The Exemplar Archetype and Potential Power Creep.

I feel like you already know this, but by 15th level, in most combats of significance, a caster’s actions are worth more than almost any other resource. A +3/-3 buff/debuff is a decent use of an action, but only working for your own next spell leaves a lot on the table for how much more effectively you could have used that action to swing the encounter. A one action power word stun is minimally taking away reactions and an action for example. Even a recall knowledge check could be swinging a 3 point difference between a high and medium save or a 6 point difference between high and low at level 15, a bonus that might be useable multiple time without ever costing more actions.
In practice, I think ancestral memories has the potential to promote middling efficiency repetition of play loops over truly optimized play.

The Exemplar dedication, especially as a one feat investment, is clearly a bigger issue…except, at rare, it is one the GM has been given much more powerful tools to reign in if it is going to become a...

I agree that Exemplar dedication is better, to be sure. But I'm less sold on the idea that Ancestral Memories isn't extremely good at 15. Power Word Stun costs an 8th rank slot (and doesn't exist in the Remaster, so some GMs may not allow it anyway). 8th rank slots at level 15 are your top-rank ones, and I'd much rather be using my highest rank slots for a 2-action spell like confusion. Recall Knowledge likewise is by no means a guaranteed success, and even if it is you may not have a useful spell that targets their lowest save. Easily the most obvious example is [Mindless] enemies. Their Will save is usually their lowest, but it's entirely pointless to know that because no Will saves you throw at them will actually do anything. And of course, Memories stacks with Recall Knowledge anyway, thus giving you a better chance of making the target fail or critically fail.

Lastly, the dedication power balance issue is much less of a problem over all in games without free archetype than with it. The opportunity cost of dedications and locking yourself into one dedication for 30% of your class feats is fairly heavy, especially for a singular mechanical boost.

Not really. In a standard game with no FA, a lot of players will never take an archetype at all. Thus the opportunity cost for them of "take Exemplar dedication and be locked out of other archetypes" is zero. They don't care in the slightest about taking anything else from the archetype since they want their class feats.

shroudb wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

more irrelevant bomb stuff

Just because you like bombs, it doesn't make them necessary for alchemists.

Half the fields do not even work with bombs at all.

Again:
At most, only half the alchemists will be using bombs.

Dude, this is like saying that only some Magii will want to prioritize spellstriking for damage.

All the fields work with bombs if you are an Alchemist with Quick Bomber. Full stop, that's enough to make bombs more than competitive with Alch's other combat options.

.

The numerical reality of what an Alchemist can do means that a 1A full-book bomb will never lag behind their other Strike enough to be ignored. Yes, you have to be able to do some apples VS oranges due to non damage effects, but this is still extremely blatant.

As I said, I built those 2 Chirs explicitly to find other damage routines that were not bombs.

And neither could avoid Quick Bomber once the remaster hit.

The Witch has a bunch of L1 slashing bombs and can Draw dodge, but I might as well spend a VV to do the full 3d8+3+3 instead of the 1d8+1+1. And their claws are 3d6 + 3 + 1d6 + 1d6 (only thanks to the ARP rule, else I'd not have the gp).

And even with Property + free basic runes, that alch still finds the ability to, at range, toss a bomb in the same 1A to be a better option most of the time.

Because Sick on save, Slow & Sick on fail is an absurd effect, and 3d6 persistent > 5d6 phys much of the time.

And if there is a foe weakness at play, all "performance" worries are completely gone. Proccing that weakness in an AoE on hit, or for a single foe on miss, means that'll out damage my unarmed attack every time.

And once you get to L12 play, you have a big enough roster number of utility bombs that do not need to land a hit. I can aim for a square at map to auto-push foes 5ft thanks to Boulder Seeds, or make clouds of silver razors that do save dmg each turn via Silver Orbs.

.

I don't know why you keep insisting that...

Nope, as alwasys you're completely blindsighted when it comes to bombs.

At least half of the Alchemists are designed to use weapons/unarmed as their PRIMARY source of damage.

For those, Quick bomber is mostly irrelevant. Familiar is a better 1st level feat for those.

To go back to your analogy it's like claiming that ALL magi should use a bow. Even those that their features require to use melee weapons, should use bows.

That's how absurd your claims are.

Quick Bomber is like Slam Down for a two-handed Fighter. Something that is build defining, but not something that every single Fighter will have to take.

p.s. The fact that you cannot make weapon alchemist work, when weapons are inherently superior without feat investment, is on you, not on the class.

Some archetypes are worth spending actual class feats for, a classic examples are things like Sentinel, Dual Weapon Warrior, Mauler, Martial Artist, and Mauler. The Exemplar archetype is absolutely in this set since "grab a weapon ikon for a level 2 feat in order to get more damage" is much more widely applicable than "I want heavy armor" or "I want gorilla stance".

Any weapon-wielding character who isn't interested in archetyping can just drop a level 2 feat on the exemplar dedication to get the bonus damage and never take another archetype feat. The biggest argument against taking the Exemplar archetype is if you actually need/want a different archetype something, since the most probable exit path for the Exemplar archetype is: dedication, 1st or 2nd level Exemplar feat, 2nd Ikon at 12 level (IIRC). There's an alternative path is to take a mid-level Exemplar feat, but honestly my read on the Exemplar is that it's a class where its class features are a bigger part of its power budget than its feats. There are, FWIW, only 3 level 4 feats in the Exemplar archetype and 2 off them add transcendence effects to ikons, and the MC Exemplar isn't really equipped for spark juggling until they get their 2nd ikon. Once you have that second one, feel free to just alternate transcending barrow's edge and scar of the survivor for an obnoxious amount of healing, or unfailing bow and gaze sharp as steel on an archer.

So I wonder if "it's actually awkward to get out of the archetype" is a balancing factor here.

Some archetypes are worth spending actual class feats for, a classic examples are things like Sentinel, Dual Weapon Warrior, Mauler, Martial Artist, and Mauler. The Exemplar archetype is absolutely in this set since "grab a weapon ikon for a level 2 feat in order to get more damage" is much more widely applicable than "I want heavy armor" or "I want gorilla stance".

Any weapon-wielding character who isn't interested in archetyping can just drop a level 2 feat on the exemplar dedication to get the bonus damage and never take another archetype feat. The biggest argument against taking the Exemplar archetype is if you actually need/want a different archetype something, since the most probable exit path for the Exemplar archetype is: dedication, 1st or 2nd level Exemplar feat, 2nd Ikon at 12 level (IIRC). There's an alternative path is to take a mid-level Exemplar feat, but honestly my read on the Exemplar is that it's a class where its class features are a bigger part of its power budget than its feats. There are, FWIW, only 3 level 4 feats in the Exemplar archetype and 2 off them add transcendence effects to ikons, and the MC Exemplar isn't really equipped for spark juggling until they get their 2nd ikon. Once you have that second one, feel free to just alternate transcending barrow's edge and scar of the survivor for an obnoxious amount of healing, or unfailing bow and gaze sharp as steel on an archer.

So I wonder if "it's actually awkward to get out of the archetype" is a balancing factor here.

I mean, the class has some pretty good level 1-2 feats to grab early on if your goal is to exit as fast as possible.

Making your Strikes Holy, 2 additional immanences for your weapon Ikon that you picked with your dedication for even more passive stacking, Elemental damage instead of Spirit damage

That elemental damage instead of spirit damage sounds pretty cool; why can't it be next Wednesday already?

I mean, the conversation already went sideways as soon as it got dominated by magus and IW stuff already...

This thread isn't about magus and alchemists? ;)

shroud wrote:

I mean, the conversation already went sideways as soon as it got dominated by magus and IW stuff already...

This thread isn't about magus and alchemists? ;)

Yeah this is about Exemplar.

shroud wrote:

I mean, the conversation already went sideways as soon as it got dominated by magus and IW stuff already...

This thread isn't about magus and alchemists? ;)

The exemplar archetype is so clearly an error of some sort that after a while discussing it becomes pointless because the vast majority of us are in agreement to some extent, this has lead to tthe topic has becoming are the any other feat quite this egregious which is a more interesting topic.

Nope, as alwasys you're completely blindsighted when it comes to bombs.

Well ackchewally, blindsight isn't a core rule in Second Edition (although some monsters still have it. But since Trip.H isn't a spawn of Rovagug or aberration (presumably), then they cannot said to have blindsight, or be blindsighted. So I have to disagree with you there.

People complaining about weapon ikons, but many GMs are going to go most insane about the (unchanged from playtest) Victor's Wreath transcend.

Each ally in your aura immediately makes a new saving throw with a +2 status bonus against one ongoing negative effect or condition they are currently affected by, even if that effect would not normally allow a new saving throw.

An exemplar taking this gives up lots of other options that can be a more sensible cycle with their weapon ikon and is paying an opportunity cost. A rando PC in a party without a Bard who is willing to have a permanent +1 status to attack aura is doing the god's (or least Cleric's) work by effortlessly removing all nasty, unpleasant, hard to get rid, permanent, or too high level to counteract conditions by just spamming this until it's successul (or they die if it's a poison or disease and things go poorly, I guess).

Yeah, it makes some of the body and worn ikons arguably better for non-exemplars than the base class. Wreath or Shield on a party that doesn't have good access to those buffs. Horn of Plenty on... anyone.

Could even see like, Fetching Bangles maybe on the right kind of tank build.

... Not Thousand-League Sandals though. Not sure where that immanence came from but like... just buy a tailwind wand idk.

I know it's pretty normal for internal class options to be all over the place but its so weird looking at how powerful and evocative some of the immanence effects are and then try to parse out how thousand league sandals' makes any sense... or why mortal harvest just does less damage than any other weapon ikon, etc.

I think there's a role for the ikons that you want their immanence active when it's not your turn (e.g. for defense or to buff your allies), but victor's wreath is a weird one since you probably don't want it active when you're attacking.

Like the exemplar would transcend their weapon because some of those effects are good, and then the spark would move to a defensive ikon like the shield then you'd move it immediately back to the weapon ikon at the start of your turn. Wreath just feels weird since you would also like to have +1 to hit.

I don't think we will really see that much of the exemplar spam though because the dedication is rare and, minimally, players are going to have to really justify and sell it to their GMs to get it. That doesn't mean it won't eventually get an errata, just that it is not something that desperately needs a fix because GMs who feel it is a problem already have a rules method for dealing with it.

The big issue is that exemplar dedication exists alongside, well, Exemplar, plus several other rare archetypes (like Seneschal). It's going to be very hard to rarity exclude Exemplar dedication without also excluding Exemplar and the other rare stuff from that book, and that's going to be far more of an issue that the previous few obvious math errors (6P and prov were AP backmatters, but I think a lot of people just blanket banned Firebrands stuff which wasn't a huge loss then because it was just scattering of feats, but an entire class is going to be a much bigger hit).

It’s not hard at all to exclude some rare/uncommon options and not others. If you have a campaign set in Tian Xia, it is perfectly reasonable even to change the rarity of various things. Rarity tags mean players should ask the GM/talk to them about any specific choice. A GM can say “we aren’t having guns in this campaign” without banning every uncommon option. A GM can say, “that archetype is not a good fit for this campaign.” They can even say, “I don’t think that option is balanced well, and I don’t want to have one player with it or encourage everyone to pick it just for mechanical power reasons.”

A GM can say this about even common options, but the rare tag is a big flag to players “don’t assume this option is available without talking about it first.” So players shouldn’t be assuming every rare option is always available to them in the first place.

It’s not hard at all to exclude some rare/uncommon options and not others. If you have a campaign set in Tian Xia, it is perfectly reasonable even to change the rarity of various things. Rarity tags mean players should ask the GM/talk to them about any specific choice. A GM can say “we aren’t having guns in this campaign” without banning every uncommon option. A GM can say, “that archetype is not a good fit for this campaign.” They can even say, “I don’t think that option is balanced well, and I don’t want to have one player with it or encourage everyone to pick it just for mechanical power reasons.”

A GM can say this about even common options, but the rare tag is a big flag to players “don’t assume this option is available without talking about it first.” So players shouldn’t be assuming every rare option is always available to them in the first place.

It sets a dangerous precedent if people start to equate rarity tag with power level.

It's one thing to say "this option is uncommon because it doesn't exist in this region" and a completely different to say"this is uncommon because it's too strong".

Thematically wise, if Exemplar the class is ok with an adventure, there's no reason why Exemplar the Archetype is not.

So, exactly same theme, same rarity, but one is ok for a campaign but the other is not, is just not right.

Unicore wrote:

It’s not hard at all to exclude some rare/uncommon options and not others. If you have a campaign set in Tian Xia, it is perfectly reasonable even to change the rarity of various things. Rarity tags mean players should ask the GM/talk to them about any specific choice. A GM can say “we aren’t having guns in this campaign” without banning every uncommon option. A GM can say, “that archetype is not a good fit for this campaign.” They can even say, “I don’t think that option is balanced well, and I don’t want to have one player with it or encourage everyone to pick it just for mechanical power reasons.”

A GM can say this about even common options, but the rare tag is a big flag to players “don’t assume this option is available without talking about it first.” So players shouldn’t be assuming every rare option is always available to them in the first place.

It sets a dangerous precedent if people start to equate rarity tag with power level.

It's one thing to say "this option is uncommon because it doesn't exist in this region" and a completely different to say"this is uncommon because it's too strong".

Thematically wise, if Exemplar the class is ok with an adventure, there's no reason why Exemplar the Archetype is not.

So, exactly same theme, same rarity, but one is ok for a campaign but the other is not, is just not right.

Pretty much yeah.

I mean I don't disagree that "Rare" and "Uncommon" can work as catchalls for "things that the GM may say no to", but I think we all know that the reason Exemplar dedication is Rare has absolutely nothing to do with its power level. The fact that it's both overpowered and Rare is basically a coincidence. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise.

You can say "well this isn't an issue because this dedication is Rare so it doesn't impact game balance". But that is just an excuse. The dedication isn't overpowered because it's Rare, so banning it because it's Rare makes very little sense. What happens if Commander dedication comes out in a few months, it's equally broken, and it's NOT Rare? Do you just ban it anyway, because reasons?

If you want to ban it for being too strong, ban it for being too strong. But I wouldn't hide behind the fig leaf of rarity when that's not actually why you're banning it.

Why are we banning all of the uncommon/rare things at our table?
That is not the point of the rarity tag. The point of the rarity tag is, "talk to your GM about this option."

We are talking about a book far removed from core options with thematic themes that are not always going to be a good fit for every campaign anyway. I am not saying "hey paizo, never look at the balance implications of this option!" I am saying, like the 6th pillar archetype from Fist of the Ruby Phoenix, this isn't as big a deal as other aspects of the game currently waiting for errata.

The overall power creep implications of rare options are just not that big of deal as folks here are making them out to be.

I mean, “the exemplar class basically represents being a godling/divinely empowered superhero, I am willing to allow a character to go all in on it as their class identity, but having one item of immense power is probably better off represented with treasure or an artifact in this game. Let’s find a better way to do that.” Seems like a very reasonable way to ban just the MC dedication.

Why are we banning all of the uncommon/rare things at our table?

That is not the point of the rarity tag. The point of the rarity tag is, "talk to your GM about this option."

We are talking about a book far removed from core options with thematic themes that are not always going to be a good fit for every campaign anyway. I am not saying "hey paizo, never look at the balance implications of this option!" I am saying, like the 6th pillar archetype from Fist of the Ruby Phoenix, this isn't as big a deal as other aspects of the game currently waiting for errata.

The overall power creep implications of rare options are just not that big of deal as folks here are making them out to be.

My point is less that I recommend banning all Uncommon and Rare options (which I absolutely don't), and more that power creep is still power creep, regardless of whether or not it's Rare. So using the Rare tag as a smokescreen for banning overpowered things is going to have a chilling effect on Rare options in general while doing nothing to stop power creep. It's like driving fifty miles an hour over the speed limit but blaming the other person's broken turn signal when you get into an accident with them.

It may not be a problem at your table, but if "Rare" becomes equated with "ban it, that's OP" in the general mind of the community that's really an issue. And ignoring the power creep implications of an option just because it happens to be Rare (again, Exemplar archetype ISN'T Rare BECAUSE it's overpowered, people really need to stop making that particular bad faith argument) means that when non-Rare power creep appears you have fewer options to deal with it.

I mean, “the exemplar class basically represents being a godling/divinely empowered superhero, I am willing to allow a character to go all in on it as their class identity, but having one item of immense power is probably better off represented with treasure or an artifact in this game. Let’s find a better way to do that.” Seems like a very reasonable way to ban just the MC dedication.

So... we're now trying to find excuses for banning it lore wise?

"Oh, you may be in the city of guns, but only gunslingers get guns here, if you're just a Fighter shopkeepers don't sell you guns."

You can dig for multiple excuses, but when the base assumptions of the setting allow for a class, it's an extreme stretch to say "the class is fine, but the archetype is not cause lore reasons".

Why are we banning all of the uncommon/rare things at our table?

Cause now, as far as we know, something may be not common simply because it's OP.

Easier to ban all of them than have a broken thing slip through.

OR we can nerf the archetype to a reasonable level and go with the established rules of: Rarity was never meant to be a mechanical power trait.

Switching it up and putting even 1 ability so over the top and using the rarity tag as the sole justification for it means that ALL the not-common options now must be individually judged if they are not common due to setting or due to power.

Making it very easy to say "i don't want overpowered things, so only common allowed".

Why would the dedication for a rare class not also be rare?

Why would the dedication for a rare class not also be rare?

Well, technically in the original book as printed, the class is Rare but the archetype isn't, so ask the devs...(yes, they errata'd this, but I had to make the joke).

More seriously - I believe shroudb is making the point that it's extremely silly to ban the archetype for Rarity reasons when the actual argument is that it should be banned for mechanical ones. Because nobody has a problem with actual Exemplar (the class) despite it being Rare.

Unicore, your misunderstanding appears to be getting into the realm of trolling. You may want to slow down and re-read what people are saying.

I feel like "this thing is rare because it's powerful" is a bad precedent in general. Like the problem is not with the Exemplar class itself, which appears balanced compared to other classes, it's just rare because of the thematics and weird flavor fit for certain campaigns.

But the archetype is comparatively easily explained a la "I just stumbled on this fortuitous thing through providence" and the dedication feat itself is stronger than comparable options on nearly every class.

I feel like "this thing is rare because it's powerful" is a bad precedent in general. Like the problem is not with the Exemplar class itself, which appears balanced compared to other classes, it's just rare because of the thematics and weird flavor fit for certain campaigns.

But the archetype is comparatively easily explained a la "I just stumbled on this fortuitous thing through providence" and the dedication feat itself is stronger than comparable options on nearly every class.

I maintain that people are waaaaay overthinking this. At least 5 times out of 10, power creep can be explained by someone just not thinking things through when they write an option. The archetype was not deliberately boosted because it was Rare. The devs just didn't think the archetype through enough before they published it. As Exhibit A of this fact, I submit that they literally forgot to make the archetype Rare and had to issue an errata.

Unicore wrote:

Why would the dedication for a rare class not also be rare?

Well, technically in the original book as printed, the class is Rare but the archetype isn't, so ask the devs...(yes, they errata'd this, but I had to make the joke).

More seriously - I believe shroudb is making the point that it's extremely silly to ban the archetype for Rarity reasons when the actual argument is that it should be banned for mechanical ones. Because nobody has a problem with actual Exemplar (the class) despite it being Rare.

I actually do like the idea of banning the archetype for narrative reasons and not the base class. Because a new character created to be an exemplar is going to be written in a way that justifies the class fantasy, but an existing character not written with this in mind will not. And casual demigod-hood should not be a thing. Separately, it's also strong enough to be banned for gamist reasons, but if it were nerfed to be less OP then I would allow players to kill and diablerize exemplars in the world to steal their divine spark, to get access to the archetype.

if it were nerfed to be less OP then I would allow players to kill and diablerize exemplars in the world to steal their divine spark, to get access to the archetype.

Ah, "diablerize." There's a word I haven't heard for a while...

My point isn't that the archetype is rare because of power reasons. It is rare because it comes from a rare class. The rarity tag it has has nothing to do with its power level. My point is AT LEAST this option that has a lot of people freaking out about power creep in the game has the rare tag (for other reasons), so it is not actually something that is threatening the balance of the game.

Like deviant abilities in Dark Archive. How well balanced is High-Speed Regeneration, that can save you from death, with other 6th level feats? It doesn't really matter for the sake of overall game balance and power creep. If a player really wants to go down the deviant power route, some GMs will say no because they don't want that narrative in the game, others will say yes, but should be looking at the specific things chosen and whether they fit well in their game and with their party. The different Ikons are pretty much in the same boat, with the added caveat that many of them have the potential to greatly outshine other options that do comparable things in the game, so GMs should be extra cautious of them. Of course the dedication should keep the rare tag when/if it gets errata'd, but the need to errata it in the first place is fairly low priority because it is something people shouldn't be expecting to use in every game anyway.

My point isn't that the archetype is rare because of power reasons. It is rare because it comes from a rare class. The rarity tag it has has nothing to do with its power level. My point is AT LEAST this option that has a lot of people freaking out about power creep in the game has the rare tag (for other reasons), so it is not actually something that is threatening the balance of the game.

So it's not rare for power reasons... but because it's rare it's not a problem that it has power issues? But also you're not saying Paizo shouldn't fix it.

I can't even tell if there's a point to this line of argument anymore. Yes people can ban overpowered things. Nothing to do with whether or not Paizo should try to balance their stuff better.

I am saying rare options don’t really need to be so well balanced because the game doesn’t hinge on them. The dark archive is full of rare options whose balance is not that careful, not against each other or against the game as a whole. I think people having a view of examples as just another new class in the game are missing the point of the class being rare in the first place. It is an option that won’t break the game, but the abilities you get from it are narratively outside the baseline of the game and that leads to mechanical issues almost inherently.

The dark archive is full of rare options whose balance is not that careful, not against each other or against the game as a whole.

That's not a good thing either.

I am saying rare options don’t really need to be so well balanced because the game doesn’t hinge on them.

The game doesn't 'hinge' on any one specific thing at all, regardless of rarity. This is a poor reason to not try to design the game well.

I think people having a view of examples as just another new class in the game are missing the point of the class being rare in the first place.

The point of it being rare is because of its narrative features (though tbh, even that is somewhat overstated) not to be a red flag that Paizo's going to be lazy about balancing it.

I genuinely can't wrap my head around this cope. This isn't a trend, Paizo just published a problematic feat. They've done it before, with rare options, with uncommon options, with common options. The ideal thing here is for Paizo to issue errata for it, which they probably will.

The sheer amount of fumbling around to try to somehow justify it is just boggling to me.

I think the crux of my issue is that if I allow the Exemplar in a game, i should probably allow the Exemplar archetype in my game right? So isn't there potentially a problem when everybody else in the party picks up an ikon and potentially does better with it than the Exemplar does?

Like a fighter is going to trigger the extra damage on the bow ikon for a crit more often than the Exemplar is. The Barbarian is going to get more out of the healing from Barrow's Edge than the exemplar is since they hit harder and get hit more, etc.

So maybe this is a power issue, but 8 more damage on a strike isn't going to break anything from a top-down view, but it's also potentially a niche protection issue. It's clear the Exemplar beats the MC exemplar when it comes to transcendence and spark juggling, but kind of the most attractive parts of a few ikons are the immanence.

Unicore wrote:

I am saying rare options don’t really need to be so well balanced because the game doesn’t hinge on them.

The game doesn't 'hinge' on any one specific thing at all, regardless of rarity. This is a poor reason to not try to design the game well.

Quote:

I think people having a view of examples as just another new class in the game are missing the point of the class being rare in the first place.

The point of it being rare is because of its narrative features (though tbh, even that is somewhat overstated) not to be a red flag that Paizo's going to be lazy about balancing it.

I genuinely can't wrap my head around this cope. This isn't a trend, Paizo just published a problematic feat. They've done it before, with rare options, with uncommon options, with common options. The ideal thing here is for Paizo to issue errata for it, which they probably will.

The sheer amount of fumbling around to try to somehow justify it is just boggling to me.

I think the reason people are fumbling is because it's sort of patently obvious that they dropped the ball with this feat. So there's not much disagreement that the ball WAS dropped, meaning the only thing to talk about is why or how. And being human beings, we all want to justify or explain things, even when the explanation is extremely dull.

I really don't think it's more complicated than "they accidentally published a super strong option that breaks the game and also happens to be Rare, they should just errata it and move on." All this talk about whether it's not actually a problem because GMs can ban it due to Rarity, and whether or not getting +2 damage/die when you multiclass "fits the fantasy of being a god" is extremely silly and reminiscent of ancient Greek astronomers trying to add epicycles and deferents to fix their geocentric model of the Earth rather than admit it was broken. The Exemplar Dedication feat is broken. The authors likely spent less time writing it than the community here has spent talking about it over the past few days. Regardless of whether or not it's Rare, it's not balanced. Just fix it and move on.

I mean to me it’s obvious they’re going to nerf this in the future. The dedication is powerful and steals too much of the Exemplar’s class identity. So why not just tell your players you aren’t comfortable with them using the dedication until it gets fixed?

That way you still can allow them to play the class, but the dedication is off the table until it’s brought into a territory you - presumably the GM - finds acceptable.

No, it’s not necessarily fair to allow the class but not the dedication, but it’s pretty clear that the dedication as of right now would be too strong on a vast majority of martials with - as far as I can tell - only the Magus not getting much benefit.

But sometimes communicating an issue with your players is the only way to move forward. I trust Paizo to fix this if not immediately after release then fairly soon after. At that point, I hope it’s in a good state. If not, my players will understand and just not use the archetype.

I know it's pretty normal for internal class options to be all over the place but its so weird looking at how powerful and evocative some of the immanence effects are and then try to parse out how thousand league sandals' makes any sense... or why mortal harvest just does less damage than any other weapon ikon, etc.

Mortal Harvest does more damage, in addition to adding another mobility option to a class that has others (combine with Brave epithet and reach/RS to maximize ping pinging around to set up your kill zones), if you’re facing multiple opponents with weaknesses you can hit with your modified spirit damage. Between epithets and feats it’s really easy for a human exemplar to have his choice between fire, cold, and holy without having to invest any runes toward that. Tag two opponents per transcendence with a persistent weakness and you’re doing better than the standard 2 per die on a single hit.

It’s not the best choice most of the time or when facing a tough opponent, but it has its niches.

I think the crux of my issue is that if I allow the Exemplar in a game, i should probably allow the Exemplar archetype in my game right? So isn't there potentially a problem when everybody else in the party picks up an ikon and potentially does better with it than the Exemplar does?

If you're worried about some kind of consistency with rare tags, maybe. If you're worried about game balance, no. It's easy enough to say "that archetype is badly designed and so I'm not allowing it."

It hasn't been something that comes up a lot in PF2, but back in the PF1/3.5 days we used to have to ban stuff all the time just because it was completely absurd or would destabilize the game. Sacred Geometry is a great example of something Paizo published that has banned banned in every single game I've ever played in.

The reasoning? Because it's an absurd feat that both slows the game down and is wildly overpowered, and has a distinct "did no one think this through before publishing it?" vibe.

And that's kind of where we are here. The quality control of PF2 content has taken a dive this year. If we find something that we think will be a problem for our tables to run smoothly, we're empowered to ban it. We can do that without banning something else that is related.

Hence why Exemplar the Class is allowed while Exmplar the Archetype is banned at my table (pending errata).

My point isn't that the archetype is rare because of power reasons. It is rare because it comes from a rare class. The rarity tag it has has nothing to do with its power level. My point is AT LEAST this option that has a lot of people freaking out about power creep in the game has the rare tag (for other reasons), so it is not actually something that is threatening the balance of the game.

But it IS threatening the balance of the game.

If we start with the mentality of "it's OP but you can ban it because it's rare" then that means that from now it's ok for Rare stuff to be OP.

And that in turns means that it's easier to blanket ban everything not common just for balance sake instead of having to check if each individual thing is Rare due to Power or rare due to actual Rare flavour.

Unicore wrote:

If we start with the mentality of "it's OP but you can ban it because it's rare" then that means that from now it's ok for Rare stuff to be OP.

I prefer to take the option that everything is allowed and play with the whole game. If something becomes a problem then I ban it. I've paid for all the rules not just the common ones. Rarity is not supposed to affect power.

For me I might choose to ban something to fit a theme, or because it is being overused by the players. That is a good use. The other reason might be to protect a plot that can be blow open with one spell, eg an early flight effect can remove a physical challenge or a speak with dead can destroy a mystery.

If I have to ban something because of being over powered that is a problem the game should fix.

Well, results from our first playtest with Exemplar archetype allowed are back. Unsurprisingly, all the martials took it because duh.

The barbarian archetyped into champion (paladin), taking nimble reprisal and reaction before archetyping into exemplar. The actual champion (grandeur) also grabbed exemplar. It was somewhat sickening. Barbarians really hit like a bus with that thing in play. And archetyping for sanctification helped in some fights too.

Well, with a prerelease errata on the dedication feat that doesn't address its power balance, only making sure to be clear that it is rare, I would be very surprised to see the feat touched again in the fall errata, which probably has to be pretty much in final editing pass. So I would guess spring, 2025 would be the first time any kind of power-balancing errata, not obvious error errata, happens on war of the immortals, and this feat is touched again.

Maybe PFS will make some ruling on it, but the exemplar class itself is rare, and it kind of feels like hundreds of Exemplar pathfinders running around in Golarion would be a little narratively strange, so it might be a while before class available in society play.

And that is fine. PF2, as a system is not falling apart. A rare option in a book a lot of folks are excited about has the potential to cause a really minor game balance issue, that will probably be most egregiously felt when one player takes this dedication and potentially out performs other PCs in a manner that feels defeating for them. Maybe some folks who were excited to immediately roll into Mythic/godsrain play have the wind knocked out of their sails, and have to talk with their tables about how to handle some new options that don't feel as tight as the rest of the game. I get how frustrating that can be, but GMs deciding just to not let players use the Exemplar dedication for now, or not using the whole class even, was probably always going to be a possibility since the class was rare from the beginning.

Personally, I was never planning on allowing anything about the exemplar class into my next campaign, because I have been converting a PF1 AP which narratively really needs to come before all the godsrain stuff anyway, but now I am starting to get tempted to run a newer AP, or maybe just an adventure, and just allow both the class and the dedication and see whether it really becomes disruptive in play or not. I think I know my players well enough to know that one or two of them may very well pick up the dedication if it is available, but the other players would be perfectly content to let those players be more damage focused and not really care if they happen to be really good at that. I mean, I still feel like the narrative of the feats and features of the class just isn't for me personally (too super hero/protagonisty), and maybe not for games I want to run, but maybe I will run a shorter adventure sometime as a free-for-all and see if the mechanics bother me at all.

Unicore wrote:

My point isn't that the archetype is rare because of power reasons. It is rare because it comes from a rare class. The rarity tag it has has nothing to do with its power level. My point is AT LEAST this option that has a lot of people freaking out about power creep in the game has the rare tag (for other reasons), so it is not actually something that is threatening the balance of the game.

But it IS threatening the balance of the game.

If we start with the mentality of "it's OP but you can ban it because it's rare" then that means that from now it's ok for Rare stuff to be OP.

And that in turns means that it's easier to blanket ban everything not common just for balance sake instead of having to check if each individual thing is Rare due to Power or rare due to actual Rare flavour.

It also means that OP stuff isn't a problem because a GM can just exclude it from the game.

Ultimately an incredibly lazy and toxic way to approach game balance.

There’s also Paizo’s own data that shows that Exemplars are incredibly popular, so yes, hundreds of gods-bloody exemplars running around…

And that is fine. PF2, as a system is not falling apart. A rare option in a book a lot of folks are excited about has the potential to cause a really minor game balance issue, that will probably be most egregiously felt when one player takes this dedication and potentially out performs other PCs in a manner that feels defeating for them. Maybe some folks who were excited to immediately roll into Mythic/godsrain play have the wind knocked out of their sails, and have to talk with their tables about how to handle some new options that don't feel as tight as the rest of the game. I get how frustrating that can be, but GMs deciding just to not let players use the Exemplar dedication for now, or not using the whole class even, was probably always going to be a possibility since the class was rare from the beginning.

I feel that you're, like, severely downplaying the impact of this broken option being a multiclass archetype. Because the thing is, of all the mechanical parts of of PF2e, the core player-facing part, the one that balance and flavour hinges on primarily, is classes, and multiclass dedications are tightly tied to classes in a way nothing else is, to the point the core book, both premaster and remaster, had them when no other dedications existed yet.

It doesn't matter if it's common or uncommon or rare or even Starfinder - classes and multiclass archetypes are the core player mechanical experience of PF2e and every new one released affects how people perceive balance. No amount of 'I, the enlightened GM, will simply ban it as I need to and discuss with my equally enlightened players' changes the fact that this new multiclass archetype changes the established balance in a way that's very unnerving to people.

I think it would help to have clearer standards for what counts as uncommon or rare, but the way I see it, rare simply means "we don't expect the GM to allow this by default due to how it can be disruptive to a campaign's flavor, or introduce additional busywork". It's not a sign that an option is more powerful than more common alternatives, nor should it be. True name mechanics aren't rare because they're overpowered, they're rare because not every GM wants to come up with creatures' true names on the spot or track which creature's true name the party knows. Skeletons aren't rare because they're an overpowered ancestry either, they're rare because the typical adventuring party isn't expected to feature a sentient skeleton, and the GM may not want to handle the complication of a party member with void healing by default.

All of this is to say that I think there's a lot of tenuous excuses being invented to justify a multiclass archetype that is clearly out of line with the rest of the game's balance. I'd argue it's quite dangerous to knowingly implement overtuned content or deliberately allow overtuned options to exist on the excuse that the thing in question is uncommon or rare, because the point of PF2e is to make it straightforward for GMs to include content they find interesting without fear of having their game derailed by poor balance or design. Already, it's an unspoken rule for GMs to treat AP-specific spells like sudden bolt and other AP-specific mechanics with extreme caution, and those who aren't aware of this rule find themselves with parties that just won't stop casting the same spell or abusing the same overstrong option, which I'd say makes gameplay a lot less interesting overall. I'd rather not add "don't allow the Exemplar dedication unless you want really OP weapon builds" to the list of things a new GM has to watch out for, particularly when the much easier solution is to simply bring the archetype in line with others.

Hence why Exemplar the Class is allowed while Exmplar the Archetype is banned at my table (pending errata).

OR you could do some minor interim homebrew and still allow it at your table? Here are some that are super easy to do:

- No damage boosts at L2. Ikon can provide up to +1 damage/dice at L6 as a scaling part of the dedication (or worded in Paizo text you'd have half the damage boosts rounded down (minimum of +1 damage/dice).

- All Ikons that provide an aura require an action to spark in combat and have the 'stance' trait added to them (i.e., basically treat it like the Marshal stances which by L4 are Assurance-able so you don't even have to roll for it. If you transcend you have until the end of your next turn to shift your spark back into the implement before being kicked out of your stance.

All that is left after that is:
- Some +1 status bonus to 1 save (not a big deal or broken)
- Some damage resistance to 1 type of damage (not a big deal or broken)
- Horn of Plenty giving 1 free consumable until L7, 2 until L15, and 3 until L20 (alchemist dedication already gives WAY MORE THAN THAT so not a big deal or broken)
- Horn of Plenty giving a minor action compression to potion delivery. It requires two actions to do since you have to respark so you're maybe saving 1 action total (but independent familiars running around are just as efficient) and/or you're limited to using it once per combat if you won't respark it.
- Some cool 1 or 2 action transcendence abilities that are on par with most L1-2 martial feats like exacting strike, double slice, sudden charge, etc.
- Some basic fixes to existing limiting/pain point filled game designs (e.g., shadow sheathe just enabling most classes to play a thrown build without stupidly large hoops).

If your gut reaction is to ban it until errata then you're going to be waiting probably years for this stuff. Paizo doesn't have a track record of 'quickly' resolving these issues. They 'might' in this case because everyone is complaining so much, but I'm willing to bet they won't.

Other things I would add to the dedication include enabling a feat selection for humble strikes. That actually enables the damage dice increase on some simple weapons that otherwise aren't eligible because no 'god' has them as a favoured weapon.