The fighter's earth breaker gets passed down in legends because it was wielded by the fighter. Not because the earth breaker was any special.
The mythological stuff has great names because they are describing the actual actions of the people in the myth. Not because "that's how myths are".
So once again you are putting the cart before the horse. If you read the story of wukong the special part was not the pillar, it was not the clothes, it was not the fancy names, it was the fact wukong was doing crazy stuff. But here you are putting all the value on the items and superficial names without any backing for any of it.
It being "meta" is not a good reason for something.
The backing is what gets passed down into the modern era, in symbology and iconography. These are most often items, weapons, or symbols of divinity, or depictions of sacred animals in the case of, say, the Netjer or certain gods of the Teotl.
Lots of stories in mythology are reconstructions by people who may not have had full context, largely due to cultures that had oral traditions. Yet, the symbols remain, persisting through the generations.
Hell, we have the Druid of PF inspired by something that if it was more accurate should be more a cleric or priest than a nature-orientated caster, but alas, that is the popular depiction that has stuck and become ubiquitous with many fantasy settings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is supposed to be a class, one oriented around demigodhood, not a means of backdooring the PF2 equipment system to make it more interesting.
I mean, given that the items are literally its core class feature, this is clearly wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in the end, we're all going to be able to fill out the surveys and give feedback. This is going to be mine: lose the ikon attunement. It's not needed, with weapons especially (since you're always going to empower the same weapon anyways, thanks to how runes work), and just having the ikon abilities work as long as you have or are wearing an item that fits the restrictions will better convey the idea that it is you empowering the item, not the other way around. Relics, inventors, and thaumaturges are all still in game if you want and all better convey the narrative of carrying an extra special item (granted the flavor of the inventor is also off, but it's a possibility if your DM is willing to let you be free with flavoring).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of two minds on this. Just musing here.
I like the legendary equipment angle. Occultist was probably my favorite 1e class, next to Alchemist, so I like item classes. I think that's a fun part of the mythos for a lot of these characters, and it presents some fun storytelling possibilities right out the gate. Attachment to items is a not-insignificant part of the TTRPG genre, and there are some emergent gameplay moments that can come from losing access to items or being reliant on them.
On the other hand, I think there should be at least the option for the Exemplar to be an Exemplar regardless of the items in their possession. I can see that as part of the appeal: your character with a divine spark can manifest that regardless of whether they're wearing Nike or Converse. I also feel like thematically it starts to edge a bit into Thaumaturge implement territory as a class focused on items of power. I'm also sympathetic to the ideas that are out of the ordinary, especially since we've got so many funky ancestries nowadays, and the opportunity to make new legends that don't fit traditional narratives.
Ultimately, mechanically, I suppose the only thing really changing if specific items aren't required is that you won't have those rare times in a campaign where your character doesn't have access to those items. I'd probably prefer that people have the flexibility to pick how their Exemplar's power is expressed, whether that's items, chakras, tattoos, etc. But also it's a Rare class--you're already chatting with your GM, and I think I'd be pretty flexible with a player who wanted to bend the specific items to suit their idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.
The idea that you can have an ikonic item that remarks you as deity is cool and interesting but the idea that you must have an ikonic isn't is.
I know this could be a completely overhaul in the class but the ideal was that the class can get ikonic items/weapons was better in a feat that you can get while the main chassis divine powers could be more agnóstic and adaptable.
The exemplar isn't the enlightened Buddha. Their divinity isn't clearly and easily manifested. I think everyone here is over-estimating the divinity aspect demigods characters (Even though class description seems to specifically mentioning the demigod aspect).
The exemplar is a "hero". They are not so much made powerful by their items but their items serve as a manifesting form for their superhuman potential. If they didn't need these, they would be gods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The exemplar isn't the enlightened Buddha. Their divinity isn't clearly and easily manifested. I think everyone here is over-estimating the divinity aspect demigods characters (Even though class description seems to specifically mentioning the demigod aspect).
The exemplar is a "hero". They are not so much made powerful by their items but their items serve as a manifesting form for their superhuman potential. If they didn't need these, they would be gods.
Well it is one way to look at things. But only one way. And it’s a neat thesis. But again, only one. Sadly, there are about a million kajillion bazillion ways of quantifying just how godlike…gods are and twice as many that describe the provenance of their powers - the one presented in the playtest document is one of them. And they are all about as logical as the next. My favorite is the one about backwards tea leaves, dried bananas and wrought iron fish legs. But not in that order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some additional thoughts as of this morning:
1. I hope the Unarmed and Natural Weapon Ikons have overlap with regular weapon Ikons, like how Gleaming Blade is any Sword or Knife, there should be an Ikon that works for Jaws and Knives, for example. If unarmed attacks and natural weapons are cordoned off into too narrow of a set of options it will feel quite bad and make this playtest feel like a bit of rugpull. There are concepts that aren't tied to making unarmed or natural attacks specifically as great as possible, but rather using anything on hand if necessary. Heracles would use a bow, wrastlin', or clubs whenever he felt like it.
2. I would have FAR less of an issue with Weapon Ikons as a concept if you could switch your divine spark to a new weapon with a single action. Seeing how many different weapons can fall under a Weapon Ikon is stomped on by the fact that you're locked into one weapon for a full day.
|
I took some time to organize my thoughts on this topic. My main issue is with the one Weapon ikon.
I feel the game by itself already pushes you to use a signature weapon more and more as you level up.
And I feel the Weapon ikon, way I understand it, does it even more and from the start.
But the system on the whole (encounters at range, weakness to special materials or damage types, differing weapon traits) does not reward using a singular weapon at all times, especially at low levels. The unchangeable weapon ikon mechanic goes against the natural grain of the gameplay.
Heck, even the most weaponish class, ie the Fighter, is only locked to an entire weapon group to get their full power and not at the lowest levels.
So, I think an Exemplar should be able to make another weapon its ikon with some benefits if not necessary all of them.
Maybe only the primary weapon could enable the Transcendence ability for example but any weapon inhabited by the Divine Spark would give its Immanence ability.
And / or maybe the Exemplar could build up a whole panoply of 2 or 3 weapons that can be fully inhabited by the Divine Spark, thereby providing both the Immanence and Transcendence abilities for each weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about the Exemplar class, the less sense I feel it makes to tie ikons to anything material. Really, when you look at the legendary hero's iconic weapon or armor or whatever, the most important part is the story behind it, and that's when the figure has either of those at all. Some of the greatest heroes of legend aren't even defined by their body so much as their mind, like Odysseus, which is why tying ikons purely to physical sense doesn't make much sense to me. Tying lots of buffs to my weapon so that I then have a bunch of different mechanics to keep toggling off and on again doesn't really appeal terribly much to me either.
With this in mind, I feel it would've been better to have committed fully to the theme of epithets and make ikons more of an abstract thing, i.e. a story associated with you or an epithet you've earned that reflects some of your legendary abilities or deeds. Not only would this enable a much broader framework for capturing a greater variety of demigods, it would still be able to capture those who do have extraordinary items as well. I also feel there's a lot of missed potential around ikons as distinct and singular, yet extremely powerful effects that can be swapped out individually on the fly, rather than more minor benefits that get stacked together then turned on or off as a whole set. A simpler, yet broader framework could help the class's theme and gameplay, even if it would differ radically from the structure we have now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I understand the idea of epic god/demigods and their link to legendary weapons and itens but this isn't completely fixed. One example in the current pop culture is thor's Mjölnir and Stormbreaker in Marvel Universe. Both take powers from Thor but one is a Hammer while the other is an Axe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't personally think such a massive change would happen, because then data from this playtest would largely be invalid, since it would have a whole new mechanical paradigm.
I just think Paizo picked its specific focus - which is one of many when it comes to demigod archetypes - and I doubt it's something that sees a massive change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its pretty common they do such large changes after playtests based on players responses and internal tests like Kineticists dropping blasts from working like weapons or throwing universal gate away in favor to a more progressive mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shifting away from dedicated items to the epithets would require a progression change of some fashion, and probably a whole sleuth of new feats to make that would never have been through a widespread playtest.
You usually don't bring things to playtest if you are expecting to make large, sweeping changes that, imo, a shift away from the core class feature would entail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There looks to be a lot of talk about what will and won't change with the material being discussed, and even about whether advocating for changes past a certain scope even counts as productive. I'm not a professional game designer, much less a Paizo developer, so I can't speak for them, but then by that same token, neither can anyone else here.
Let's suppose that, in the worst case scenario, Paizo is so committed to the exemplar's current implementation that they won't implement such substantial changes. Even in that case, talking about what could be still makes for productive discussion within the community. In the event of errata or a rework down the line, that sort of discussion might even spark positive change.
Beyond that, if the topic of discussion is within the bounds of change that can happen with the material, or if there is even just a chance for it to be, then it absolutely is worth having this kind of conversation if it helps lead to better content, even if that content's implementation differs from what's mentioned here too. I get the feeling that the exemplar's reception is positive enough that Paizo might continue with the class's basic structure and ikons, but on the off-chance that it's not, or that there's sufficient player demand for a different implementation, this is the kind of discussion that would help signal that. Rather than hide behind Paizo and pretend to divine the finer points of their internal development process, it would make for much more productive conversation if everyone here instead expressed their own opinion on the topic, using their own words.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the best is to state what we like and what we don't like, especially for those who have the opportunity to play with the classes.
Then the designers can decide what works best to enhance the strong points people see in the class and to improve those still lacking.
Shifting away from dedicated items to the epithets would require a progression change of some fashion, and probably a whole sleuth of new feats to make that would never have been through a widespread playtest.
You usually don't bring things to playtest if you are expecting to make large, sweeping changes that, imo, a shift away from the core class feature would entail.
Late to the game for this, but just pointing out for future playtests: they do. They do make sweeping, fundamental changes after playtests, Paizo has done this multiple times with multiple classes in fact, the most recent example being the kineticist.
This isn't a video game "beta" test where we're mostly just trying to break the code if at all possible; there really isn't a ready example from video game playtests because it's a different medium. This is a rough draft of a manuscript; manuscripts get changed around and turned inside out all the time between that early draft and publication.