| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few things to establish framing this discussion:
- The Exemplar Archetype is Rare, per the Alternate Mythic Rules PDF.
- Rare means "PCs can access only if you specifically make [it] available."
- The archetype gives you a full-powered ikon, with the only real downside that you don't have a second ikon to shift into (effectively meaning you have to burn an action every time you transcend.)
Like in the playtest, Ikons have two effects: a passive one that you get whenever the ikon hosts a spark (immanence) and an activated one that requires you to move the spark out of the ikon (transcendence.) Many of the Ikons in WoI have immanence effects that are very useful on a number of classes (e.g. "you add 1-3 spirit damage/damage die to your strikes" on a weapon ikon). This makes it perhaps the single most powerful level 2 archetype feat in the game, and something a lot of characters would take every time they could.
But because it's rare "every time you could take the archetype" is not every character or every campaign, it's "only when the GM tells you that you can." But at the same time, rarity is not supposed to correspond to power levels. So how do you plan on handling this? How does one balance between "the exemplar MC enables some cool concepts" and "the exemplar archetype makes most characters more powerful." Is there a fix possible or needed here?
This was clogging up the AMA thread, so we can move that discussion here.
Well, it is currently not necessary to care that much about rarity in home games beyond "that particular combination makes no sense" (e.g. there are very few Lion Blades in Tian Xia). But it's also possible that tables that previously paid no attention to rarity will have to start now. After all, there's no broad assumption that War of Immortals content is available to PCs (since you can't just be mythic because you want.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my main issue is mostly that a lot of the Ikons aren't just good, they're build enabling to a degree we haven't seen yet.
If you're someone who wants to play a Thrown Weapon build, there is quite literally no other feat in the entire game that enables your playstyle quite like Exemplar Dedication to pick up Shadow Sheathe. Free Action Draw + a damage booster is unbeatable.
The same can be said for martials who want to deal damage. A giant instinct Barbarian has nothing at 2nd level that can compete with picking up Gleaming Blade or Barrow's Edge.
An Alchemist really doesn't have anything that can compete with Cornucopia's action compression + allowing you to buff an ally with any consumeable for 1 action at 60 foot range. Even if they have to use an action to then Shift Immanence.
Or a Cleric who can use a 2nd level feat to just pick up a Wreath for literally infinite Bless. Sure, they can't enlarge the aura, but it's infinite no-action bless with a situational but great when needed Transcendence.
I don't mind the Ikons being powerful, but it's undeniable they're amazing to pick up by just about anyone and no class has a 2nd level feat that can compete with what Exemplar dedication gives you. And this is yet another example of Rarity=Power, despite Paizo claiming it isn't, which is double sad.
I'll need to see how I deal with it in my games, but I'm definitely not banning it if my players enjoy them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of classes intentionally have a pretty meh level 2 in terms of feats specifically to make you feel okay taking an archetype (any archetype) there. So the Exemplar archetype being very powerful just stands out in that context in being more build enabling than other archetypes.
But like the immanence effect of several ikons means that if this cost a level 2 and a level 4 feat to get that, I would think about it for a lot of builds.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite fustrated with exemplar dedication as currently written. For starters, rarity shouldn't be tied to power, but it may well be doing that here. I've mentioned before I dislike how rarity is pretty inscrutable to untangle. "Is this uncommon because it's disruptive, or because it's uncommon in golarian?" is a fustratingly common occurance when running my home game in my own setting. With the potential conflation of rarity = power, it adds another dimension to consider when revewing what a player wants to pick.
That aside, it's clear exemplar dedication gives you so much at level 2, it's a bit too much. I don't know how you would cleanly fix it, the nuclear option could be preventing trancendence until a later feat, forcing more investment from the player, but that could be too much. Though, it wouldn't be the only dedication feat to give you very little.
I also really wish the archtypes were included in the playtests. It'd be very easy to catch these things in that kind of environment.
An Alchemist really doesn't have anything that can compete with Cornucopia's action compression + allowing you to buff an ally with any consumeable for 1 action at 60 foot range. Even if they have to use an action to then Shift Immanence.
It's horn of Plenty and to clarify, it's not 1 action. 1 action is for you to draw and drink something from the horn. For the transcendence, "You Interact to draw a consumable from the horn and then Interact to drink it." So 2 actions and then another action to Shift Immanence. And not any consumable, "The horn of plenty allows you to transfer the effects of potions and elixirs to your allies." Still great, but it's an entire round thing if you plan to do it often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Narratively, I really don't mind that nearly every single character everywhere would always choose to gain something infused with a spark of divinity if they could. I don't even think such a thing should be balanced against other level 2 feats. Narratively, everything about the exemplar is pulling a lot of weight towards "more powerful than mortal means." War of the immortals is really the first PF2 Book where most of the content in it will not be available by default at my table except in a campaign by campaign specific basis. The Animist will be, and a number of the class archetypes probably will be, but all of the mythic stuff, the exemplar and some of the other options are going to be like some of the Dark Archive variant stuff and some of the secrets of magic stuff, where it will be "lets talk about this in session 0 and figure out what is a good fit for our game."
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite fustrated with exemplar dedication as currently written. For starters, rarity shouldn't be tied to power, but it may well be doing that here. I've mentioned before I dislike how rarity is pretty inscrutable to untangle. "Is this uncommon because it's disruptive, or because it's uncommon in golarian?" is a fustratingly common occurance when running my home game in my own setting. With the potential conflation of rarity = power, it adds another dimension to consider when revewing what a player wants to pick.
That aside, it's clear exemplar dedication gives you so much at level 2, it's a bit too much. I don't know how you would cleanly fix it, the nuclear option could be preventing trancendence until a later feat, forcing more investment from the player, but that could be too much. Though, it wouldn't be the only dedication feat to give you very little.
I also really wish the archtypes were included in the playtests. It'd be very easy to catch these things in that kind of environment.
I'd actually go the other way around: you get Trascendence but not Immanence.
For a lot of Ikons (I'd dare say, for most), Immanence is much more alluring than Transcendence. It's not that Trascendence is bad or anything, but all of them are effectively +1 action because you need to Shift in order to use them again.
Take for example the Wreath. Is allowing your allies to reroll a save at +2 good? Yes, it's excellent. But, they need to be affected by an ongoing effect and they need to be in your aura. Meanwhile it's Immanence is, as I said, infinite no-action Bless.
The only one I can think of where Trascendence is better than Immanence is Mirrored Aegis, but that's because the Trascendence is Immanence+ and it lasts a whole minute, making it fire and forget in the context of combat.
An Alchemist really doesn't have anything that can compete with Cornucopia's action compression + allowing you to buff an ally with any consumeable for 1 action at 60 foot range. Even if they have to use an action to then Shift Immanence.It's horn of Plenty and to clarify, it's not 1 action. 1 action is for you to draw and drink something from the horn. For the transcendence, "You Interact to draw a consumable from the horn and then Interact to drink it." So 2 actions and then another action to Shift Immanence. And not any consumable, "The horn of plenty allows you to transfer the effects of potions and elixirs to your allies." Still great, but it's an entire round thing if you plan to do it often.
Ohhh my bad, I misread it as making drawing stuff from the Horn free, like the Sheathe. Whoops.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Narratively, I really don't mind that nearly every single character everywhere would always choose to gain something infused with a spark of divinity if they could. I don't even think such a thing should be balanced against other level 2 feats. Narratively, everything about the exemplar is pulling a lot of weight towards "more powerful than mortal means." War of the immortals is really the first PF2 Book where most of the content in it will not be available by default at my table except in a campaign by campaign specific basis. The Animist will be, and a number of the class archetypes probably will be, but all of the mythic stuff, the exemplar and some of the other options are going to be like some of the Dark Archive variant stuff and some of the secrets of magic stuff, where it will be "lets talk about this in session 0 and figure out what is a good fit for our game."
This is a really toxic way to approach game balance and design. Overpowered on purpose is just bad.
There's no reason to put the exemplar on a pedestal, this one dedication feat just happens to be unbalanced.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the whole point of the Exemplar is "you can be Gilgamesh, or Achilles, or Sun Wukong, or Arjuna" which is an appropriate match for the book with mythic rules in it.
In general, the class seems pretty balanced compared to normal, less ostentatious classes, it's just that the archetype is significantly more powerful than multiclass archetypes are usually. But it might be better to have a very good multiclass archetype that the GM can say "no" to, than another Fighter or Swashbuckler archetype.
Like what else could the Exemplar dedication give?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not sure how divisible Ikons are. It's just the immanence and transcendence effects, which you could separate, I guess.
You could have something like a limit or a cooldown, but I'm not sure that we need stuff to track like this since the most likely use for most ikons is "you just leave the immanence effect up constantly".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not sure how divisible Ikons are. It's just the immanence and transcendence effects, which you could separate, I guess.
Thaumaturge dedication gives you an implement that does nothing at all, so there's precedent for breaking things up even beyond their individual components too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not exactly sure what the solution is. I don't mind it too much.(not that I don't disagree with the people who do, I think it is stronger than most other options just not in a way that matters too much in the grand scheme of things. But then again I am antithetical to the whole idea of "strong options pressure players thing."( i think it has more to do with play culture rather than the rules simply existing.)
But maybe we took the que from Thaumaturge as mentioned and give the Ikon but require a later feat to really benefit from it? , but maybe Exemplar dedication could also give Humble Strikes?(I feel like that would be roughly equivalent to stuff like Monk or Martial Artist dedication)
|
|
I'm quite fustrated with exemplar dedication as currently written. For starters, rarity shouldn't be tied to power, but it may well be doing that here. I've mentioned before I dislike how rarity is pretty inscrutable to untangle. "Is this uncommon because it's disruptive, or because it's uncommon in golarian?" is a fustratingly common occurance when running my home game in my own setting. With the potential conflation of rarity = power, it adds another dimension to consider when revewing what a player wants to pick.
That aside, it's clear exemplar dedication gives you so much at level 2, it's a bit too much. I don't know how you would cleanly fix it, the nuclear option could be preventing trancendence until a later feat, forcing more investment from the player, but that could be too much. Though, it wouldn't be the only dedication feat to give you very little.
I also really wish the archtypes were included in the playtests. It'd be very easy to catch these things in that kind of environment.
I also just want to quickly add the addendum that from what I've seen of the book so far, I'm really digging it. Exemplar is, as the kids say, rad, and animist looks like a great addition to the roster.
I'll have to look at the archetype to make a full judgment on it, but the way other multiclass archetypes tend to handle this kind of thing is to portion out the power across multiple feats. The Gunslinger archetype for instance gives out its way's initial deed at 6th level and its slinger's reload at 10th level, with the dedication feat just granting proficiency in up-to-martial firearms and crossbows and a trained skill. Some go one step further and add another restriction to their big benefit, like the Magus archetype with Spellstriker only letting you Spellstrike once per encounter. It sounds to me like the Exemplar archetype could benefit from this kind of method by only letting the player access their ikon's immanence and/or transcendence effects across multiple feats, and potentially making those benefits more limited too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love War of Immortals so much but my god there is so much jank in this book that deserve big errata, this one being among them.
I think the immanence and transcendence for Exemplar MC ikons should be gated behind some higher level feat, and even then they shouldn't be benefiting from the full scaling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Exemplar archetype is a good fit for a Free Archetype game in the style of Strength of Thousands, in which you got the Wizard or Druid archetype for free. Something like "everybody, through provenance, finds some thing that's empowered by divine soulstuff" would work as a campaign premise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to look at the archetype to make a full judgment on it, but the way other multiclass archetypes tend to handle this kind of thing is to portion out the power across multiple feats. The Gunslinger archetype for instance gives out its way's initial deed at 6th level and its slinger's reload at 10th level, with the dedication feat just granting proficiency in up-to-martial firearms and crossbows and a trained skill. Some go one step further and add another restriction to their big benefit, like the Magus archetype with Spellstriker only letting you Spellstrike once per encounter. It sounds to me like the Exemplar archetype could benefit from this kind of method by only letting the player access their ikon's immanence and/or transcendence effects across multiple feats, and potentially making those benefits more limited too.
Yeah, maybe something:
Dedication: Pick Weapon, Body, or Worn; you get an effect depending on selection:
Weapon: Add +1 spirit damage to strikes with weapons.
Body: Gain a stackable +1 to AC.
Worn: Gain a 15ft aura that grants allies (just allies) a +1 to saves.
And at a later level, you chose a specific ikon of that category and replace the effect with that ikon's immanence.
Then at a later, later level, get its transcendence.
I think the Exemplar archetype is a good fit for a Free Archetype game in the style of Strength of Thousands, in which you got the Wizard or Druid archetype for free. Something like "everybody, through provenance, finds some thing that's empowered by divine soulstuff" would work as a campaign premise.
Agreed, it would be like running a low level mythic campaign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My baseline for homegames I GM is that every character gets access to "one cool thing". What that cool thing is, is negotiable. But generally speaking it is an unusual story beat, a cool scaling item, access to a Rare character option, or Free Archetype.
So I'm probably balancing someone taking Exemplar Dedication *without* Free Archetype against someone taking any other dedication *with* Free Archetype. I think I'm fine with that.
Is there no limit on the number of times you can use Transcendence or anything? That's kinda gnarly if so; Flurry of Blows has a d4 round limiter on it now, and some Transcendence abilities do a very similar thing.
There is an action cost, as there isn't another ikon to transfer it to so you have to manually transfer it back to use it with an action. So, with the Flurry of Blows example, it'd be like getting it every round but for a 2 action cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more attractive bit about the ikons from a character MCing into Exemplar is the immanence anyway. Like the "unlimited copies of a throwing weapon with free action draw plus bonus damage" is going to be worth a feat for anybody who wants to throw weapons, and you get it for a level 2 class feat. You could take that and never transcend out of it for 18 more levels and be happy with your feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more attractive bit about the ikons from a character MCing into Exemplar is the immanence anyway. Like the "unlimited copies of a throwing weapon with free action draw plus bonus damage" is going to be worth a feat for anybody who wants to throw weapons, and you get it for a level 2 class feat.
With the lack of general throwing support and it's limitations, it's not so much that this would overpower a Light throwing weapon build with this but that it'd make it on par with a bow build. For some reason, thrown weapons were always bottom barrel on ranged combat. For this option, I'd argue it 'power creeps' up to par.
For the Exemplar, who won't have a ton of Consumables, that's fine.
I mean if they are in a group with an alchemist, the alchemist can put all their daily elixirs in there for a similar effect. In fact, this would allow the Exemplar to use them while the alchemist uses Quick Alchemy.
I could see a scenario where your immanence has a time limit, like you need to use an action to shift into it and it lasts until the end of your next turn. Though that might be overly punishing.
I'm kinda with the Cabbage on this though. A while back I was talking to somebody on bluesky who described how "most pathfinder options are mid" and I can see the argument for even a balanced game system to have a little swingyness. And even if this is a solid enough option that everyone in a party will want it, it's diverse enough that everyone will take different Ikons and the game doesn't end up samey.
For that matter, for all everyone's freaking out, the culture of the game born from every option being so balanced lends itself a lot more to grounding your choices in characterization than something like 5e. If you've been in this game this long and you're still hunting for the "broken" options, congrats, you found it, it's the I'm-A-Little-Bit-A-God limited use archetype, shocker there!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a scenario where your immanence has a time limit, like you need to use an action to shift into it and it lasts until the end of your next turn. Though that might be overly punishing.
I'm kinda with the Cabbage on this though. A while back I was talking to somebody on bluesky who described how "most pathfinder options are mid" and I can see the argument for even a balanced game system to have a little swingyness. And even if this is a solid enough option that everyone in a party will want it, it's diverse enough that everyone will take different Ikons and the game doesn't end up samey.
For that matter, for all everyone's freaking out, the culture of the game born from every option being so balanced lends itself a lot more to grounding your choices in characterization than something like 5e. If you've been in this game this long and you're still hunting for the "broken" options, congrats, you found it, it's the I'm-A-Little-Bit-A-God limited use archetype, shocker there!
I don't think that's a good way to handle discussions of balance. The big thing about Pathfinder 2e balancing options against one another is that I don't have to worry about picking "sub-optimal options" over the most optimal ones because the floor and ceiling for most builds is so close together that I can get away with taking flavor or roleplay-oriented options without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot with it. I love min-maxing and making optimized builds but I also enjoy taking narratively-appropriate options, and the way PF2e handles it actually lets me have my cake and eat it too.
But Exemplar MC breaks this basic assumption of PF2e by making an archetype dedication that is so wildly unbalanced when put against every other dedication that if I want to make an optimized build as a martial I feel forced to take it.
Putting action taxes and duration to the ikons of the dedication would do well, it's not uncommon feats that you spend one action to increase the damage of other strikes in the game per example.
Like 1 action, now you activate the spark and the you get the immanence effects until the end of the next turn, and you have that time as well to transcend it if you wish. After that the spark returns to your soul and you have to use another action for it to go to the icon again.
|
My baseline for homegames I GM is that every character gets access to "one cool thing". What that cool thing is, is negotiable. But generally speaking it is an unusual story beat, a cool scaling item, access to a Rare character option, or Free Archetype.
So I'm probably balancing someone taking Exemplar Dedication *without* Free Archetype against someone taking any other dedication *with* Free Archetype. I think I'm fine with that.
That seems quite reasonable.
Which is pretty much proof as to how overpowered the archetype is in the first place :-)
|
|
With the lack of general throwing support and it's limitations, it's not so much that this would overpower a Light throwing weapon build with this but that it'd make it on par with a bow build. For some reason, thrown weapons were always bottom barrel on ranged combat. For this option, I'd argue it 'power creeps' up to par.
No, this arguably puts it past a bow build. With a trident you're doing d8 base damage, full strength. In most campaigns (lots of dungeons, little outdoors combat with large ranges) that is better than either a short bow or longbow.
Plus it lets you build a switch hitter more easily.
The problem with "well maybe pathfinder dedications and options are too conservative" is that this isn't representing a general trend in design. Paizo has not gone back and made fighter dedication more interesting. The animist archetype is pretty much whatever. Kineticist archetype going back a book is like, intentionally terrible even. So while maybe there's room to criticize some existing design, the archetype exists within that framework.
It's not doing anyone favors or shaking up the meta, it's just poisoning the well and providing ammunition for the idea that rarity-gated options shouldn't be trusted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the lack of general throwing support and it's limitations, it's not so much that this would overpower a Light throwing weapon build with this but that it'd make it on par with a bow build. For some reason, thrown weapons were always bottom barrel on ranged combat. For this option, I'd argue it 'power creeps' up to par.
No, this arguably puts it past a bow build. With a trident you're doing d8 base damage, full strength. In most campaigns (lots of dungeons, little outdoors combat with large ranges) that is better than either a short bow or longbow.
Plus it lets you build a switch hitter more easily.
You can't put a Trident in the sheathe because it's 1 Bulk, and Shadow Sheathe only allows Light Bulk weapons.
There is a d8 thrown light weapon, which is the chakram, but it's only 20 feet and since it's a ranged weapon you can't switch hit with it at all.
Also none of the thrown weapons will ever beat a Bow because they don't have Deadly d10.
Also also, someone with a bow can just take Unfailing Bow with Exemplar dedication (I mean, the thrown guy is doing it, why not the bow guy) and still remain on top.
Also also, someone with a bow can just take Unfailing Bow with Exemplar dedication (I mean, the thrown guy is doing it, why not the bow guy) and still remain on top.
A boomerang with shadow sheathe does roughly the same damage (generally slightly more, but slight enough not to be worth valuing) as a shortbow with unfailing at every level, even on a fighter (so more deadly/unfailing procs) with 0 strength (so no thrown advantage) who never strikes an offguard target (so no extra shadow damage). The shortbow pulls marginally on top if you're fighting enemies with conspicuously low AC who aren't crit immune.
So it's wrong to say throwing builds can't compete. The boomerang is arguably just outright the better choice here.
Also also, someone with a bow can just take Unfailing Bow with Exemplar dedication (I mean, the thrown guy is doing it, why not the bow guy) and still remain on top.A boomerang with shadow sheathe does roughly the same damage (generally slightly more, but slight enough not to be worth valuing) as a shortbow with unfailing at every level, even on a fighter (so more deadly/unfailing procs) with 0 strength (so no thrown advantage) who never strikes an offguard target (so no extra shadow damage). The shortbow pulls marginally on top if you're fighting enemies with conspicuously low AC who aren't crit immune.
So it's wrong to say throwing builds can't compete. The boomerang is arguably just outright the better choice here.
I didn't say they couldn't compete, I said they couldn't beat a bow, which is in fact, incorrect (except, as you point out, when the Bow user is critting a lot), so mea culpa on that (I hadn't done actual calculations)
It's not actually a huge difference in favor of the boomerang though, as you point out.
It'd be interesting to see how the Transcendence effects play out too. The bow can guarantee a 2nd hit (or Crit) in a round but doesn't help if you miss, while the Sheathe lets you reroll a missed attack but does nothing if you hit.
Unfortunately calculating that is a bit beyond my capabilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue rarities are really, really not something a lot of people care about in home games.
Especially for something like exemplar, which is a Rare class. It's somewhat exceptional that it even was published - it's rarer than gunslingers! And guns! And those, arguably, are less likely to show up in a campaign setting than a magical divinely-empowered warrior.
And especially with Pathbuilder not automatically restricting any options - it's very easy for players to point and click as desired without even noticing rarity.
That's not my experience, but YMMV. I've never had a GM who simply said "ignore rarity, it's fine". I've also never had one say "anything not common is banned". The approach in my experience is "ask me."
Like, I almost never say "no". Usually I'm saying either "sure", or "sure, but you'll have to find it in character", which then gives me a plot hook for the player to go try to acquire something cool.
This archetype? I mean, I'd probably be strict if it turned into a problem where someone is always taking it or four people suddenly all want to do it for obvious power reasons, but archetypes that are already really strong compared to others exist (Champion/Oracle/Psychic come to mind) and the game has gotten by okay.
It's definitely a really strong archetype but I don't think we need to panic quite yet. Maybe there will be errata to corral it some.
If I did have a party that all wanted to take the archetype, instead of worrying too much about power imbalances, I would probably ask if the party wanted to make the next campaign center around the whole party getting touched by the gods (but in a good way), and letting that be a part of the narrative of the story.
It is more standard campaigns where the rest of the party is not interested in archetyping into exemplar where I would be most likely to tell the one player who wanted to that this really isn't the campaign for demigod shenanigans, and I feel like the rare tag on the archetype makes that something that most players should expect prior to talking to the GM and seeing if the narrative of it even fits, much less whether anyone is that concerned about power balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a potential issue when a player has a concept in mind for their character that involves the Exemplar, and on hitting level 2 being told "no" potentially causes some friction. Like if you want to be really good at throwing things, the sheath ikon solves so many problems for you more smoothly (and inexpensively) than the returning rune or a thrower's bandolier.
So this is kind of an inherent problem with "build-defining choices" that come online at level 2, since 2 is not 1. So it's probably better to frame immediately whether or not the exemplar archetype is on the table in session 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that it's more so the +2 Damage per Weapon Die is nice for a throwing build and makes it so you don't need to waste money on a Bandolier, Returnign runes and the other stuff. I don't think it is powercreep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that it's more so the +2 Damage per Weapon Die is nice for a throwing build and makes it so you don't need to waste money on a Bandolier, Returnign runes and the other stuff. I don't think it is powercreep.
It is powercreep in the sense that it's much, much better than the options we had previously.
It's 1 class feat for Quick Draw++ (because it's a Free action, so you can actually use Actions/Activities like Exacting Strike, etc), plus a Returning Rune++ (because it doesn't take up a slot) plus a damage amp (and a great one at that), plus a really good special action.
I don't mind because I love throwing builds and anything that makes them better is a-ok, but it has definitely raised the power base.