| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also means that OP stuff isn't a problem because a GM can just exclude it from the game.
Ultimately an incredibly lazy and toxic way to approach game balance.
I've said it before, but that attitude to balance in game design is why I will never GM PF1 again. I'm older and have limited time to prep now, I'd rather spend it on things like story than on dealing with busted content.
Outside of Rituals, I haven't had to worry about it much in PF2, to the game's credit. But the last few months have seen the quality of releases taking a real dive and if this is the direction things are going, I'm going to be very disappointed.
Hence why Exemplar the Class is allowed while Exmplar the Archetype is banned at my table (pending errata).OR you could do some minor interim homebrew and still allow it at your table?
I could, but its not like people are starved of archetype options. This isn't a problem that desperately needs solving with homebrew, as once you remove the power creep, I suspect the number of people that truly need Exemplar Dedication in their build for narrative reasons is pretty small (and if that does come up, I can grant an exception only for certain ikons).
If your gut reaction is to ban it until errata then you're going to be waiting probably years for this stuff. Paizo doesn't have a track record of 'quickly' resolving these issues. They 'might' in this case because everyone is complaining so much, but I'm willing to bet they won't.
I'm hoping the new errata schedule will be better, because yeah. Secrets of Magic is the paragon example of a book with obvious problems being ignored by errata for literally years, to the point that everyone just ignored RAW to let Arcane Cascade work.
Course, my first impression of it has been the debacle that is Remaster Oracle, particularly going for months without an errata on basic details like "how many spells does it get". The PFS clarification gives us something to use for that, but still.
There's frankly a lot riding on this upcoming errata release in terms of restoring some faith in terms of product quality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would help to have clearer standards for what counts as uncommon or rare, but the way I see it, rare simply means "we don't expect the GM to allow this by default due to how it can be disruptive to a campaign's flavor, or introduce additional busywork". It's not a sign that an option is more powerful than more common alternatives, nor should it be. True name mechanics aren't rare because they're overpowered, they're rare because not every GM wants to come up with creatures' true names on the spot or track which creature's true name the party knows. Skeletons aren't rare because they're an overpowered ancestry either, they're rare because the typical adventuring party isn't expected to feature a sentient skeleton, and the GM may not want to handle the complication of a party member with void healing by default.
Then there's stuff like Personal Rain Cloud, which as far as I can tell is Uncommon because it's from an AP and for literally no other reason. It's not hard to run. It's not some signature spell of a specific organization. It's not limited to only 12 of them existing in Golarian at any one time. It's not really doing anything that is going to derail a campaign or that a GM might go "I don't want that in my setting" compared to other spells.
Sometimes you can look at something and go "yep I know why that's not common". Other times there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.
All of this is to say that I think there's a lot of tenuous excuses being invented to justify a multiclass archetype that is clearly out of line with the rest of the game's balance. I'd argue it's quite dangerous to knowingly implement overtuned content or deliberately allow overtuned options to exist on the excuse that the thing in question is uncommon or rare, because the point of PF2e is to make it straightforward for GMs to include content they find interesting without fear of having their game derailed by poor balance or design. Already, it's an unspoken rule for GMs to treat AP-specific spells like sudden bolt and other AP-specific mechanics with extreme caution, and those who aren't aware of this rule find themselves with parties that just won't stop casting the same spell or abusing the same overstrong option, which I'd say makes gameplay a lot less interesting overall. I'd rather not add "don't allow the Exemplar dedication unless you want really OP weapon builds" to the list of things a new GM has to watch out for, particularly when the much easier solution is to simply bring the archetype in line with others.
Yeah. "It's rare therefore it's okay that its ridiculously overpowered" doesn't fly. The fact that it's rare is a convenient excuse to ban it and have cover from the system to do so.
I don't really think the intent was to make it this powerful and hide it behind the Rare tag. I think it's more likely someone just didn't think it through that well in the rush to get the book done. It certainly wouldn't be the first instance of that in this year's books.
I'll be more concerned if they don't rein it in during the errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s also Paizo’s own data that shows that Exemplars are incredibly popular, so yes, hundreds of gods-bloody exemplars running around…
It is a good concept. It is inspiring players. Even if you don't want it in your campaign, it is a good addition for some games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, looking at the Ikons again after the playtest, I don't really think the issue is the mechanical power imbalance offered by the dedication feat, it is the fact that we basically have a class offering extra special magical items which are not usually a resource tied to class feats and class abilities.
I personally just don't think such a class needs to offer a dedication at all, because we already essentially have magical items and artifact rules to cover "My X class character finds this really cool item that they invest a part of themselves into and grows over time."
The class is much closer to the Dark Archive's Deviant Abilities to me than it is a standard class, which is why I think it has the rare tag (as in, it is basically a variant way of approaching the game, as opposed to a standard option that is just generally less common). Reading the description of the Multiclass Exemplar Characters: "It’s particularly helpful for characters looking to add a potent weapon or item to their arsenal and enhance their combat abilities."
Of course. But what character doesn't want to add a potent weapon or item to their arsenal in this game, and why is this the domain of a class at all? There is no narrative there that is not essentially covered by the treasure system of the game.
The whole Ikon system feels like a way to have a class that just uses magic items differently, which is cool, but letting other classes access that through a multiclass dedication was always going to be a disaster (hyperbole in the extreme, really "a power balancing issue"). The problem here is that the disaster errs on the side of making characters too powerful instead of too weak, like the kineticist and alchemist MC.
I just don't think it is very reasonable to expect any kind of Errata on this for probably a year or more, so you can either let it bring the sky down on your game (and by bringing the sky down, I mean having an option that many players are going to want to pick over other possible options, like Magi developing psychic powers), you can balance your game around the expectation that every character who wants it has it, or you can talk to your table about not using it, if the class or the archetype were going to be a good fit for your campaign.
So after paizo nerfed the monk archytype to no longer offer the monks stiker feature at 10th level, I am dubious that they intentionally let you grab the exemplars striker feature/ source of extra damage at level 2 because they haven't done than before and its too powerful for a second level feat.
They nerf older options to better sell newer options.
This was probably planned to sell more copies of WoI to the power gaming crowd.
When something new comes along that Paizo wants to sell, ONLY then will the Exemplar archetype get its nerf.
Tian Xia Character Guides spirit warrior archetype is the new hotness that obsoletes monk MC flurry of blows.
Tian Xia Character Guides spirit warrior archetype is the new hotness that obsoletes monk MC flurry of blows.
Yet one more example.
Well, with a prerelease errata on the dedication feat that doesn't address its power balance, only making sure to be clear that it is rare, I would be very surprised to see the feat touched again in the fall errata, which probably has to be pretty much in final editing pass. So I would guess spring, 2025 would be the first time any kind of power-balancing errata, not obvious error errata, happens on war of the immortals, and this feat is touched again.
One thing here is that it's not obvious how you would fix the exemplar dedication. But historically they have let "this is obviously too good" go for a while- c.f. the original Jalmeri Heavenseeker or the Gnome-Flickmace.
There's a bunch of things you could try. Needing to spend an action to activate the immanence at the start of combat, having a cooldown on something, etc. You can't really cap the damage (like archetype sneak attack) since the different weapon ikons have different damage. You wouldn't prevent transcendance since some characters just want the immanence effect. Breaking it up over several feats would be awkward since there's very little essential to the class you could give at level 2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- No damage boosts at L2. Ikon can provide up to +1 damage/dice at L6 as a scaling part of the dedication (or worded in Paizo text you'd have half the damage boosts rounded down (minimum of +1 damage/dice).
Doesn't work, since then you're making the ikons that give +1 damage/die + other stuff more attractive (barrow's edge, hands of the wildling, unfailing bow, etc.) for no good reason.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pf2e's big selling point for me was its focus on balance and not going completely whacko with it like DnD or Pf1e. I would never have jumped into gming if it wasn't for what it advertised itself to do. I quit pf1e entirely because it was a headache for someone who did not play ttrpgs to power game (I have video games for that lol)
When people compare this to what DnD and 1e allowed, yes, it is MUCH smaller, but pf2e has smaller numbers and a more clear hook with its balance, and with this and some of the more pushed seeming options in newer books Im getting more hesitant. Snowball effect or whatever. If I run or even play a more tactical focused ttrpg it'd be nice for me if it stayed balanced without me having to mark down and note off which options are obviously much stronger than the others. I trusted the system that everytime one of my players asks about an Uncommon/Rare option, I can judge it specifically for what the tags are stated for, "does this fit the setting we're playing in" and "will this cause issues in our story and challenges if they can just teleport around". I do not want to have to then math out if this would just bust out other stuff or make the other characters who didn't take the same thing look notably weaker in comparison and regret not doing it too and thus also cause a situation where every char is suddenly [x] feature.
Tldr pls errata pls don't use Rare or Uncommon tag as an excuse that it's fine to make notably more powerful stuff
They should remove Exemplar Expertise (10) and add First Ikon (4) to the dedication and dont have the ikon in the dedication feat iself.
then its 2 feat investment for something good like most other.
Removing Expertise is only to keep the number of feat equal to most other but you could just have so the archtype have more feats, but it makes sence since no other class archtype have a feat for increasing class DC so thats stick out.
They should remove Exemplar Expertise (10) and add First Ikon (4) to the dedication and dont have the ikon in the dedication feat iself.
then its 2 feat investment for something good like most other.
Removing Expertise is only to keep the number of feat equal to most other but you could just have so the archtype have more feats, but it makes sence since no other class archtype have a feat for increasing class DC so thats stick out.
Putting "you get an ikon" as a later feat is fine, but then what should the dedication feat give? Even the bad dedication feats (e.g. fighter, swashbuckler) give something other than "access to the archetype and training in a skill." Caster dedications get you a cantrip, ranger gets you hunt prey, barbarian gets you rage, monk gets you powerful fists, etc.
The exemplar class has an issue in that it's frontloaded through "you get three ikons, which don't grow in power, save for riders you add with epithets and feats" rather than the way other classes are frontloaded.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will echo everyone else who is saying that one of the benefits of 2E is not having to ban stuff over powerlevel. I basically skated by on 1E by giving a blanket "PFS Legal options only or ask me" clause, but that only worked for PFS ranges of play, and there are PFS legal options that remain disastrously strong in practice (like Emergency Force Sphere). "Common only, or ask me and the group if everyone wants this flavor around" is way easier, and typically more accurate, than "PFS legal or ask me."
I personally don't think all power creep is bad. I was kind of unhappy with PC powerlevel at launch, and even now, some classes or aspects of play are undertuned, underfun, or underbaked to me. But the system math is tightly bound enough that specific kinds of power creep—typically raw numeric powercreep, like the damage from exemplar dedication—cause very real issues. It's especially noticeable since the online player culture leans a bit minmax-y, and the game kind of allowed you to minmax without it being noticeably out of line, so "I can minmax and be a mechanical help to my table instead of a social detriment" has become embedded in the social contract of the game for a lot of people. Things like exemplar dedication make such players worry the social contract will fray.
I wouldn't be surprised the Exemplar Dedication is the way it is because of page space. Probably splitting the dedication in two feats would move stuff around enough that it would increase the book's size by a few pages (if you ever wrote something long, it would surprise you how adding a word in a specific place can somehow increase the page count significantly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't be surprised the Exemplar Dedication is the way it is because of page space. Probably splitting the dedication in two feats would move stuff around enough that it would increase the book's size by a few pages (if you ever wrote something long, it would surprise you how adding a word in a specific place can somehow increase the page count significantly).
That would be a good reason to not have an archetype at all, TBH.
Its a likely issue though. Considering how much power is in some of the Ikons, even just making it a feat to get one still wouldn't really address the issue: it would just delay it a bit. You'd have to REALLY rein them in to fix this and since they all do different things, its going to be hard to do that in a tiny space.
Maybe it just has to not give the Immanence ability at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no point in having ions without the immanence ability. Some work ok, but many transcendence abilities rely on having the immanence active. The Ikons are kinda too individual to balance easily with set limits. It makes more and more sense to me that the dedication is a “talk to your GM about how to implement this/see if it is even a fit for the campaign the GM wants to run.” It feels like any other attempt to bash it apart and then back together again is just going to make the whole dedication useless.
Even if you feel like a +2 spirit damage ikon is too much, do you really feel like all of them are too much? You can just ban certain ones.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no point in having ions without the immanence ability. Some work ok, but many transcendence abilities rely on having the immanence active. The Ikons are kinda too individual to balance easily with set limits. It makes more and more sense to me that the dedication is a “talk to your GM about how to implement this/see if it is even a fit for the campaign the GM wants to run.” It feels like any other attempt to bash it apart and then back together again is just going to make the whole dedication useless.
Even if you feel like a +2 spirit damage ikon is too much, do you really feel like all of them are too much? You can just ban certain ones.
Of course, going back to the old days of GMs having to go through everything with a fine toothed comb to figure out what options are okay and what ones aren't isn't really something I want to see PF2 devolve into.
Getting away from that is a feature. If fixing that makes the archetype weak... Summoner Dedication would like a word.
But I think its okay for them to have just said "this wasn't a good fit for an archetype so we didn't do it" vs "this ranges from powerful to the best feat in the game for every martial, figure it out on your own."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and obligatory shout-out to the kineticist, who (as usual) can't use this autopick martial damage booster. Because...
The Kineticist is the class who can sit around with Victor's Wreath active, since the status bonus to attack rolls does work for them. So I'd still think about it on the Kineticist, a class that is normally very feat hungry, but this is a level 2 feat for +1 to hit.
|
Yeah, looking at the Ikons again after the playtest, I don't really think the issue is the mechanical power imbalance offered by the dedication feat, it is the fact that we basically have a class offering extra special magical items which are not usually a resource tied to class feats and class abilities.
I personally just don't think such a class needs to offer a dedication at all, because we already essentially have magical items and artifact rules to cover "My X class character finds this really cool item that they invest a part of themselves into and grows over time."
The whole Ikon system feels like a way to have a class that just uses magic items differently, which is cool, but letting other classes access that through a multiclass dedication was always going to be a disaster (hyperbole in the extreme, really "a power balancing issue"). The problem here is that the disaster errs on the side of making characters too powerful instead of too weak, like the kineticist and alchemist MC.
Thaumaturge/Inventor: Am I a joke to you?
There is absolutely no issue with a class having an item-shaped power boost that can be gained via their multiclass archetype, because they did it twice with no issues. They just, for some reason unknown to mankind, decide to give ~3 multiclass feats worth of upgrades plus unbounded scaling in the dedication itself. Somehow.
Fundamentally, the issue is that Exemplar is a good class, Exemplar dedication is a good idea, someone wrote the dedication feat while drunk and we're now left in a situation where the extremely illogical choice of having to ban the dedication feat of a perfectly functional class.
Nah, this looks more like a "hyped up on too much Red Bull at 25 or 6 to 4 in the morning kinda deal.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no point in having ions without the immanence ability.
Reminder that the initial implement you get from Thaumaturge dedication has literally none of its own unique benefits. So I'm not sure 'there's no point' is really all that important. It even comes with a weakened, unique version of exploit.
I don't know why we keep acting like designing a dedication that's worse than the base class is some completely uncharted territory here. The reality is the opposite, exemplar is the only class that gets no strings attached main class feature for a dedication.
Is there a reason you want the ability to remain the way it is so badly?
It feels like any other attempt to bash it apart and then back together again is just going to make the whole dedication useless.
Since when has that ever stopped Paizo?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at both the Exemplar class and archetype, I ended up drawing two observations:
With this in mind, I feel the solution to the dedication is in fact quite simple: just bar the Exemplar archetype from offering its ikon's immanence effect at all. Every ikon's transcendence would remain functional (and, in some cases, still probably too strong), and the entire archetype would remain a good option for martial classes. You could perhaps even sweeten the deal by removing the martial weapon training and having the class DC scale automatically from the dedication at 12th level, but otherwise just getting the transcendence effect would be about as strong as many 2nd-level feats or better. As it stands, the dedication is far too strong, and in an way that can be easily remedied.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the ikons listed, literally none require their immanence effect for their transcendence effect to work -- not even Skin Hard as Horn, whose transcendence effect currently doesn't fully work as written due to the transcendence causing you to lose the resistance from its immanence, unless you Shift Immanence back to it just for that purpose.
Skin as Hard as Horn works fine. You do lose the resistance from Immanence, but the Trascendence specifically upgrades it until the start of your next turn.
Attuning a damage type is independent of either Immanence ro Trascendence, so the whole thing works fine for your Archetype rework idea.
Skin as Hard as Horn works fine. You do lose the resistance from Immanence, but the Trascendence specifically upgrades it until the start of your next turn.
Attuning a damage type is independent of either Immanence ro Trascendence, so the whole thing works fine for your Archetype rework idea.
You're right, good catch! This makes the situation with the dedication all the weirder to me: the designers went through the effort of making ikons really modular, with immanence and transcendence effects working independently of one another, yet that good design practice was somehow not put to use in order to safeguard the multiclass archetype. It feels like the current implementation may have been an oversight more than a deliberate decision, especially as I can't really imagine a designer looking at a 2nd-level dedication feat adding 8 spirit damage to Strikes and thinking it was okay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... a 2nd-level dedication feat adding 8 spirit damage to Strikes and thinking it was okay.
That's an overly simplified way of presenting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bottom line still remains than an Archetype is giving the full damage gimmick to another class...
To clarify, the main complaint has been on the Dedication, not the Archetype on whole.
In that vein, you are incorrect and overstating it. The dedication is not "giving the full damage gimmick to another class." What it does do is grant one ikon of choice. That is a significant distinction.
Sure, the chosen Ikon could grant additional damage as an immanence ability... or not. A multiclassed Exemplar could just as easily take Thousand-League Sandals, or some other worn ikon or a body ikon, instead of a weapon ikon.
The dedication simply does not, blanketly, "[give] the full damage gimmick to another class."
Several people have suggested making immanence abilities unavailable to multiclass exemplars, but what about banning them from having weapon ikons instead?
A lot of those aresti pretty problematic. The auras on many worn icons are balanced on Exemplar because you're toggling them on and off and they come with the trade-off of not having a weapon ikon out. On other martials, you never need to transcend them unless the transcendence effect is going to be clutch. A lot of body ikons are also pretty strong if you can just have them on 24/6 and don't need to cycle constantly to do your schtick.
Also, a lot of exemplar feats modify your weapon ikon, so not being able to get one would mean the archetype loses a lot of feat options.
Several people have suggested making immanence abilities unavailable to multiclass exemplars, but what about banning them from having weapon ikons instead?Wouldn't fully solve the problem. Victor's wreathe isn't a weapon ikon but is still completely nuts. It's a 16th level cleric feat...as a dedication. Which also gives, as a side benefit, one of the best ways to remove effects (curses, drained, whatever) in the game. It's especially bonkers post remaster, where things like Sound Body, Clear Mind, etc require counteract rolls to work.
I should point out that via the PFS character options page, the Devs have clarified that the new save can make an effect worse if you fail or crit fail again against an an affliction, and it doesn't work on curses. It's strong, but if the ally you use it on has a lousy save, you could easily push them to the final stage of an affliction by spamming it.
I'd like to point out if you're a thief racket rogue of level 12 or beyond your might as well be dealing +2d6 sneak-attack damage raising the damage from 21 and 28 to 28 and 35 respectfully, meaning a thief racket rogue is on par with a d12 weapon Ikon. Especially if you both have Gleaming Blade, oh wait Shortswords are agile meaning the Rogue should be actually above the curve. Not to mention their Reaction to stab a gain at level 8, meaning they should do more damage on average but 3 actions to Gleaming Blade as a Barbarian is fun but nothing says gimmick stopped for a round as the phrase. "Having to move." - Which is why the Starlit Span Magus specializes in, not moving period to use their Burst Damage Gimmick!
Also unless you Transcendence with the Shadow Sheath, getting people Off-Guard in standard play is rather difficult unless you got friends/allies to help with that.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was not expecting to check out this thread and find so much devil's advocacy for such an obviously overpowered option. It's looking like Hell's Rebels in here. :b
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. There are several people not being reasonable here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several people have suggested making immanence abilities unavailable to multiclass exemplars, but what about banning them from having weapon ikons instead?
Personally I don't hate the "thrown weapon" character taking the Shadow Sheath ikon since it's genuinely a slicker solution to the "when you throw your weapon, you don't have it anymore" solution than anything else available. The +2 damage/die thing is just the cherry on top of the thing that's better than a thrower's bandolier or a returning rune.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several people have suggested making immanence abilities unavailable to multiclass exemplars, but what about banning them from having weapon ikons instead?A lot of those aresti pretty problematic. The auras on many worn icons are balanced on Exemplar because you're toggling them on and off and they come with the trade-off of not having a weapon ikon out. On other martials, you never need to transcend them unless the transcendence effect is going to be clutch. A lot of body ikons are also pretty strong if you can just have them on 24/6 and don't need to cycle constantly to do your schtick.
Also, a lot of exemplar feats modify your weapon ikon, so not being able to get one would mean the archetype loses a lot of feat options.
I should point out that via the PFS character options page, the Devs have clarified that the new save can make an effect worse if you fail or crit fail again against an an affliction, and it doesn't work on curses. It's strong, but if the ally you use it on has a lousy save, you could easily push them to the final stage of an affliction by spamming it.Several people have suggested making immanence abilities unavailable to multiclass exemplars, but what about banning them from having weapon ikons instead?Wouldn't fully solve the problem. Victor's wreathe isn't a weapon ikon but is still completely nuts. It's a 16th level cleric feat...as a dedication. Which also gives, as a side benefit, one of the best ways to remove effects (curses, drained, whatever) in the game. It's especially bonkers post remaster, where things like Sound Body, Clear Mind, etc require counteract rolls to work.
PFS clarifications aren't "The devs" per se, they're the Organized Play folks. Good folks, but they're not official rules are errata. They're effectively the rules of PFS play.
In this case, they're doing a nerf in PFS because the thing is so out of line with other removal abilities otherwise that it's bonkers.
And I mean, "this level 2 dedication feat is giving you the equivalent of a level 16 Cleric feat AND heightened conditional removal" is absurd.
There's a reason why the archetype is locked behind a boon you have to buy in PFS. I'm honestly surprised they didn't just ban it.
That's an overly simplified way of presenting it.
I don't think so, and I think your post produces a lot of verbiage that ultimately does nothing to contradict the fact I've presented. Let's break this down:
The dedication feat does not add any spirit damage to any strikes. It grants a choice of an ikon.
Several ikons you can choose from have an immanence effect giving your weapon 2 extra spirit damage per weapon damage die, for a total of 8 extra damage with a major striking rune. The layer of choice in-between this power you can obtain does not mitigate the problem, it in fact enhances it by leaving the door open for other effects that may be even better in other situations. I merely picked the most typical immanence effect on weapon ikons, but others like the Victor's Wreath may be even stronger owing to its immanence providing a +1 aura to attack rolls on top of offering a legitimately busted transcendence effect.
Only weapon ikons grant additional damage.
"Only some of the options you can choose from freely do X" is not a statement that contradicts "you can use this option to do X". Even if only one ikon produced the effect I listed, that would be enough.
If a player chooses a Worn or Body Ikon, they get zero additional damage for their 2nd-level dedication.
This is incorrect; Gaze Sharp as Steel and Victor's Wreath are both non-weapon ikons that directly enhance damage output, and others like Horn of Plenty, Skin Hard as Horn, and Skybearer's Belt enable the means to deal additional damage to enemies in various ways.
The additional damage of weapon ikons' immanence is not a flat +8 damage "as a 2nd-level dedication," but +X per damage die. Which means that, generally, at most, if taken at Level 2, it will be +2 damage to start! And it won't scale to +8 until level 19 (barring early access to Major striking runes).
If I pick this 2nd-level feat at 20th level, I get the +8 damage right away. If I pick this feat at 2nd level and am 20th-level, I get the +8 damage. The sophistry you are using to attempt to dilute this point doesn't work, either, because even at 2nd level, the benefit is already excessive: once again, if I pick a Barbarian dedication, which is the dedication to go for specifically to add more damage to attacks (and specifically melee attacks), that dedication will offer me a +2 to melee damage rolls with no scaling, an action cost to turn on, and a penalty to my AC. The one option among many that I can choose from the Exemplar dedication gives me this benefit unconditionally at minimum, on top of a powerful transcendence effect, and it only gets better from there. Even just at 2nd level, that is already far too strong.
And they aren't all +2 per damage die. One is 1 persistent damage per die. A couple are 1 splash damage per die. And etcetera.
All of these effects are equivalent in power to a direct +2 per damage die. 1 persistent or splash damage is generally valued at 2 direct damage, and the weapon ikons that deal a lesser amount of direct spirit damage have a means of dealing additional damage through other means, such as Barrow's Edge dealing 3 damage when an enemy's below half health (and notifying you of this fact), or Unfailing Bow dealing 1d4 damage per weapon die on a critical hit. Trying to make this an apples-to-oranges comparison doesn't work when the problem comes from the disproportionate value of these equally valuable options, and even if all of these other effects were indeed weaker than just 2 damage per die, that would still not matter, as you'd still be able to pick the option that gives you 2 extra damage per weapon die.
None of the weapon ikons give a universal damage boost. Each only apply to a subset of weapons.
And the totality of these ikons happen to cover the near-totality of weapons on offer. Literally just bombs and shields are the only weapon groups that your ikons won't cover, everything else has at least one weapon ikon, often two, enabling bonus spirit damage on them. Again, the fact that any class who's not an Alchemist can easily just pick whichever weapon they want to get the appropriate ikon makes this entire point moot, but once more, the entire point to these weapon ikons and their immanence is that no matter which one you pick, you'll get your martial damage boost. This damage boost is meant to put the Exemplar on the same level as other martials; it is in my opinion very clearly not intended to boost the damage output of other martials even harder by the same flat amount.