a cleric of Valkur, and he wanted educated guesses towards what domains would be available to him.
3. If the RPGA/WotC people look at these lists maybe they could save some time and get their list out faster.
In the meantime, I suppose we just have to wait and see what Tulach and the others are going to say.
Alternatively, this could just be a waste of time, but at the very least I enjoy discussing FR deities. Traditionally, it has been one of my favorite parts of the setting.
Virtue's Touch replaces Lay on Hands, not Divine Strength.
Virtue's Touch in the preview is only listed as a new Paladin Feature nowhere does it say it's a replacement for Lay on Hands. Since the preview only listed it as a new Paladin feature with no restrictions a Paladin may retrain a feature of his choice to gain this ability. Now it's possible this has been changed in the final printed version or that replacing Lay on Hands was the intended use for that power but the devil is in the details or in this case the lack of them.
Virtue's Touch in the preview is only listed as a new Paladin Feature nowhere does it say it's a replacement for Lay on Hand. Since it is a New Paladin feature a Paladin may retrain a feature of his choice to gain the ability
Unfortunately both new paladin class features specifically replace the Lay on Hands class feature if you want to take them.
Virtue's Touch in the preview is only listed as a new Paladin Feature nowhere does it say it's a replacement for Lay on Hands.
As kshaver notes, the book explicitly says that both Ardent Vow and Virtue's Touch are taken in place of Lay On Hands (I'm looking at the book right now).
This book couldn't come at a better time my Paladin is close to tenth so I'll have lots of options and I'll be able to retrain the never used Divine Strength for the more powerful Virtue's Touch class feature.
Virtue's Touch replaces Lay on Hands, not divine Strength. It would be broken for them to allow a PC to replace a channel divinity power with something NOT also limited by the "one channel divinity per encounter" basic rule (which can be preempted by paragon path, epic destiny, and/or feats).
But at least it doesn't require you to burn a healing surge.
There is also now a feat that lets you pick up another class's channel divinity power.
I'm not a fan of making lesser deities less attractive than they intrinsically are.
I'm not a fan of making them have more power than a God or greater god myself. I mean, why have the distinction at all? Junior gods should be just that, junior to the other Gods. Your mileage varies of course. Most Exarchs don't generally have much in the way of clergy that worships them anyway (traditionally). They tend to be called upon by the clerics of the gods they are exarchs to.
[indent]Some attract worshipers of their own, but they are more often simply conduits that serve to connect the mortal world with the attention of the higher deities.[/indent]
Considering that some of the non-greater gods already have three domains (Tymora and Gond, for example, per the equivalence table) and in fact are likely to end up with more than three (since the likely end result will be that priests of Gond can use either the Erathis-equivalent or Gond-specific list, similar to the channel divinity rules), I'm even less a fan of limiting domains to less than three per deity.
I think using the equivalency lists for Domains is a bad idea, as I explained above for Gond. While I thin the equivalencies work in some generalities (magic holy symbols, etc) domains, which are a reflection of their portfolio, shouldn't be given on equivalency except where they are the same God (Bahamut, Moradin, Correllon).
Also you don't have to give each god three domains. The book suggests 2-3, but there's no hard and fast rule. There isn't a compelling reason to give every deity 3 domains except "just because." Not to mention that some Gods leave you scratching your head to come up with 2 let alone 3.
The problem with making a custom domain association list is that the DH domain association was less about assigning appropriate domains to each god and more about balanced domain distribution of the domains that were in the book. One of the custom lists on this thread has protection on it 16 times, but doesn't even mention winter.
The PHB gods are a balanced lot. The FR Gods are not. There's a lot of overlapping portfolios and concepts which happens with so many Gods (imagine if we had the original portfolio!), such as protection. many fo them have protector aspects. Not every domain fits every deity and sometimes doesn't fit one at all. Your example of winter, for instance, isn't covered by any PC legal deity. Should it be tacked on to a deity just because?
As kshaver notes, the book explicitly says that both Ardent Vow and Virtue's Touch are taken in place of Lay On Hands (I'm looking at the book right now).
Yes as I've just read the printed book they have indeed changed Virtues Touch so it may only serve as a replacement for Lay on Hands. Personally LoH is silghtly better because this way the Paladin can heal and use Divine Mettle. It's not terrible and could be very effective with some Paladin builds.
Your example of winter, for instance, isn't covered by any PC legal deity. Should it be tacked on to a deity just because?
Short answer: Yes.
"I want to take that domain so I need it to be available through a deity that's legal for me to take."
That statement sums up some of the ideals of 4E. Which would have been included in the long version of the answer, had I made one. Fluff is less relevant than balance and balanced distribution. Fluff can be changed to make the rules make more sense, the non FR deities had thier fluff rewritten a bit to fit their domains better.
From that standpoint I see the options as keep the deity equivalency chart, even if some of it makes no sense, or have the fluff of the FR gods rewritten. I don't see skipping domains just because they don't fit as an option.
Those of us who remember that roleplaying games are about roleplaying (which, I'm happy to say is most of us, even if we are the "silent majority" of the D&D world) understand that the fluff is MUCH more important than any rules item. The rules support the fluff, the story, and the world (or at least they should)- not the other way around.
In other words, the nature of the game SHOULD BE that the rules exist to enable us to escape to another world and play great heroes doing miraculous things- not that the fluff gives us a shaky background against which to maul various enemies with ever-more-Machiavellian character builds and rules combos.
If game balance is your mecca, you're in the wrong place playing RPGs- by their very nature, some characters in stories are just WEAKER than others or STRONGER than others. If they weren't, the story wouldn't be interesting! My cleric of Ilmater who won't attack enemies who are bloodied (and now gets a nice kick for it with DP's pacifist healer feat, but who was doing it long before there was a rules benefit) isn't as strong a combat character as a lot of folks, and with Int 10 isn't a rocket scientist in skill challenges either, but that's how stories are, and I contribute to the group by good roleplaying. When people will let me, as opposed to telling me to "shut up with that character stuff so we can get to the next combat" (not joking).
You want a perfectly balanced battle system? Go play a video game. D&D is at least SUPPOSED to be about a lot more than that.
Ahem. Now then, as a guy who plays one of Ilmater's clerics I would recommend Life (for his healing focus), Hope (for the resolve he grants to be able to bear pain and hardship), and I guess you've got a point with Torment.
Remember that Ilmater is the god of helping people endure suffering and equally importantly of trying to ALLEVIATE suffering. I see where you're going with Strength (being able to endure the suffering), but I feel like Ilmater gives less physical strength and more Hope (strength of spirit), and that the Life domain is key to emphasize his focus on healing.
The problem is that right now DP specifically says that you and your GM will have to work out what domains each god in other settings gets- and the CCG specifically forbids any player resource that requires GM adjudication. Those of you who have gods with equivalents in the normal pantheon are free and clear, because the CCG makes it clear that your god "counts" as the other in all respects (though I agree some, like Gond and Erathis, are loose fits at best), but those of us who have gods like Ilmater and the other lessers are pretty much up a creek until something official comes out.
Ah well, such is life.
First of all, just because 4E is trying to make roleplaying die a horrible death...
Those of us who remember that roleplaying games are about roleplaying (which, I'm happy to say is most of us, even if we are the "silent majority" of the D&D world) understand that the fluff is MUCH more important than any rules item. The rules support the fluff, the story, and the world (or at least they should)- not the other way around.
It was fluff that had us roll 3d6 for attributes, because...not everyone is created equal. I got hosed in 9 out of 10 characters made that way. Seriously, I had the worst set of stats 90% of the time, and the best the other 10% of the time, there was no middle ground for me. I didn't like rolling, I never liked rolling, and I argued for point systems for years. The rules now use a fixed point system as its standard instead of random rolls. They now favor balance and fairness over fluff. Sometimes thats just the way its gotta go.
I still like roleplaying, and I still like fluff, I just don't like it when one or the other screws over balance. I mean if I decide to gimp my character by making sub-optimal choices thats one thing, but once the rules system itself says I'm inferior just because I exist, thats when I stop playing.
Ahem. Now then, as a guy who plays one of Ilmater's clerics I would recommend Life (for his healing focus), Hope (for the resolve he grants to be able to bear pain and hardship), and I guess you've got a point with Torment.
Remember that Ilmater is the god of helping people endure suffering and equally importantly of trying to ALLEVIATE suffering. I see where you're going with Strength (being able to endure the suffering), but I feel like Ilmater gives less physical strength and more Hope (strength of spirit), and that the Life domain is key to emphasize his focus on healing.
You bring up soem good points, and Hope may very well be a better fit than Strength. Either could work, but I'm am starting to think Hope may work better.
I'm not a fan of making them have more power than a God or greater god myself. I mean, why have the distinction at all? Junior gods should be just that, junior to the other Gods. Your mileage varies of course. Most Exarchs don't generally have much in the way of clergy that worships them anyway (traditionally).
Traditionally? What, you mean, going back to Faiths & Avatars and Faiths & Pantheons, where most of the listed exarchs had priesthoods, and even in 4e, have a known adjective name for their followers and in many cases (almost all of the non-Seldarine) have a specific name for their priests?
The only way that I can make sense of that statement is to assume they mean "Most exarchs not listed in this book don't have a significant clergy, but the ones in the following table are the exceptions..."
The FRCS table does not appear to be intended as a comprehensive list of all deities, mind you, just the ones with significant priesthoods. For example, Nobanian, Lurue and Eldath got name-checked in the June Realmslore article, so they're still around, even if not listed in this table. They're now primal, but then again, so apparently are Deep Sashelas and (probably) Auril, so that deity/archfey/nature spirit line appears to be a little fuzzy.
In any event, I think the fact that Tempus can beat up any given exarch is fine, but has little to do with how many feats the exarch's priesthood should be able to choose from among. If it bothers you, you can consider an exarch's or lesser deity's domains or channel divinity feats as being partially a function of the power of the greater deity they serve flowing through them.
My opinion is that one of the Forgotten Realms' strengths is the breadth of its pantheons. That the designers have intentionally narrowed the pantheons and then further unintentionally narrowed player options by making some choices clearly better than others is bad enough, I'm against making deity selection any more of a situation where there are clear obvious good choices.
I think using the equivalency lists for Domains is a bad idea, as I explained above for Gond.
I think the equivalency table as a whole is a bad idea--all it does is give more options to PCs who follow deities who have some (occasionally tenuous) connection to the core deities, which is a pretty odd thing to reward. At the least, I would have had a one-to-many equivalency: an implement designed for those worshiping the core Corellon (god of spring, beauty and the arts; patron of arcane magic and the fey) might work for anyone who worshiped Corellon, Sune, Milil or any of Corellon's exarchs.
However, my point is that, per the CCG, absent any other guidance, a player could legitimately just replace the core deity/domain list with the FR deities given in the CCG and assume that any feat which has a prerequisite that would be met by him worshiping Erathis is met by him worshiping Gond.
In the same way that worshiping Gond gives you an extra Channel Divinity feat to pick from, it's likely that, in the end, a Gond-worshiping PC will be allowed to pick from Erathis' domains plus whatever ones end up being assigned to Gond.
There isn't a compelling reason to give every deity 3 domains except "just because." Not to mention that some Gods leave you scratching your head to come up with 2 let alone 3.
My hope is that the sidebar was cut to allow for a more comprehensive article in Dragon on the subject, perhaps with Realms-specific domains to account for the different spheres of interest of Realms deities, as was done when coming up with domain-equivalents in 3e.
As for "balance," as the term is being used here, this old-timer loves it. It's my favorite thing about 4E, probably.
Cheers,
Christopher
I'm not a fan of making them have more power than a God or greater god myself. I mean, why have the distinction at all? Junior gods should be just that, junior to the other Gods. Your mileage varies of course. Most Exarchs don't generally have much in the way of clergy that worships them anyway (traditionally). They tend to be called upon by the clerics of the gods they are exarchs to.
[indent]Some attract worshipers of their own, but they are more often simply conduits that serve to connect the mortal world with the attention of the higher deities.[/indent]
Traditionally, Clangeddin, Brandobaris, the Red Knight, and a number of other gods now labeled in 4e as exarchs were deities with their own clergies. I think much of the relabeling in 4e for exarchs was because they made the distinction that these gods specifically answer to another deity, or shared a large crossover with another deity. This idea has merit and can be made to work with existing realmslore.
Some of the other listed exarchs, such as Obould and Fzoul Chembryl, make sense to point to and say, "they don't have worshippers." They were more paragons of their deities followers, and worshiping them as opposed to the deities they serve. I don't mind if people say they don't have worshippers. But if you anyone says Labelas Enoreth doesn't, I'm gonna get irate.
(He's had worshippers longer than Corellon I believe....) Again, traditionally....in FR the power of a deity (since the Time of Troubles anyways I believe) was proportional to the number and fervor of their followers, but there never has been any connection to limitations to the power of their priests, at least that I'm aware of. I always assumed that since the less powerful deities had fewer priests, that sort of equaled out. In previous mechanics though there wasn't ever a distinction (again, to my knowledge.)
Short answer: Yes.
Okay, I couldn't disagree with you more. Domains are reflections of the association of concepts with a deity. Artificially tacking them on completely goes against the whole idea.
Traditionally? What, you mean, going back to Faiths & Avatars and Faiths & Pantheons, where most of the listed exarchs had priesthoods, and even in 4e, have a known adjective name for their followers and in many cases (almost all of the non-Seldarine) have a specific name for their priests?
Traditionally their clergy is small. I'm not saying there aren't clergy for them, just that there aren't that many. Some are an exception. Regardless, on top of that, their portfolios are not as robust as a God or Greater God.
You're suggestion about the exarch exhibiting power from the deity they serve as a reason for more domains is a good one and satisfies me to a degree.
My hope is that the sidebar was cut to allow for a more comprehensive article in Dragon on the subject, perhaps with Realms-specific domains to account for the different spheres of interest of Realms deities, as was done when coming up with domain-equivalents in 3e.
I hop for this as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I hop for this as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
God I could go for some pancakes, which deity gets the tasty breakfast domain?
God I could go for some pancakes, which deity gets the tasty breakfast domain?
OK, you've been complaining of hunger since 6:00 PM last night. Go eat something, man! ;)
God I could go for some pancakes, which deity gets the tasty breakfast domain?
MMM... pancakes... I blame my typing on WotC.
Okay, I couldn't disagree with you more. Domains are reflections of the association of concepts with a deity. Artificially tacking them on completely goes against the whole idea.
True, but I would rather have carefully balanced distribution rather than go 100% off of fluff and ignore the possible rules consequences of such a decision. Say perhaps we took a traditionally wisdom based god for clerics and gave them 3 domains that all modified the same at-will in a awesomesauce combo of never needing to use an encounter power again bacuase their at-will was just too good, then a wisdom cleric of that god might be happy. Then we give a traditional strength based god for clerics a set of domains that all modify 3 different wisdom based powers in a not-so usefull way, then a strength cleric of that god might not be quite as happy.
There are always repercussions that need to be considered. As written I believe the domains have far more thought put into thier distribution than just 'lets give this god x domains'. As rules options I believe that all domains should be available to players, and that they should be so in a carefully limited and thought out manner (i.e. how they are presented in DP).
There are always repercussions that need to be considered. As written I believe the domains have far more thought put into thier distribution than just 'lets give this god x domains'. As rules options I believe that all domains should be available to players, and that they should be so in a carefully limited and thought out manner (i.e. how they are presented in DP).
I'll point out that the book never intended for all of the domains to be
available to the players. It specifically says this in the case of domains for evil gods.
The book is simply giving lots of options for DMs making new pantheons, and for players in these games they all do not have to be used.
Leaving some domains out as player options does not "imbalance" anything, no character class is substantially weaker than others due to lack of access to a domain, no class or ability is crippled due to lack of access.
If there's no Forgotten Realms God/Goddess that represents a domain, the realms are not broken due to this omission.
The only real downside of not allowing it is you will have players who are looking at the ability or flavor of the domain and being sad that they can't use it.
3 domains that all modified the same at-will in a awesomesauce combo...
You can only get the benfit of a single domain feat at once, even if you have multiple domain feats that modify the same at-will.
DP, p.108:
If you have more than one domain feat associated with the same power, that power can benefit from only one domain feat at a time.
You can only get the benfit of a single domain feat at once, even if you have multiple domain feats that modify the same at-will.
DP, p.108:
Yeah, but you can get feats that buff Righteous Brand vs. a bloodied foe, and vs. an unbloodied foe. Only one at a time, but one or the other all the time.
And?
And nuthin, if you're talking to me. Just saying. Personally, I don't think any of them are really worth taking, but that might just be me.
there are some Gods like Erathis who should be Destruction, Creation, and Civilization or The Raven Queen who should be Death, Fate, and Undeath.Yeah, but you can get feats that buff Righteous Brand vs. a bloodied foe, and vs. an unbloodied foe. Only one at a time, but one or the other all the time.
Somehow, I don't think any of the PC legal deities in LFR will have both the Death and Destruction domains. ;)
(Besides, the Skill domain is so much better. Righteous Brand as a basic attack? Yes please!)
True, but I would rather have carefully balanced distribution rather than go 100% off of fluff and ignore the possible rules consequences of such a decision. Say perhaps we took a traditionally wisdom based god for clerics and gave them 3 domains that all modified the same at-will in a awesomesauce combo of never needing to use an encounter power again bacuase their at-will was just too good, then a wisdom cleric of that god might be happy. Then we give a traditional strength based god for clerics a set of domains that all modify 3 different wisdom based powers in a not-so usefull way, then a strength cleric of that god might not be quite as happy.
There are always repercussions that need to be considered. As written I believe the domains have far more thought put into thier distribution than just 'lets give this god x domains'. As rules options I believe that all domains should be available to players, and that they should be so in a carefully limited and thought out manner (i.e. how they are presented in DP).
The deities are not "fluff." They are an integral part of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and are a rather huge deal in the world.
The LFR campaign limits some potential options of 4e to players for various reasons. 4e has rules for playing evil characters or starting at 29th level, but that doesn't mean LFR should allow that. There is some integrity left in the setting.
Overall, LFR has been rather hugely successful. Perhaps this is in part because Forgotten Realms is an interesting fantasy setting with lots of history and culture associated with it. Perhaps this is why they didn't make Living Generic Setting.
We all have to deal with some of our differences of opinion with the campaign rules. For instance, I'm not happy with the idea that someone worshipping Valkur, god of sailing/ships/naval combat/etc, could not get the Sea Domain. (He's an exarch of Tempus, so he counts as Kord apparently.) But at the very least, Madfox's explanation makes some degree of sense.
Well, that's just silly. Why give the winter domain to a deity that has absolutely nothing to do with winter?
Indeed. However, since Auril now serves nature yet again, it is makes some sense to give the domain to Silvanus.
It would be better if Aurils 'good' aspect (Aurilandür the
Frost Sprite Queen) was available for worship, but Silvanus would do.
Gomez
Somehow, I don't think any of the PC legal deities in LFR will have both the Death and Destruction domains. ;)
(Besides, the Skill domain is so much better. Righteous Brand as a basic attack? Yes please!)
It's good but Power of The Moon is nearly a game breaking Channel Divinity Power remember this power has the THE HEALING KEYWORD so a cleric gets to add his Healers Lore. This is a BURST 5 power that can be used on either himself or an ally that grants a number of HP+HL equal to his Wis or Cha modifier. The pc who used this power then gets to roll a D8 at the start of his turn and the PC who benefits from this power gets an amount of HP equal to the roll + HL. Roll an odd number on the D8 the HP are temps if the pc looses the temps before start of his next turn the characor who used this power gets to roll the D8+HL again. This continues at the start of every round in which the charctor who benefits from this power has no temporary HP if he has temp HP at the start of his turn the power ends. If the PC who used this power rolls an even number the PC that benefits from this power gains regular HP+HL and the power ends. Can you imagine tables with two or three charactors that have yet another power that does uber healing besides Healing Word and IT'S A MINOR ACTION so they could do both in around to themselves or the same target.
recipient regains." Healing is defined as: "Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing." And lastly Temp HP are "Not Real Hit Points."
So HL would apply on the initial part of the power (which gives healing) but wouldn't apply on the temp HPs given on later subsequent rounds (which isn't healing because it's not restoring any HP, it's granting Temp HP). There's also, at worst, a 50/50 chance the power fizzles after the initial application.
It's good but Power of The Moon is nearly a game breaking Channel Divinity Power remember this power has the THE HEALING KEYWORD so a cleric gets to add his Healers Lore.
Healer's Lore applies only to Cleric powers, so it will have no effect on this Channel Divinity, nor any other power granted by a feat for that matter (i.e. Blessing of Silvanus, etc.)
-Rozman
Healer's Lore applies only to Cleric powers, so it will have no effect on this Channel Divinity, nor any other power granted by a feat for that matter (i.e. Blessing of Silvanus, etc.)
-Rozman
By that definition nor on healing word since that is a class feature and not a cleric power either.
Checking the Rules Compendium though some channel divinity powers are among the cleric power list, but others are not. I find this interpretation a bit thin...
By that definition nor on healing word since that is a class feature and not a cleric power either.
Checking the Rules Compendium though some channel divinity powers are among the cleric power list, but others are not. I find this interpretation a bit thin...
Here's the RAW:
When you grant healing with one of your cleric powers that has the healing keyword, add your Wisdom modifier to the hit points the recipient regains.
I see now that Healing Word is a "feature that works like a power" which is pretty ridiculous; I'm sure Healer's Lore is supposed to work with Healing Word.
Healer's Lore would certainly not work with, say, a Paladin healing power picked up via multiclass.
Perhaps Channel Divinity itself is the Cleric power with multiple possible effects, as opposed to having a series of separate powers that require the Channel Divinity feature?
I'm just trying to find a way to make it consistent - most of the Channel Divinities acquired by feats are class-neutral; anybody with Channel Divinity can take them. I've always assumed that meant they were not "Cleric powers."
I really wish I could get at CS from work...
-Rozman
Here's the RAW:
I see now that Healing Word is a "feature that works like a power" which is pretty ridiculous; I'm sure Healer's Lore is supposed to work with Healing Word.
Healer's Lore would certainly not work with, say, a Paladin healing power picked up via multiclass.
Perhaps Channel Divinity itself is the Cleric power with multiple possible effects, as opposed to having a series of separate powers that require the Channel Divinity feature?
-Rozman
What it actually says is "Some class features are powers that every member of a class can use such as the Warlock's Eldritch Blast and a Cleric's CHANNEL DIVINITY" pg.52 PHB. I'm taking the position each Channel Divinity power is a different power that a player may select from. Just like he's got a list of encounters, dailies, utilities, and at wills it would now seem he can compile a list of Channel Divinities.
Here's the RAW:]
I'm just trying to find a way to make it consistent - most of the Channel Divinities acquired by feats are class-neutral; anybody with Channel Divinity can take them. I've always assumed that meant they were not "Cleric powers."
Not just anyone can take them first the PC has to pick a god then the PC has to see if the Domain feat power can be used with an At Will power he picked at first level. Only then if he has Channel Divinity as class feature will he get the option of choosing a second Channel Divinity power.
What it actually says is "Some class features are powers that every member of a class can use such as the Warlock's Eldritch Blast and a Cleric's CHANNEL DIVINITY" pg.52 PHB. I'm taking the position each Channel Divinity power is a different power that a player may select from. Just like he's got a list of encounters, dailies, utilities, and at wills it would now seem he can compile a list of Channel Divinities.
Except that, as rozman points out, the deity-specific Channel Divinity feats are not Cleric class powers, or Cleric class "abilities that work like powers"...they're open to members of any class that (a) worship the god in question, and (b) have the ability to Channel Divinity.
And, thus, because they are not derived from the Cleric class, I agree that Healer's Lore doesn't apply to them.
Except that, as rozman points out, the deity-specific Channel Divinity feats are not Cleric class powers, or Cleric class "abilities that work like powers"...they're open to members of any class that (a) worship the god in question, and (b) have the ability to Channel Divinity.
And, thus, because they are not derived from the Cleric class, I agree that Healer's Lore doesn't apply to them.
This seem to be one of those cases where it's not a Cleric power untill the Cleric makes it one of his powers. You know that whole chicken and the egg fight god I hate paradoxes.
By that definition nor on healing word since that is a class feature and not a cleric power either.
Checking the Rules Compendium though some channel divinity powers are among the cleric power list, but others are not. I find this interpretation a bit thin...
It isn't thin (and I forgot about this with my initial post). Healing Word is denoted as "Cleric Feature." It's a Cleric power. Just like a power denoted as "Cleric Attack" or "Cleric Utility" are powers. The fact that it's a feature and not an attack or utility is irrelevant as they are powers for all intents and purposes.
The deity specific CDs are denoted as "Feat Powers." They are not class specific powers, so Rozman is correct that Healers lore would not work on them.
And even if they did (such as if CS says that it does), as I noted, the HL would only apply to the initial healing anyway.
The deity specific CDs are denoted as "Feat Powers." They are not class specific powers, so Rozman is correct that Healers lore would not work on them.
And even if they did (such as if CS says that it does), as I noted, the HL would only apply to the initial healing anyway.
I keep getting hung up on the fact it says "when you use a power associated with this feat" the powers listed are all class specific powers. The way I was reading a Domain is if you take a Domnain feat say Power of The Moon the PC gets the Channel Divinity power Moon Touched because that is part of the Domain feat chosen. It would seem these are two separate feats and that is where much of my confusion was coming from.
15. Selune - Creation, Moon, Protection
, and protection mostly because she had that in 3e (protecting against lycanthropes is how I see it).I wouldn't think that's a strong enough reason to have the Arcana domain. She isn't a goddess associated with magic. Creation because she's a demiurge, Moon because... well, it's obvious
I wouldn't think that's a strong enough reason to have the Arcana domain..
Mystra once was formed form the essence of Selune, which got hurled through Shar. The goddess of magic basically was created from both deities.
That could be a reason.
Gomez
The fact that she created Abeir-Toril with Shar and worked with Chauntea to create life on the planet(s) definitely makes a strong case for the creation domain.
But I think Creation, Moon, Arcane can be as likely as Creation, Moon, Protection.
Maybe more since Arcane can also be associated with navigation and quests.
Gomez
I wouldn't compare 4E Selune with 3E Selune. It is hinted, that when Mystra died Selune regained her influence over magic together with Shar.
Not sure where that's hinted at, but I have yet to see that in anything written about her. It's kind of hard to plan domains around things that are hinted at but not confirmed that may or may not be true. I have never read anything that said she had any influence over magic to begin with. What source is that from?
Oh, I definitely agree on Creation.
But I think Creation, Moon, Arcane can be as likely as Creation, Moon, Protection.
Maybe more since Arcane can also be associated with navigation and quests.
I'm not sure how that fits with Navigation and Quests. Heck, you could say the skill domain fits with those too... or Sea. ;) I'm not saying the ideas aren't sound, just that they're a bit of a stretch.I guess the way I look at it is that if I look at a deity's domains I expect to be able to see what they are strongly tied to in their portfolio. Arcane doesn't jump out at me for Selune. The other three do.
My hope is that the sidebar was cut to allow for a more comprehensive article in Dragon on the subject, perhaps with Realms-specific domains to account for the different spheres of interest of Realms deities, as was done when coming up with domain-equivalents in 3e.
I hope for this as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
August 28th. Guess we'll be seeing soon enough.
EDIT: As a side, off-topic, note -- I find it interesting that the PHB3 Debut for this month isn't a Debut at all but rather a "Playing..." article.
I checked the Editorial Calandar and I show the PHB3 debut for July to have been the Psion (on 7/7) and the Githzerai for August (on 8/4)
Is the Githzerai just going to be a "Playing..." article and not CB content? I am not sure I understand...
August 28th. Guess we'll be seeing soon enough.
Maybe this is a new trend - buy a book, but the good parts can't be "unlocked" unless you buy a DDI subscription.
Are you sure Dragon9?
I checked the Editorial Calandar and I show the PHB3 debut for July to have been the Psion (on 7/7) and the Githzerai for August (on 8/4)
Is the Githzerai just going to be a "Playing..." article and not CB content? I am not sure I understand...
They must have changed it. The first time I looked at it earlier today they didn't have the PH3 Debut: The Githzerai line under the 8/4 listing.
They only had:
DRA: Playing Githzerai
DRA: RPGA Report
Free: Excerpt: DMG2
Free: Art Gallery: AV2
Under 8/17.
I find it funny they're doing the Debut content and the Playing article. Then again, I guess the playing article will have other options for them.
They must have changed it. The first time I looked at it earlier today they didn't have the PH3 Debut: The Githzerai line under the 8/4 listing.
Maybe this is a new trend - buy a book, but the good parts can't be "unlocked" unless you buy a DDI subscription.
I agree. I'm a little annoyed at the decision to make this a Dragon article, when it should really be available for general download.
Having extra options in LFR with DDI - fine. This goes past an extra and into a core mechanic. I suppose it would be alright if they changed the charging rules but only made it available to DDI subscribers?
Driving value for DDI by lowering value for the books crosses the line. I expected when I paid for my book I would be able to use the content in it.
They haven't lowered the value of the book at all. The books are made for home games, not for LFR. Now if all you play is RPGA, then the value may be less for you, but the intrinsic value of the book isn't lessened.
Having extra options in LFR with DDI - fine. This goes past an extra and into a core mechanic. I suppose it would be alright if they changed the charging rules but only made it available to DDI subscribers?
I wouldn't call it a core mechanic in any sense except for it being in a core book. Domains and charging are not a comparison.
August 28th. Guess we'll be seeing soon enough.
Yay!
Now, I'm just hoping the article is good. Driving value for DDI by lowering value for the books crosses the line. I expected when I paid for my book I would be able to use the content in it.
They haven't lowered the value of the book at all. The books are made for home games, not for LFR. Now if all you play is RPGA, then the value may be less for you, but the intrinsic value of the book isn't lessened.Having extra options in LFR with DDI - fine. This goes past an extra and into a core mechanic. I suppose it would be alright if they changed the charging rules but only made it available to DDI subscribers?
I wouldn't call it a core mechanic in any sense except for it being in a core book. Domains and charging are not a comparison.
Dragon9, can you still make that argument if you replace all instances of "LFR" with "Eberron"? What about home games in Forgotten Realms? It's sad that buying Divine Power and a campaign sourcebook isn't enough. It doesn't bother me because I'm an insider, but I could see how non-insiders would resent it.
Dragon9, can you still make that argument if you replace all instances of "LFR" with "Eberron"? What about home games in Forgotten Realms? It's sad that buying Divine Power and a campaign sourcebook isn't enough. It doesn't bother me because I'm an insider, but I could see how non-insiders would resent it.
Yes, I could still easily make that argument because that was my original argument. A home game DM can do whatever they like. They can take those domains and assign them to the Gods as they see fit. They have no need of an official list like we do in LFR. A home DM doesn't need a DDI subscription to make the book useful for his home game even if it's in the FR or Eberron. If it wasn't useful in such a situation, any DM running their own homebrew world would be screwed because they wouldn't publish lists of their homebrew gods either.
Adding extras for books into the magazine does help drive value of the subscription, but it doesn't make it necessary in any way or devalue the book.
Yes, I could still easily make that argument because that was my original argument. A home game DM can do whatever they like. They can take those domains and assign them to the Gods as they see fit. They have no need of an official list like we do in LFR. A home DM doesn't need a DDI subscription to make the book useful for his home game even if it's in the FR or Eberron. If it wasn't useful in such a situation, any DM running their own homebrew world would be screwed because they wouldn't publish lists of their homebrew gods either.
Adding extras for books into the magazine does help drive value of the subscription, but it doesn't make it necessary in any way or devalue the book.
It does when they were promised to be in the book and then were cut from the book. I bought the book expecting to find the Forgotten Realms domain info in it that would make all of the book usable in LFR. Finding that the table was cut in order to be pushed into Dragon does make the book less valuable to me than I expected it to be.
For my part, I resent the way DDI is being pushed on LFR and it makes me much more likely to switch to pathfinder, goodman games, or any alternative organized play opportunities that present themselves. Now, they're not live options in my area at the moment, so I stick with LFR, but the DDI pressure is enough to motivate me to switch if all other considerations become equal at some point in time. It could turn out to be enough to motivate me to switch even if they aren't equal. Only time will tell.
For my part, I resent the way DDI is being pushed on LFR and it makes me much more likely to switch to pathfinder, goodman games, or any alternative organized play opportunities that present themselves. Now, they're not live options in my area at the moment, so I stick with LFR, but the DDI pressure is enough to motivate me to switch if all other considerations become equal at some point in time. It could turn out to be enough to motivate me to switch even if they aren't equal. Only time will tell.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The sum total of the DDI stuff that you're "forced" to reference is the upcoming domain list. That's assuming that the next CCG doesn't include it. And also assuming (a really faulty assumption I think) that there won't be several other people at the next table you play at after it's released with a printed out copy.
Everything else in DDI is optional bonus goodies you get to play with. And the cost of entry isn't even that high, just $10 every once in a while for a one month subscription to update character builder (which you can share with 4 other friends).
It does when they were promised to be in the book and then were cut from the book.
Saying it was promised is a bit strong. In one of the devs blogs, or in a forum thread, they responded to a question about setting specific sidebars in future books the dev said they had worked up a list to put in DP but that setting specific sidebars are not going to be a common feature in future publications.
They never said: We promise this is going to be in there. They said they made it for it. It didn't make it in (for one reason or another).
I bought the book expecting to find the Forgotten Realms domain info in it that would make all of the book usable in LFR. Finding that the table was cut in order to be pushed into Dragon does make the book less valuable to me than I expected it to be.
You are assigning motive with no proof. There is no proof they cut the sidebar just to "push it into Dragon." It may have been cut for space reasons. It may have been cut because they are trying to limit the amount of setting specific addenda that show up in the generic core books, which becomes more necessary when more and more settings are released.
Now, I did say that if you exclusively play LFR than the value may be lessened for you (which you say it was), and that is a valid viewpoint, don't let my statements make you think that i am trying to take that away from you. However, I think you are letting your emotions cause you to jump to conclusions for the reasons behind why it wasn't in the book to begin with.
For my part, I resent the way DDI is being pushed on LFR and it makes me much more likely to switch to pathfinder, goodman games, or any alternative organized play opportunities that present themselves. Now, they're not live options in my area at the moment, so I stick with LFR, but the DDI pressure is enough to motivate me to switch if all other considerations become equal at some point in time. It could turn out to be enough to motivate me to switch even if they aren't equal. Only time will tell.
LFR does not require DDI. You can play LFR just fine without DDI. I know quite a few people who do. I have seen this accusation made before and it is a baseless accusation. You don't need DDI any more than you need all the D&D books. You aren't at any sort of disadvantage. Heck, you can get by playing LFR with just the PHB1.
EDIT: And considering that most stuff (with exception of the DDI exclusive content such as the Revenant and the forthcoming Assassin) will see the non-DDI light of day in the Dragon annual or future books (such as the Minotaur in PHB3, and possibly the Gnoll as well by rumor), being without a DDI subscription won't necessarily leave you without access to the material within if you want it.
If they announced tomorrow that the feats in Martial Power 2 are only LFR legal if you have a DDI subscription I'd expect similar reactions.
Even if by some chance it isn't compiled, I doubt the admins would let it go unused and would likely either incorporate it into the CCG or declare the individual article legal if they couldn't do that.
People are making a mountain out of a molehill out of this. And if it isn't in a location accessible to those without a subscription, we're back to "Hey, Joe..." RPGs are a social endevor after all...
Will both be legal, will the CCG be legal and thus render the article illegal or will the article be legal and render the CCG illegal? Will the equivalency list simply be removed from the CCG?
But it raises some very troubling questions about player and DM responsibility for providing accurate rules at the table. If players are expected to make use of what is basically LFR errata without access to that errata it creates possibilities for all sorts of bad situations. Information being passed from friend to friend is likely to be occasionally inaccurate. You get people going to public events and causing friction because someone calls them on what they thought was a legal character and neither side may have access to the rules information to back it up.
Making otherwise legal LFR legal content contingent on access to a pay-only service in any regard is worrying. It shows poor planning or poor intentions on the part of WotC. I am going to be quite disappointed if the Domains article isn't released as an open article like the RPGA reports or reprinted on the RPGA site like the FR backgrounds were originally.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The sum total of the DDI stuff that you're "forced" to reference is the upcoming domain list. That's assuming that the next CCG doesn't include it. And also assuming (a really faulty assumption I think) that there won't be several other people at the next table you play at after it's released with a printed out copy.
Everything else in DDI is optional bonus goodies you get to play with. And the cost of entry isn't even that high, just $10 every once in a while for a one month subscription to update character builder (which you can share with 4 other friends).
We're also forced to put up with whatever kind of broken or setting destroying crap they release in dragon. Having to reference DDI for my book to be fully usable in campaign was the portion of the resentment that was relevant for this particular thread, but DDI is being pushed on the LFR community in other ways. And quality control on Dragon content has not noticeably improved, making LFR a direct example of what would have happened to previous edition home campaigns and shared campaigns that had simply declared anything published in dragon legal.
Now you may not think that the cost of DDI is that much, but that's hardly the point. It is significant for some people and, perhaps more to the point, others of us don't like the stealth subscription model for the campaign.
To play devil's advocate: What will happen if it gets compiled and the domain assignment differs from the equivalency list in the CCG? It's likely since the equivalency list as written would lead to many unfitting domains for individual FR gods.
Will both be legal, will the CCG be legal and thus render the article illegal or will the article be legal and render the CCG illegal? Will the equivalency list simply be removed from the CCG?
It is unlikely we will see the equivalency list go the way of the dodo. It still has use for some things (feat/PP pre-reqs, etc.).
Personally, I think they should announce that the official domains are the only ones valid and scrap the equivalency for domains.
It is unlikely we will see the equivalency list go the way of the dodo. It still has use for some things (feat/PP pre-reqs, etc.).
Personally, I think they should announce that the official domains are the only ones valid and scrap the equivalency for domains.
Yet that would change the domains from "limited useable for non-DDI subscribers within scope of the equivalency list" to "completly unuseable for non-DDI subscribers".
Sure, there's the unofficial option of just getting a copy from a subscriber, but that's certainly not intended by WotC.
Oh, I definitely agree on Creation. But I think Creation, Moon, Arcane can be as likely as Creation, Moon, Protection. Maybe more since Arcane can also be associated with navigation and quests. Gomez
And the winner is Arcana, Change and Moon. [Sorry, couldn't resists
]Change? Why change? I mean come on, she helped create the substance within the crystal sphere that Ao made. No creation? Pfft. 
Although isee they thought alogn the same lines as me with greater deities getting 3 domains and deities getting 2.
Change? Why change? I mean come on, she helped create the substance within the crystal sphere that Ao made. No creation? Pfft.
Apparently the moon and tides are associated with change...
So I just want to double-check: exarchs are getting the shaft completely? The rule is, if you worship an exarch you're effectively worshipping the deity they answer to, and get that deity's domains?
So, for instance, a cleric of Valkur(god of sailors, favorable winds, and naval combat) cannot get the sea domain, a cleric of Clangeddin Silverbeard, dwarf god of war, can't get the War Domain, etc?
Does this seem exceedingly lame to anyone else?
Does this seem exceedingly lame to anyone else?
Yes, seems exceedingly lame and exceedingly lazy. At very least there should have been a small sentence allowing the worshippers of an exarch to chose a single domain out of the superior deity's domains.
While this would still leave much to be desired (e.g. a Clangeddin worshipper still couldn't chose the war domain since Moradin doesn't offer the war domain), it would at least be a small improvement to the current situation
This also leaves out options for those who choose to worship legal primordials such as Akadi, Grumbar, Istishia, and Kossuth. I can understand them not wanting to do a full channel divinity write up for every single being that is a legal choice for a divine character in LFR. Domains seem to be a way to give characters who worship other beings more options without them having to come up with full power specific writeups for each and every one. They could even avoid making the chart at the front overly long by putting an "appendix" chart at the back for exarchs and primordials with 1 domain each.
So I just want to double-check: exarchs are getting the shaft completely?
Exarchs have no associated domains. There is also no association allowing you to use the patrons domains.
Whether this is "the shaft" or not is open for interpretation. Exarch worshipping PCs got along just fine without domains before the wwere released.
So I just want to double-check: exarchs are getting the shaft completely?
Exarchs have no associated domains. There is also no association allowing you to use the patrons domains.Whether this is "the shaft" or not is open for interpretation. Exarch worshipping PCs got along just fine without domains before the were released.
Sure, that's debatably true. I actually think the majority of the domain feats (like about 75% of the published feats in 4e) are filler feats and virtually worthless, at least mechanically. Again, just my opinion.
My irritation is more with the principle of the matter. It obviously doesn't matter than many of these "exarchs" are gods that have had worshippers longer than the majority of the greater gods, or that hey, these gods had domains in 3rd edition as well. The whole exarch thing is some random label from 4e, with no explanation on the change. First ed. to second ed transition? Sure they changed a lot of the things regarding deities, but they actually explained it.
It seems like they're trying to act as if many of these "exarchs" have not traditionally been deities with priests in their own right. Which even the super-limited chart in the FRCG contradicts. Also there's the countless other examples in prior novels, campaign setting books, video games and so many other sources that they seem to just be disregarding and contradicting in the name of some new categories they wanted to put things into for 4e.
Anyways that list in there (the Dragon magazine article) seemed sort of stupid. For example, Garl Glittergold is listed as the god of Protection according to the FRCG (p80). Do they give Garl the protection domain? Nope.....
It just doesn't seem like the people writing these care, and then they become rules and canon for this campaign. That upsets me.
Also there's the countless other examples in prior novels
Actually not only prior novels, even post-spellplague 4e novels include priest of exarchs (e.g. Blackstaff Tower included a priest of Valkur and mentioned how the church of Valkur is popular in Waterdeep)
I look at it this way...the designers have drawn a line between the power level of a god and an exarch. Yes, exarchs have worshippers, and clerics, etc., but perhaps they don't have sufficient divine power to be able to grant certain things to their worshippers. (IIRC, exarchs don't have deity-specific Channel Divinity feats in the FRPG, either, do they?)
This has little or nothing to do with how long the exarch has been a divine power, or how big his following is (though one might think that a large mortal following would lead to increased divine power, but apparently that's not the only prerequisite).
This isn't necessarily a 4E thing, either. In one of the earlier editions of the game (1E, I'm thinking, though I don't have my books in front of me), only greater gods could grant the highest-level clerical spells to their followers. If you worshipped a demigod (probably equivalent to an exarch in 4E terms), you simply didn't get access to the most powerful levels of cleric spells.
I sincerely suspect that the time, energy, and page space required for a channel divinity power is part of why exarchs and primordials were not given channel divinity powers. Domain based channel divinity powers as opposed to deity specific channel divinity powers though could have been used to provide options to followers of lesser known beings without requiring the developer time and effort of channel divinity powers for each being. I did find Divine Rage from the gladiator article useful as a channel divinity power of a primordial worshipping cleric that I have. It would have been nice if Domains could have worked out as well for divine characters who don't have access to a deity specific channel divinity feat.
Though this is not the final version of the article so we can hope.
I look at it this way...the designers have drawn a line between the power level of a god and an exarch. Yes, exarchs have worshippers, and clerics, etc., but perhaps they don't have sufficient divine power to be able to grant certain things to their worshippers. (IIRC, exarchs don't have deity-specific Channel Divinity feats in the FRPG, either, do they?)
This has little or nothing to do with how long the exarch has been a divine power, or how big his following is (though one might think that a large mortal following would lead to increased divine power, but apparently that's not the only prerequisite).
This isn't necessarily a 4E thing, either. In one of the earlier editions of the game (1E, I'm thinking, though I don't have my books in front of me), only greater gods could grant the highest-level clerical spells to their followers. If you worshipped a demigod (probably equivalent to an exarch in 4E terms), you simply didn't get access to the most powerful levels of cleric spells.
I'm pretty sure that was 1st edition. After that, there was the whole Time of Troubles, which changed how deities functioned as per Ao's doing. It's an example of changing stuff but explaining it in the setting. Not 4e's "Mystra's dead, so now other deities went away." The only thing I could find in the FRCG about the limitation of exarchs was that they couldn't make their own planes (which seemed a weird distinction considering how mortals did it in the past.)
Mechanically, I also don't see how the power difference thing would even make any sense. If an exarch is powerful enough to fuel a 30th level PC-worshipper's divine powers, why wouldn't they be powerful enough to grant domains?
There's just a huge continuity problem in general in the 4e transition. Some changes are explained through the spellplague, but then other things just seem like they didn't try at all. Devas = aasimar? What? Where did that come from?
Still though, I'm obviously been silly. I'm attempting to draw logic to 4e mechanics, which is probably stupid. After all, its rather common for people(warlords) to just be able to shout at their friends "HEAL" and have it actually work, without magic.
I'm attempting to draw logic to 4e mechanics, which is probably stupid. After all, its rather common for people(warlords) to just be able to shout at their friends "HEAL" and have it actually work, without magic.
As with any edition of D&D, it's a lot easier if you view hit points as an abstraction and not actual damage. Near misses, exhaustion, glancing blows, etc., and when you hit 0 hp it's the blow that lands that takes you down.
Or however you want to view it. I have a hard time picturing someone getting whacked 15 times with a warhammer. I've seen Deadliest Warrior. I know what kind of damage a warhammer can do. :P
I'm attempting to draw logic to 4e mechanics, which is probably stupid. After all, its rather common for people(warlords) to just be able to shout at their friends "HEAL" and have it actually work, without magic.
As with any edition of D&D, it's a lot easier if you view hit points as an abstraction and not actual damage. Near misses, exhaustion, glancing blows, etc., and when you hit 0 hp it's the blow that lands that takes you down.Or however you want to view it. I have a hard time picturing someone getting whacked 15 times with a warhammer. I've seen Deadliest Warrior. I know what kind of damage a warhammer can do. :P
People wiping away potentially lethal exhaustion by shouting "Heal" or something does not make much more sense. (Nor does the monster biting you making you exhausted to death work that well either.)
With any RPG system of mechanics, there's a balance between ease-of-use and realism. D&D has usually at least attempt to be geared towards ease-of-use, and 4th ed has moved so far towards the ease-of-use section that its not even taking a nod towards realism. So it goes.
I believe though, that in their drive to have 4th ed be easy, they've made this assumption that 4e will be totally simple. The rules ARE fairly simple and elegant, until 1,000 questions pop up based off of powers, feats, magic items, or just things that weren't considered at the time of the PHB's creation. Then all of a sudden things can get far more complicated due to rules arguments. :-(
I feel that this deities-domain issue is similar. If they actually just released domains for exarchs and primordials etc, then people don't have to attempt to come up with vague attempts at explaining why this is the case. I feel like they attempted to wipe away 3/4 of stuff in realms, and only explained the disappearance of about 1/3rd. And discussions about these topics always remind me of Monty Python's dead parrot skit.
And Dragon9, though you're defending the article, the earlier parts of this thread do show that you agree with me that exarchs should get domains (even if fewer). I don't mean to give you and Kenobi too hard a time; I know its sort of your job as VCLs to defend WOTC.
On the contrary. Defending WotC isn't in my job description. I have no problems if exarchs have domains or if they don't. If I play a cleric of an exarch I'm not going to feel left out or gypped if I can't take a domain feat. They're nifty little options, but it's not like I can't find a ton of other feats to take as well.
Then again I have that viewpoint towards pretty much every new rules option. My character would have gotten along just fine if they never published it, so I'm not really out anything if it isn't usable for whatever reason.
It's rare an option comes along that makes me like 