| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that you have an absolute nobody doing something and somehow getting power from being famous? That is literally the definition of putting the cart before the horse.
If a Rogue creates an area of darkness people don't say he stabbed the sun. If a caster creates an area of darkness people don't say he eclipsed the sun. Ahh, but if the nobody examplar does it, he did this amazing thing.
That is what is called "main character syndrome". It also sounds a lot like literal plot armor, plot weapon, and a potential segway into Gary Stu/Mary Sue.
The italicized is anti-Mary Sue character fuel on its own, being this "imposter hero." Aside from that, I don't understand what you mean by "doing absolutely nothing." They're adventurers adventuring. On their adventures, they perform deeds, which inspire legends, which in turn grow their own power. The deed is performed first, and the tales it inspired amplifiy their power to perform even greater deeds. (As I understand this thing)
Did the Rogue look like they were stabbing the sun? Like, by jumping into the air and thrusting their dagger towards it? If so, I'd argue they should get tavern tales like the Exemplars. It's all about the aesthetic. Rogues aren't usually the bombastic type, though.
So, I won't argue that a player seeing this class and wanting to make a Mary Sue out of it isn't a potential problem, even moreso than most other classes. That's why Exemplar is rare, and people more eloquent than me have debated this issue to death on either side already. If your point is that "this can be a problem for Exemplar," I concede. If your argument is: "this is an existential problem for Exemplar," then I think that view is pretty silly. Even many of the pop culture and mythological characters that inspired this class played second fiddle to another in their own stories. Narrative parity can be had, easily. Thor, a literal god with fame across the multiverse, never overshadowed Steve Rogers, a nobody injected with serum who fought in a war on a backwater planet and who will die from old age, if not felled with a tiny bullet first.
There is a difference between an adventurer's accord as perceived by the world they live in and their accord as perceived by their party. Celebrity does not equivocate to a narrative spotlight.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot wait to play an Exemplar as a magical girl.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.
problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it more implies things about divine sparks tbh. Like gods canonically don't get power from worshipers nor is amount of worshipers relative to their power, but then there are things like Idol which become sentient when they have worshipers and literally gain more powers more worshipers the object has.
Hmmm.
Maybe it's that the true Gods are already powerful enough that whatever they might gain from worship is not meaningful, while sparks/idols/etc are still small and weak enough that it is?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> Really? They never said that? Let's look at the first paragraph of the blog post again and see if I'm hallucinating.
Ah okay, they did literally say “concept” back there, my apologies then.
> that uses spirit guides/animals as a source of ancillary power.
Having a familiar fren, and having apparitions are two VEEEEERY different things.
> One is infused with Divine Power straight from the source. One prays for Divine Power and it is granted to them. One takes up the cause of a Divine entity and is given additional powers in exchange, AKA Divine Power. Not in the same vicinity, you say?
Your complaint here is nonsense and I’m running out of polite ways to say that repeatedly, for frame of reference you may as well be saying both Barbarian and Rogue are the same.
Exampler: gets corrupted by deity blood and gains divinity.
You: that’s the same as a Champion praying to a god and getting spells and stuff.
Everyone: it’s literally not.
> For it to be a "me" problem, I have to be the only one having an issue with it.
No it’s very much a you problem, and I’ll say the same to the half-handful of people who happen to agree with you. It’s not a widespread upheaval awaiting to ounce like you think it is. It’s an indivisible hangup, the issue is on them, not the thing they’re scared of.
> Furthermore, the "I don't have an issue with this, so it shouldn't be an issue for anyone else" mentality is basically a form of gatekeeping/a claim of badwrongfun for tables who don't play the same way you do, which undermines its objectivity.
You’re fearmongering and demonizing and trying to restrict/remove stuff from others. THAT’S gatekeeping. Not people not agreeing with or not freaking out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's some support for the idea that growing your legend can help you achieve godhood. One example is Iomedae who performed 11 miraculous acts while she was still mortal. From that point of view the test of the Starstone itself could be interpreted as a fast track to instantly turn yourself into a legend worthy of ascension.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the iconic based on in your view? "Egotistical manic fail-god" - what is that?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Animist is definitely way more medium than Shaman. But even if it is a hybrid of the two classes, a hybridization of multiple class concepts into 1 with some new mechanics just to that class seems to fit the definition of a brand new class to me.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
> Classes and features that sell the player on the fact that you're a super special boi that is literally blessed by the gods and doesn't have to follow any of the norms or rules that mere mortals make because you're better than them.
Sorcerer has existed for years and this has never been an issue.
You seem to be operating on the notion that PCs (not players) can’t be arrogant or jerks. That isn’t true. What is true is that the group had to get along to further the plot, as they’re all the main characters.
That said Examplers are not required to be jerks or arrogant.
I guess the big difference here is apparently those of us with non-dysfunctional groups vs those with problem players. It’s not Paizo or anyone else’s job to fix the problem players at your table. You talk to the them.
> when the whole idea of hero-gods is that they're supernaturally and mystically powerful and protected from harm, typically, by way of plot armor more than anything else which is not something that can be represented in PF2 in a fair or balanced way.
Might help if you actually read the class before commenting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.
Yes, that is true, I'm not denying this.
But if you look historically, these problems are most common among Paladins (and to a lesser extent, Clerics), not among Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. Because these characters didn't have these special restrictions to follow that have ambiguity or corner-cases/loopholes behind them. PF2 found a clever solution for this, and as we've noticed, the number of Paladins Fall threads have basically been extinct, but that is a relatively different situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first thought reading the class was "I could play this as someone who found a falling star."
If that character concept makes you so incandescent with rage, games that involve other people might not be for you.
Let's not gatekeep.
From what I can recall of previous discussions with @Themetricsystem, his available gaming space has... more than its fair share of toxic players, and he's been burned pretty badly before.
So... my read is that for him, "try to keep the other people I play with from making this all go horrible" is a significant part of the process of getting any real RPG time at all... and he perceives this new class as being something that's likely to make that job harder, and it's hard enough already.
That's what he's reacting to and from the place he's coming from?
That's fair. "Paizo teased a cool new class, but instead they just made my life more difficult" is a legit reason to be unhappy, especially since it's been less than 24 hours since that reveal.
...and, honestly, I personally got about a third of the way through "You're Welcome" on youtube and that was way more than enough of that particular character for me. So I can really sympathize with being less than pleased with the idea of a class that has "that guy, over there" as once of its blatantly obvious founding inspirations - indeed, the one that's highlighted by its iconic.
You know? @Themetricsystem is probably even right. This class probably will mean that he personally has to deal with a few more headaches at the gaming table than he otherwise would have. He's allowed to be unhappy about that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.Yes, that is true, I'm not denying this.
But if you look historically, these problems are most common among Paladins (and to a lesser extent, Clerics), not among Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. Because these characters didn't have these special restrictions to follow that have ambiguity or corner-cases/loopholes behind them. PF2 found a clever solution for this, and as we've noticed, the number of Paladins Fall threads have basically been extinct, but that is a relatively different situation.
I've run into significantly more obnoxious rogues and fighters than clerics or oracles so... don't really agree with the premise either. Toxic rogue and murderhobo-y fighter/barbarian are both pretty common meme targets too (add in womanizing bard and collateral damage abusing wizard/sorcerer and some abusive power-gamer tropes and you've got the whole gamut covered).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
> Really? They never said that? Let's look at the first paragraph of the blog post again and see if I'm hallucinating.
Ah okay, they did literally say “concept” back there, my apologies then.
> that uses spirit guides/animals as a source of ancillary power.
Having a familiar fren, and having apparitions are two VEEEEERY different things.
> One is infused with Divine Power straight from the source. One prays for Divine Power and it is granted to them. One takes up the cause of a Divine entity and is given additional powers in exchange, AKA Divine Power. Not in the same vicinity, you say?
Your complaint here is nonsense and I’m running out of polite ways to say that repeatedly, for frame of reference you may as well be saying both Barbarian and Rogue are the same.
Exampler: gets corrupted by deity blood and gains divinity.
You: that’s the same as a Champion praying to a god and getting spells and stuff.
Everyone: it’s literally not.
> For it to be a "me" problem, I have to be the only one having an issue with it.
No it’s very much a you problem, and I’ll say the same to the half-handful of people who happen to agree with you. It’s not a widespread upheaval awaiting to ounce like you think it is. It’s an indivisible hangup, the issue is on them, not the thing they’re scared of.
> Furthermore, the "I don't have an issue with this, so it shouldn't be an issue for anyone else" mentality is basically a form of gatekeeping/a claim of badwrongfun for tables who don't play the same way you do, which undermines its objectivity.
You’re fearmongering and demonizing and trying to restrict/remove stuff from others. THAT’S gatekeeping. Not people not agreeing with or not freaking out.
The Shaman companion was more than just a familiar friend, it functioned as both animal companion and familiar simultaneously, and then some, with unique abilities that neither separately could do. Kind of like what the Animist has now.
It's close enough that people will confuse Exemplars for Champions or Clerics, in the same way people confuse Psychics, Wizards. Witches, and Sorcerers on a regular basis. It might actually be an intended setting thing, but entities infused with Divinity isn't exactly as clear-cut as it's made out to be in terms of class identity.
My concern is twofold, the first is that this class is a step back towards the same issues of old that this edition has mostly put to rest with well-designed mechanics via the Edicts/Anathema rules, and isn't something that can be fixed with more well-designed mechanics like those (because currently, only the Rarity tag is what the GM can use to disbar the class, and is relatively flimsy in its usage and guidance).
Even if it could, the factor that it's a Rare class means not many players are going to realistically play it in an actual setting, meaning it's pushing an option that many GMs will probably either begrudgingly allow it (only to change their mind later if it becomes a problem), or they won't allow it in the first place, making it effectively content that is dead on arrival.
Guns and Gears had guidance for this sort of thing with the Gunslinger, Inventor, Firearms, etc. Asking for maybe something similar and not just expect GM Handwavium to entirely solve the problem for them isn't such a tall ask like you make it out to be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.Yes, that is true, I'm not denying this.
But if you look historically, these problems are most common among Paladins (and to a lesser extent, Clerics), not among Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. Because these characters didn't have these special restrictions to follow that have ambiguity or corner-cases/loopholes behind them. PF2 found a clever solution for this, and as we've noticed, the number of Paladins Fall threads have basically been extinct, but that is a relatively different situation.
I have seen waaaaaaay more "I kill anyone I dislike" Barbarians, "I steal everything I see" Rogues, and "I roll to seduce" Bards than I've ever had issues with the holy crew... none of which I blame on the classes in question.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's allowed to be unhappy about that.
Then surely keftiu is also allowed to be unhappy with their abusive behavior too, right?
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if today, the new Shifter had been announced. Some folks are excited, some folks aren't, typical stuff.
If I came to the forums, livid that Paizo was throwing their resources away on a class that could only turn into a chicken, it would turn some heads. "Disruptive players will love this! They'll cluck during every serious roleplay scene! I cannot STAND the egg-laying abilities they have!" Paragraphs of the stuff... despite the word "chicken" being nowhere to be found in the playtest document.
That's what it feels like is happening here.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot wait to play an Exemplar as a magical girl.
I absolutely LOVE this idea
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you know what attracts problem players? Classes and features that sell the player on the fact that you're a super special boi that is literally blessed by the gods and doesn't have to follow any of the norms or rules that mere mortals make because you're better than them. I mean, look at the Iconic, it's based on a precipitously egotistical manic fail-god, voiced by a real-life maniac egotist, and even at the end of the super Disney-fied story only BARELY learns to have even a pale shadow of what one might call humility. Paizo is selling THAT as an idea/concept for a whole Class and if you don't think people are going to play into the idea of them being above/better than anyone/everyone else simply by dint of being allowed to play the Class then I really don't know what to say.
It's an insane idea, especially when you consider that the reality of it playing out in a game is going rub those people VERY wrong because they too will be just as likely to get 1-tapped by a boss monster when the whole idea of hero-gods is that they're supernaturally and mystically powerful and protected from harm, typically, by way of plot armor more than anything else which is not something that can be represented in PF2 in a fair or balanced way.
On what do you base this assumption about problem players ? I have seen jerks with PCs of all classes.
And the posters who like the class do not sound at all like the extreme problem players you depict.
As usual you are overreacting in a rather condescending way and a My opinion is the one and only truth argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen waaaaaaay more "I kill anyone I dislike" Barbarians, "I steal everything I see" Rogues, and "I roll to seduce" Bards than I've ever had issues with the holy crew... none of which I blame on the classes in question.I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.Yes, that is true, I'm not denying this.
But if you look historically, these problems are most common among Paladins (and to a lesser extent, Clerics), not among Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. Because these characters didn't have these special restrictions to follow that have ambiguity or corner-cases/loopholes behind them. PF2 found a clever solution for this, and as we've noticed, the number of Paladins Fall threads have basically been extinct, but that is a relatively different situation.
The Rogues who actively try to get the Paladin to fall have a special place in my heart.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Locking for flags
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, flags have been cleared. Consider this the warning please. Be RESPECTFUL of each other, even in disagreements. The classes wont be everyone. That is fine. People are allowed to be excited. People are allowed to be hesitant. Do not insult each other or any Paizo staff. Ive removed some baiting and harassing and their quotes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shaman was a mix of Druid (divine nature based caster) and Witch (a spirit guide).
PF1 Shaman had parent classes of Oracle and Witch.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Shaman companion was more than just a familiar friend, it functioned as both animal companion and familiar simultaneously, and then some, with unique abilities that neither separately could do. Kind of like what the Animist has now.
I'm simply deeply confused by this. The Animist does not have a corporeal companion. They don't have a companion at all, they've got something that partially possesses them, and cannot influence the material world at all - at least not without possessing them. How on earth is Shaman the narrative similarity here, and not the Medium? Mediums literally bargained with powerful spirits to try and get powerful abilities they could flexibly change on a day-to-day basis, but risked going too far and being completely possessed. That seems far more similar to me.
The problem with the medium comparison for the argument being presented is that it's also clear that the Animist isn't a pf2 version of the class. Not only is there the difference in what is possessing you - apparations of much lower power than the spirits you were bargaining with as a medium - leading to a different narrative (you chose to give control to the possessor, instead of losing control and them hijacking your body), but there's the obvious mechanical differences. Animist is part way between a druid/bard caster and a wizard/sorc caster in terms of how focused it is on casting spells. Mediums were as focused on casting spells as paladins and rangers.
The animist clearly draws from the medium, the shaman, a little from the witch in some mechanical ways, but it's pretty clearly not a 1:1 of any existing pf1 classes, and I've no idea why people are trying to contort both it and pf1 classes into a box that could kinda be viewed as matching.
|
I mean, it more implies things about divine sparks tbh. Like gods canonically don't get power from worshipers nor is amount of worshipers relative to their power, but then there are things like Idol which become sentient when they have worshipers and literally gain more powers more worshipers the object has.Hmmm.
Maybe it's that the true Gods are already powerful enough that whatever they might gain from worship is not meaningful, while sparks/idols/etc are still small and weak enough that it is?
Divine spark seems to be the necessary thing to become at least a quasi god, but I can't remember if idols gain divine spark through worship or if object is an idol because it already has a divine spark.
I've run into significantly more obnoxious rogues and fighters than clerics or oracles so... don't really agree with the premise either. Toxic rogue and murderhobo-y fighter/barbarian are both pretty common meme targets too (add in womanizing bard and collateral damage abusing wizard/sorcerer and some abusive power-gamer tropes and you've got the whole gamut covered).I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.Yes, that is true, I'm not denying this.
But if you look historically, these problems are most common among Paladins (and to a lesser extent, Clerics), not among Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. Because these characters didn't have these special restrictions to follow that have ambiguity or corner-cases/loopholes behind them. PF2 found a clever solution for this, and as we've noticed, the number of Paladins Fall threads have basically been extinct, but that is a relatively different situation.
I have seen waaaaaaay more "I kill anyone I dislike" Barbarians, "I steal everything I see" Rogues, and "I roll to seduce" Bards than I've ever had issues with the holy crew... none of which I blame on the classes in question.
Different play experiences, I suppose.
But honestly, I think having an entire problem category dedicated to a single class (or subclass, now,) by itself is enough for me to consider it significantly more problematic than "Chaotic Stupid," which often includes characters of multiple different classes and alignments (though Chaotic Neutral is the most common offender, hence the name).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Shaman companion was more than just a familiar friend, it functioned as both animal companion and familiar simultaneously, and then some, with unique abilities that neither separately could do. Kind of like what the Animist has now.I'm simply deeply confused by this. The Animist does not have a corporeal companion. They don't have a companion at all, they've got something that partially possesses them, and cannot influence the material world at all - at least not without possessing them. How on earth is Shaman the narrative similarity here, and not the Medium? Mediums literally bargained with powerful spirits to try and get powerful abilities they could flexibly change on a day-to-day basis, but risked going too far and being completely possessed. That seems far more similar to me.
The problem with the medium comparison for the argument being presented is that it's also clear that the Animist isn't a pf2 version of the class. Not only is there the difference in what is possessing you - apparations of much lower power than the spirits you were bargaining with as a medium - leading to a different narrative (you chose to give control to the possessor, instead of losing control and them hijacking your body), but there's the obvious mechanical differences. Animist is part way between a druid/bard caster and a wizard/sorc caster in terms of how focused it is on casting spells. Mediums were as focused on casting spells as paladins and rangers.
The animist clearly draws from the medium, the shaman, a little from the witch in some mechanical ways, but it's pretty clearly not a 1:1 of any existing pf1 classes, and I've no idea why people are trying to contort both it and pf1 classes into a box that could kinda be viewed as matching.
Disclaimer: It's been several years since I've played PF1, and the Shaman was a class I never played, so who would've thought that I'd get some details wrong with it, like it being a mix of Oracle and Witch instead of Druid, or that it analogued a Primal spellcaster. Shocking, said no one ever.
If I had to guess, though, the comparison is probably drawn by the nature of "Shamans were a PF1 class that dealt with spirits as its primary source of features besides spellcasting," meanwhile the Animist's primary source of features besides its spellcasting is...well, "apparitions," which is basically a synonym for spirits. Medium fits in a similar theme as well, just on a different side of the spectrum.
Also, to be clear, the complaint is not "It's a 1:1 comparison of an existing class," which is fundamentally impossible and also goes against clearly established design principles. The complaint is "It uses the same concept of a class of a previous edition," when you consider Medium and Shaman already delved into the "Let spirits possess you/travel with you, so you can use their power to adventure with," and Animist seems to be treading that same ground via the apparitions. (Unless there's an in-lore difference between spirits and apparitions, I'm claiming the synonym defense here.)
Like I said in a previous post (which got deleted because [reasons]), Animist looks like Shaman with a new coat of paint and updated textures. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, having a Shaman class in PF2 can do some good, though I personally wish it was a Primal spellcaster, being able to poach some Primal spells might not be the worst thing. But it leaves the "New original classes" claim made in the original blog post much to be desired, which is where the complaint lies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Animist feels more like what I always wanted the druid to be (which was a divine caster tied to more earthly spirits. The apparitions feel miles off of the Oracle Mysteries as both mechanics and as narrative influence.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it mind-boggling that people want to argue about whether someone from Paizo was mistaken about these being "new original classes". It's such a tiny little nit. I would think we have better things to talk about, like how interesting (or not) these classes are.
I'm not sure if I'm just missing something, but does the Exemplar really not have weapon ikon options for non-staff bludgeoning or brawling weapons? That seems like a bit of an oversight considering the kinds of characters mentioned as inspiration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if I'm just missing something, but does the Exemplar really not have weapon ikon options for non-staff bludgeoning or brawling weapons? That seems like a bit of an oversight considering the kinds of characters mentioned as inspiration.
You missed the Titan's Breaker which adds clubs and hammers to the mix, but otherwise you're right, brawling is definitely missing and there's no universal bludgeoning option. It would be strange for them to leave such an oversight in the weapon options in the final class. I suppose it's also a little strange that there was no pan-bludgeoning option in the playtest, either.
|
|
Batman doesn’t punch the sun to make it go dark.
Batman does it by throwing grounded kryptonite in Superman's eyes ;-)
A different narrative with metaphorical similarities, but the same mechanical result.
It is really extremely similar to how you can flavor / justify the Thaumaturge's ability to create custom weaknesses any way you like. And I have not heard of GMs banning the class because of this.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH it probably says something nice about the class when the most consistent complaint is that... it has evocative names for its abilities.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it mind-boggling that people want to argue about whether someone from Paizo was mistaken about these being "new original classes". It's such a tiny little nit. I would think we have better things to talk about, like how interesting (or not) these classes are.
I honestly believe many people read far too much in the New concept of a class idea and now feel that Paizo fooled them.
And we also have the people who will grasp at any straw to bash Paizo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run into significantly more obnoxious rogues and fighters than clerics or oracles so... don't really agree with the premise either. Toxic rogue and murderhobo-y fighter/barbarian are both pretty common meme targets too (add in womanizing bard and collateral damage abusing wizard/sorcerer and some abusive power-gamer tropes and you've got the whole gamut covered).I would put the Exemplar on the same tier of the classic "Paladins Fall" or "Chaotic Stupid" threads, on the low end of the spectrum. High end, I feel, would surpass that. PF2 took great care to remove that possibility of problem gameplay from the Champion class. Let's not reintroduce it back with this new class.problem gameplay comes from problem players, not from champions, sorcerers, oracles, and exemplars existing.Yes, that is true, I'm not denying this.
But if you look historically, these problems are most common among Paladins (and to a lesser extent, Clerics), not among Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. Because these characters didn't have these special restrictions to follow that have ambiguity or corner-cases/loopholes behind them. PF2 found a clever solution for this, and as we've noticed, the number of Paladins Fall threads have basically been extinct, but that is a relatively different situation.
I have seen waaaaaaay more "I kill anyone I dislike" Barbarians, "I steal everything I see" Rogues, and "I roll to seduce" Bards than I've ever had issues with the holy crew... none of which I blame on the classes in question.Different play experiences, I suppose.
But honestly, I think having an entire problem category dedicated to a single class (or subclass, now,) by itself is enough for me to consider it significantly more problematic than "Chaotic Stupid," which often includes characters of multiple different classes and alignments (though Chaotic...
Let's wait for at least the playtest results to proudly fight all those offenders / jerks that the Exemplar class will surely attract in droves. Beware though that they just might be nonexistent.
I really feel some people confuse jerk players and those interested in the Exemplar class.
AFAICT those fears are not grounded.
Tldr : I do not think Paizo has created "Problem player, the Class".
I find it mind-boggling that people want to argue about whether someone from Paizo was mistaken about these being "new original classes". It's such a tiny little nit. I would think we have better things to talk about, like how interesting (or not) these classes are.
Because that's basically what Paizo advertised them out to be, and upon closer inspection, that's clearly not what one of them are. At best, it's "One is taking a character arc and turning it into a class (kind of like Battlezoo's Dragon "class"), and the other is a 2E version of a hodgepodge of a couple of 1E classes," which sullies my view of the playtest nearly entirely.
Let's wait for at least the playtest results to proudly fight all those offenders / jerks that the Exemplar class will surely attract in droves.
Yes, because the playtest results will give us an apt description of how a Rare class with little to no guidance on the commonality or accessibility to them in-setting will be available in regular play, which I suspect will be a large source of the class' frustrations post-playtest.
To hell with balancing the class, the playtest won't matter if the GMs won't permit it in an actual game, either due to how unlikely its relevance will be to the story they want to tell (AKA Rarity being used properly by a GM), or because it's stupidly bonkers level of broken that experienced GMs will outright deny it based on that alone (AKA Rarity being used improperly by the devs).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both of the problems you're describing here are things you're putting into the classes yourself. They don't really have anything to do with how they actually exist.
So I'm not sure what you expect to be done about it.
To hell with balancing the class
Although with this attitude I guess it's good you aren't in charge.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this is drawing on experience with other systems, but, generally, at least nowadays, people aren't as concerned with being godly powerful as they are about being hot and badass and effortlessly amazing at everything... And we already had that book. Firebrands allows you to play the most interesting, most impressive, most daringly desirable (and desirably daring), ego-fueled-and-fueling character imaginable, to the point of abilities referencing your mortal enemies leagues-deep in the Darklands somehow being your personal superfans and squeeing over you noticing them.
And that's awesome.
If this class, and it is really just a class, and a Rare playtest one at that, is going to summon problem players, it's a bit late to the party because they're presumably already playing Firebrand Vigilante Celebrities already. Are they? I genuinely don't know. However, I really don't think that this class will do any more than that, though I don't want to disrespect those who have less-than-ideal play situations prone to problem players.
That said, it does feel pretty disrespectful to suggest that the Exemplar is trying to replicate or suggest the Disney version of Maui, of all things. Even the Demiplane version references the actual cultural tradition (or, at least one of them). Nahoa doesn't even look all that much like him; any present visual similarities are, I'm pretty sure, because they're both referencing the same mythologies and cultural contexts.
...
Honestly, I'm expecting more tension around the Animist. There's an element of relinquishing character control in certain abilities that isn't explicitly in the hands of the player (particularly Possession Echo), but I'll have to play that PFS character I'm cooking up first to say for sure.