Kratos being this exemplar class makes a whole lot of sense. I think I personally would be trying to make Nezha if I were to play the class ever
As far as allowing the class, I think it would always be about vibe checking the player asking
Depends on the campaign. In something like a normal heroic campaign, probably. In something like a gritty survival horror campaign, probably not.
I wouldn't say "you can't play that character" but more I would suggest saving that particular character to a campaign they are a better match for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make a Vampire Exemplar so that when I Break The Sun's Legs it's actually personal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Four questions in one title - that has to be some kind of record!
I'd love to play an Exemplar who wants to be a paragon to synthetic beings, so they'd work just fine as an Android, Automaton, Wyrwood, or what-have-you... but without being a Cleric of Casandalee.
I will allow exemplars with the same restrictions I have for all other rarity gated things at character creation.
The player has to make their own argument for it and show that they are putting in the extra effort. Generally I also limit groups to no more than two non common character types and only one of those may be rare, this is always stated in the session 0 document and before character creation though and what is uncommon or rare can change from campaign to campaign (also listed in the campaign document)
I will try and work with players if they have taken inspiration from a pop culture character, but outright deny the character if they are just a meme.
|
The baseline expectation of exactly what an "exemplar" is has a lot more.....baggage than the other classes.
Sure there's suggestions of where a class might have gotten their power, but it's never quite so explicitly spelled out as in the Exemplar, nor is there place in the world so defined.
I dunno. I just don't think it fits well in the games I usually run or am a part of.
Perhaps when the book comes out something in the class write-up will change my mind.
Or maybe in a party with 2+ Exemplars in it, so lack of verisimilitude between them and the other classes feels less stark.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost without a doubt. There is almost no difference to me between, for example, a Sorcerer's "born special so I have magic" and an Exemplar's "born special so I am magic" (for a diverse meaning of 'born' given that technically the spark of godhood is, like a sorcerer, something that can happen by circumstance rather than breeding).
The only real consideration I have is for tailoring the elements of Exemplar lore we haven't yet seen to suit my wish to see Exemplars crop up in any era of Golarion's history, not just from 4724 AR (or whenever the god is planning to explode)... Whether that's as simple as positing that some godbits ended up in the past because a god is a four dimensional being that straddles a larger chunk of the timeline than most linear creatures, or just handwaving that folk with sparks of divinity have always existed, and these scions of the exploded god are just the first time that there were so many created at once that history took note of them as a distinct category, like the hero-gods of Iblydos.
I don't have any special Exemplar character concepts yet, but if I ever get a chance to be a player in a game I'll have to take a long, hard look at the class and weigh my options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the campaign. In something like a normal heroic campaign, probably. In something like a gritty survival horror campaign, probably not.
I wouldn't say "you can't play that character" but more I would suggest saving that particular character to a campaign they are a better match for.
But do you do the same restriction for an Oracle/Sorcerer/Kineticist?
Almost without a doubt. There is almost no difference to me between, for example, a Sorcerer's "born special so I have magic" and an Exemplar's "born special so I am magic" (for a diverse meaning of 'born' given that technically the spark of godhood is, like a sorcerer, something that can happen by circumstance rather than breeding).
I agree. There's no practical diference between be an exemplar or any other class that born with some magical innate powers in addition to their rarity specifically in Golarion lore. In the end, interactions with other characters will not be treated any differently than any other character who casts spells or has fantastically similar powers would be.
The problem I have with this f#$@ing tag on classes is that many GMs will simply follow it blindly by restricting it or even preventing access just because it's there without wanting to think about it too much.
It's like the restriction that many already make with ancestries. Where it imposes "you can't take this one because it's uncommon or rare" or "I only accept a maximum of X non-common characters to avoid becoming a 'circus'" as a party of adventurers/hero players it needs any excuse or limitation to not be unique and different. Not to mention that this is frequently just arbitrary due to decisions made by Paizo's designers, until 5 days ago orcs and leshys were uncommon, now without changing absolutely anything in the lore they have become common. So if a GM restricted some players to play as orc or leshy before due the rarity now in the remaster now this restriction doesn't exist anymore and the players of this GM only had their choices limited base in nothing except an arbitrary design decision.
So instead of restrict such things like ancestries and classes I strong recommend anyone if you want restrict just ignore the tags and restrict by your story content like "I'm restricting orcs PCs in this adventure due some specific story events that isn't work good with you playing with orc characters" or "I don't think that's more 'advanced' equipments and weaponry will work well in this current adventure so I will restrict the access to Gunslingers/Inventors" or "This adventure that we will going to play doesn't fit well with powerful spellcasting so I'm restrict the access to spellcasters but I will allow the archetypes and exemplars (yes because the examplar is basically an martial and its magical powers are auxiliary)".
The current rarity system is just poorly explained in many cases when not just arbitrary. Take care with it.
In my head, they're going into a new semi-common category. I'll be even more willing to accept them into a game than Gunslinger or Inventor, but I'll still expect a player to do the legwork of considering how they fit into the game and presenting their character pitch. Realistically, Thaumaturge is probably in a similar category, where I want a bit of explanation for what your character's deal is.
---
As for my concepts, I really want to do a legendary gnoll,blessed by Lamashtu. (More gnoll than kholo, since it leans more towards the older, more mythic lore.) Hyenas are known for their bite strength, and being able to make their bite attack an ikon feels fitting, eventually allowing for some very dramatic feats like eating the sun. It's the sort of thing I used Bloodrager for in PF1, and Thaumaturge for in PF2.
A lot of my concepts are on hold until we find out the details of the domain archetype. Domains were a big part of my Exemplar customization, so I'll also need to see how much the class' other features are tuned to allow interesting customization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently playing an Exemplar in an ongoing homebrew campaign - but still set in Golarion. It's been four sessions so far and I'm having an absolute blast.
His concept is heavily based on a few figures from extant mythologies (Perun, Thor, The Dagda), his Ikons being Skin Hard as Horn, Titan's Breaker, and Skybearer's Belt.
Narratively, he's from Iobaria and as the game is set prior to the War of Immortals, the idea is that he received his divine spark from an ancient oak tree in the Fangard Forest - though he is unaware of where his power comes from, intended to be a character arc at some point in the campaign.
The oak tree is meant to be a reference to the world tree from Slavic mythology where it's commonly described to be an oak - and that in my Golarion, there is some sort of divinity that gave it power, and then whatever nature spirit dwells in the tree passed on a spark of that power to my character.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would utterly 100% allow one or several Exemplars in my group. The class is not any stronger than the others we already have. And it's the attack-focused divine martial counterpart to the defense-focused Champion.
And I would totally make it available before the War too.
And just because there is an Exemplar PC, it would not mean there are Exemplars everywhere. Unless it fits the campaign of course.
I hope I can play one in PFS. Maybe one with MC Druid for Shillelagh fun and later Wild Shape.
I wouldn't allow the playtest exemplar in a game. Once it comes out though, we'll see.
As to what concepts... none. The mechanics don't really click for me and I found I had 0% interest in playing one. Now animist I can work with.
But do you do the same restriction for an Oracle/Sorcerer/Kineticist?
I always like to do a session zero or at least talk to people about their characters before the campaign. So yeah, if I was planning something around "surviving in the desert" I might suggest a player not play a dual gate water/wood kineticist since you would completely trivialize a lot of the challenges inherent in that story. But while a wood/water kineticist would be an issue, an earth/fire one really wouldn't so it's not an issue with the class.
The big issue with the exemplar is that thematically it sort of runs contrary to games where the PCs are supposed to feel frightened or vulnerable in the circumstances they find themselves in. In large part because it's "abundant confidence, the class."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big issue with the exemplar is that thematically it sort of runs contrary to games where the PCs are supposed to feel frightened or vulnerable in the circumstances they find themselves in. In large part because it's "abundant confidence, the class."
But not confident fighters or barbarians or bards or champions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But not confident fighters or barbarians or bards or champions?
I mean, IIRC the Player's Guide for Strange Aeons in PF1 suggested not allowing Paladins because of how readily the class becomes immune to fear. It's the same sort of thing- there's a lot of adjustments you need to make with a horror campaign. I'm not saying there's not an exemplar that couldn't work in a horror campaign, but I might want to hear the player's idea of how their character's personal legend would complement the story rather than overshadowing it.
This actually happened to me in Carrion Crown. I had a soft ban on Paladins because the total fear immunity would more or less spoil the tone of the first book, since it would technically render the character immune to most of the first book. I'm glad that blanket fear immunity isn't the default for Champions and that haunts are no longer classed as fear effects, so when I finally ran it in earnest I did have a player with a Paladin of Sarenrae