The Exemplar Archetype and Potential Power Creep.

[rainzax]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Nelzy wrote:

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.

Humble Strikes?

=)

[Ryangwy]

Pixel Popper wrote:

Teridax wrote:

... 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.

The dedication feat does not add any spirit damage to any strikes. It grants a choice of an ikon.

Only weapon ikons grant additional damage.

If a player chooses a Worn or Body Ikon, they get zero additional damage for their 2nd-level dedication.

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).

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.

None of the weapon ikons give a universal damage boost. Each only apply to a subset of weapons.

'You might not only get +2 damage per weapon die on the only weapon you use, you might also get some other equivalent effect that's even more synergistic with your character' isn't the slam dunk argument you're presenting here.

But no, seriously, what are you trying to argue here? You haven't meaningfully disproved that Exemplar Dedication can grant 8 spirit damage to Strikes to a wide variety of builds or that +8 spirit damage per Strike at 19th level is above the curve.

[Calliope5431]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

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.

A man with a greataxe and this dedication (and inexplicably, no other class features) deals similar damage to a rogue. That's my entire point. Because the other person does in fact have other class features. They stack with it. That's why it is broken.

I was comparing with Sneak Attack to point out that this is an entire class feature worth of extra damage. Like, it's not as though rogues can't take this dedication. And it is entirely cumulative with Sneak Attack.

As can barbarians. And since it's purely the immanence effect, there's nothing stopping you from starting the combat with Gleaming Blade up. For the low low cost of absolutely no actions whatsoever.

So I'll see your vanilla rogue and raise you an entire rage instinct's worth of damage, a reactive strike, and a pile of barbarian feats. And that is why you don't hand out core class features on dedications - because THIS is what happens. It is no different than handing out Sneak Attack on a dedication. Or fighter weapon proficiency scaling. Even champion multiclass (which is notoriously OP) had the good grace to hide the reaction behind both the dedication AND a level 6 feat.

[nicholas storm]

The main problem with how the dedication works is that the dedication gives around 50% of the power of the base class. Normal dedications might be around 3%. Since the base class can only have one ikon active, having 3 ikons instead of one is not really that much more power. I assume the dedication will be errated at some point, just like everyone kind of knew
jalmeri heavenseeker was going to be errated.

[The Raven Black]

Unicore wrote:

Maybe PFS will make some ruling on it, but the exemplar class itself is rare, and it kind of feels like hundreds of Exemplar pathfinders running around in Golarion would be a little narratively strange, so it might be a while before class available in society play.

Played a PFS game yesterday. One of the players mentioned that Exemplar dedication has a limit of only one character per player that can take it ever.

Whereas the class itself is available with no such limitation.

Sounds like a band-aid solution before an errata is issued on the dedication.

[pH unbalanced]

The Raven Black wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Maybe PFS will make some ruling on it, but the exemplar class itself is rare, and it kind of feels like hundreds of Exemplar pathfinders running around in Golarion would be a little narratively strange, so it might be a while before class available in society play.

Played a PFS game yesterday. One of the players mentioned that Exemplar dedication has a limit of only one character per player that can take it ever.

Whereas the class itself is available with no such limitation.

Sounds like a band-aid solution before an errata is issued on the dedication.

Came here to post this exact same thing.

As reference, the only other boon I am aware of which is restricted to once ever per player is Skeleton ancestry -- and that wasn't done for power reasons, but so that it would feel special.

[Calliope5431]

pH unbalanced wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Maybe PFS will make some ruling on it, but the exemplar class itself is rare, and it kind of feels like hundreds of Exemplar pathfinders running around in Golarion would be a little narratively strange, so it might be a while before class available in society play.

Played a PFS game yesterday. One of the players mentioned that Exemplar dedication has a limit of only one character per player that can take it ever.

Whereas the class itself is available with no such limitation.

Sounds like a band-aid solution before an errata is issued on the dedication.

Came here to post this exact same thing.

As reference, the only other boon I am aware of which is restricted to once ever per player is Skeleton ancestry -- and that wasn't done for power reasons, but so that it would feel special.

In fairness, in PFS Rare is more difficult to access anyway with the boon system. As opposed to a home game.

Still, seems like a good fix.

[Trip.H]

Tridus wrote:

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.

To give a point of comparison, Alchemist is widely considered to sacrifice martial / damage potential in exchange for utility. As even generalists need a "niche" to justify taking over other generalists, Alch "needs" one too. I have directly heard folks say/type that condition removal is Alchemist's niche, that it's the thing that if you need done, you wish you had an Alchemist (I mostly disagree due to the curse problem).

The Alchemist has a 4, as in FOUR feat tree for condition removal. And while there is some apples to oranges, I think it is *very* safe to claim that the single Dedication Feat eclipses the Invigorating Elixir feat tree, and I'd rather take the Exem Ikon over those feats every time.

Invigorating Elixir, level 4 feat wrote:

[Additive][Alchemist]

You can mix an aromatic salve into an elixir with the healing trait to soothe physical maladies.
In addition to its normal effects, the elixir can be imbibed by a creature prevented from doing so (such as a sickened creature).

In addition to its other effects, the elixir attempts to counteract an effect imposing one of the following conditions of the imbiber's choice: clumsy, enfeebled, sickened, or stupefied. Use half your level rounded up for the counteract rank and your class DC - 10 for the counteract modifier. The imbiber is then temporarily immune to the effects of this additive for 10 minutes. The additive can't counteract curses, diseases, or conditions that are part of the creature's normal state.

It takes all 4 feats to add *most* of the possible conditions to the list. Note that for a malady to be eligible, it still needs to invoke one of the conditions. If it's a custom effect without a matching condition, Invigorating cannot effect it.

Note that Alchemist is limited to 1 Additive per turn, and that this requires the actions of at minimum, Quick Alchemy and an Activate, while being touch-range. Again, at best, this takes 2x the actions and a combat-limited resource.

And this is supposed to be the Alchemist's area of expertise that compensates for their other areas of poor performance. For a fully featured martial to compare like this is obviously absurd. Even for a proper Exemplar and not an arch-Exemp, this comparison is ridiculous. They can select a single L8 feat to gain this Ikon and the condition removal, and that [cost] : [power] reward still completely eclipses the Alch's feat line.

.

I honestly do not know if I would hypothetically prefer that the author of Exemplar had simply not read the other classes and was wildly ignorant as to how highly pf2 prices condition removal from PC budget PoV, or if that they did read it, but then willfully chose to obliterate that previous power norm.

Either way, the Exemplar Dedication being published as-is should be waved in Paizo's face for the black eye that it is. Because this has already happened, we know that their internal status quo as a production can create such balance-breakers. Meaning that some change/pressure may be required to prevent a repeat.

[Trip.H]

Honestly, even The Radiant, a lvl 3 passive option for full Exemplars, is just obviously too stupid good.

Quote:

Leaders must live bigger lives than any other, shining so brightly that they attract followers, inspire troops, and change the course of kingdoms.

You are trained in Diplomacy.

After you Spark Transcendence, you inspire an ally within 30 feet to push on, restoring Hit Points equal to 2 + double your level; this is a mental and emotion effect. The ally is then temporarily immune for 10 minutes

Existing as a similar build-choice option, Thaumaturge Chalice is a touch-range action, once p 10 min, (not p target), and heals 3xLvl.

Thaum can drink from their own Chalice, while the Exemplar's healing cannot affect themself.

But in exchange, Radiant is a passive 30ft effect "that just works" while performing another Trans ability.

It is completely busted above the power norm, and the Exemplar will easily be able to heal the whole party once per fight at 0 action cost, with the only cost being the opportunity limit of 1 Epithet per Trans (which they want to perform every single turn).

And yes, this one passive does more or less solve out of combat healing. (If Exemplar didn't pick Scar) The Medicine user can focus on the Exemplar, while the Exemplar flexes and heals everyone else's wounds via emotionally inspiring smile.

[Xenocrat]

Calliope5431 wrote:

And I raise you Gleaming Blade, which can be used with a greataxe as opposed to just finesse weapons.

Sword or Knife group only on Gleaming Blade. Greatsword/Bastard Sword are the big options for Gleaming Blade.

Greataxe works with Barrow's Edge and Titan's Breaker.

[Loreguard]

What if for the Multiclass Archetype dedication: it granted an amended
Shift Eminence that loses the ability automatic trigger as a free action at initiative.

As well as the following changes to Multiclass Ikons:
Immanence and Transcendence abilities remain at the starting baseline of their ability. Any plus per weapon die remains a static bonus on one weapon die, any abilities that improve at specific levels remain the baseline state. (I'm thinking the resistance ability which simply is based on half level is probably fine being kept as is per base so one might wordshop the wording to insure the based on level doesn't trigger that being a resistance 1 ability costing an action. Any other concerns people have?)

Additionally Multiclass Exemplars find it fatiguing to Holding Immanence in their objects for more than 5 minutes or for extended times such as in exploration or downtime.

There might be a multiclass archetype to regain the ability to trigger Shift Immanence at initiative as a free action or reaction (at start of first turn after initiative), but it would likely leave the limitation on how long one can maintain an Immanence effects over time. Not sure what level it should be.

There would be a MultiClass Archetype feat:
Unlock Full Potential of Ikon [Feat 6]
Prerequisites: Exemplar Dedication, Basic Glory
Your First Ikon unlocks any boosts based on (per weapon die, or based on Exemplar level)

If people feel that having at least 3 feats invested in an archetype isn't enough to get the full unlocked ikon ability, the feat might unlock up to a certain number of weapon dice/or unlock up to a certain level ikon ability unlocks, with a subsequent unlock feat unlocking the remainder.

Another potential feat to exist would be an alternative to the 12th level one:

Second Full Potential Ikon [Feat 14]
Prerequisites: Exemplar Dedication, Unlock Full Potential of Ikon
You gain an additional ikon, selected from those listed on
page 43. When you Spark Transcendence, your spark moves
automatically from the ikon you just used to the other ikon, both Ikons are unrestricted by the restrictions of only base ability per weapon die or level unlocks. (note: implication would be this 14th level feat would not require the 12th level feat, but would subsume its benefits if someone wanted a 'full' power second ikon.)

This would mean that without further investment, any Multiclass Exemplars would need to spend an action to get their Immanence ability, instead of typically getting triggered in initiative. Restoring their Immanence ability after forcing Transcendence will also require an action until they get a second Ikon, which is yet another investment.

Choices and Ikons are still readily available, potentially powerful, but come at a cost of an action to get into them. Could make multiclass Exemplar Multiclass Archetype less attractive to classes that are short on extra actions in early rounds, but I'm not entirely certain that isn't an ok situation to make people question if it is the direction they want to go or not. It makes a multiclass Exemplar have the divinity be less easily accessed, but gives them the ability to step into it with proper investment of actions an feats and get a real flavor of the class imparted to the character.

[Tridus]

It's quite something to compare Exemplar Dedication to some others that grant vaguely similar things:

- Monk archetype having its Flurry of Blows nerfed to have a 1d4 round cooldown has been pointed out a lot, but Magus gives you spellstrike with a 1 minute cooldown, so basically once a fight. Transcendence is just "sure spam that as often as actions allow."

- Archetypes that give damage features don't tend to scale in the same way or at all (Sneak Attack, Rage, Exploit Vulnerability). This one scales at full power.

- Some of the Ikons give you the equivalent of multiple class feats all at once, at no cost. Most other classes do things like "you count as having X but get no benefits from it without spending more feats."

Even if you made getting Immanence take a second feat and put a cooldown on Transcendence, the weapon damage scaling and things like Victor's Wreath would still way better than existing archetype options and better than some class options.

This should not have been printed in its current form.

[Squiggit]

Pixel Popper wrote:

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."

I'm really struggling to understand your point here. "You can pick something else if you value another feature more than damage" isn't contradicting anything the people you're replying to are saying, nor is it any sort of mitigating factor (the opposite really).

So yeah, no one's denying that you can pick other options but that doesn't really change anything.

If anything that means the people talking about damage are understating things because we're leaving aside the other benefits you can take.

[Teridax]

Adding to Tridus's excellent breakdown: some people have pointed out that you can choose non-weapon Ikons and not get that bonus damage, but in my opinion this makes matters worse. Whereas the immanence bonus of weapon ikons could perhaps be broken down or limited to the bonus for one damage die, much like how the Rogue archetype's version of sneak attack limits you to a single d6, most other immanence benefits can't be broken down in that same way, and several are just as severe as the full benefit of weapon ikons if not worse.

In particular, and as Tridus also notes, I think we're kind of collectively sleeping on Victor's Wreath (you could say we're... resting on our laurels?): the ikon's busted active has perhaps been mentioned, but equally busted is the +1 to attack rolls in the immanence effect. If I were a Barbarian, I'd likely prefer this to certain weapon ikons, because attacking just a touch under Fighter proficiency is going to multiply the up-to-16 bonus on-hit damage I can deal with every Strike more than extra flat damage. This is the sort of synergy that enters dual-class territory, where some combinations break the game's balance due to combining features that should not exist together: combining a Fighter with pretty much any other martial is a classic example of an overly strong dual-class combo, and I think the situation is the same here, in that immanence effects seem intended to give the Exemplar power exclusive to them, in order to put them on par with other martials. Gaining that from an archetype, let alone the full benefits just from the dedication feat, means allowing the combination of two different classes' defining features in a way very similar to dual-classing, and so the Exemplar archetype should probably offer no amount of immanence from ikons at all.

[Calliope5431]

You can make an argument that Victor's Wreath isn't as bad because most parties already have Inspire Courage/Bless/Heroism. But that presupposes a very specific party composition and is in my opinion a bad argument. Especially because Inspire Courage costs at least one action (more depending on your choices) per fight and is literally the core bard class feature.

And (say it with me now) it's also not available off a dedication feat.

I think at least 50% of the complaints are that, really. It's still ridiculously strong as a level 6 feat like Champion Reaction, a level 8 feat like Anthemic Performance, or a level 10 feat like Flurry of Blows, but the dedication thing is just wildly out of line.

[Unicore]

Thinking about it more I think, as a GM I am going to take this approach to the Exemplar archetype for now:

My default position is no Exemplars or the archetype without talking to me first.

If the whole party talks about it, and wants to have a "demigods-esque" theme, then I would run a free archetype game where the exemplar archetype is the free archetype and you can't pick another until you have 3. I might kick up some of the villains/encounter difficulty to provide more divine interference tones.

If only one player is interested in playing either the class, or the archetype, they are going to have to show me what they want to choose for Icons and accept that I am going to integrate that into the story a fair bit, including ways that will challenge them directly. If they don't like that, then they should choose something else.

For the archetype specifically, I would be very inclined to make them "buy" their Ikons out of the treasure budget for their character, and expect to have to keep paying to upgrade the Ikon as the game progresses, to represent the item being a significant part of their loot. For example, I would probably set levels for when certain ones can become available, and then, especially with the weapon ones that upgrade as the player levels, I would make those upgrades take up property rune slots on the weapon and not give them immediately upon gaining a weapon dice, but probably at the next most appropriate rune slot, with commiserate cost.

And if it is something that is not a good fit for the game, thematically or with the rest of the party, then it is a hard no.

Edit: This is also why I am glad it is a rare option, because I want players to not expect it to be available coming into the game, but available if it is really worth it to the character concept they have.

[Xenocrat]

Any martial class plus exemplar MC is more powerful than exemplar plus any MC. Unfair to the base class to allow that.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Tridus wrote:

Monk archetype having its Flurry of Blows nerfed to have a 1d4 round cooldown has been pointed out a lot, but Magus gives you spellstrike with a 1 minute cooldown, so basically once a fight.

Ironic how Monk dedication has that limitation, but the Spirit Warrior archetype released in the Tian Xia Character Guide doesn't have that limitation, but instead requires one weapon and one unarmed attack in place of two unarmed attacks. I can understand how it's practically nonsensical, but for a Rogue, for example, it's still extremely potent, since the only other best alternative for similar abilities, is either Monk (good luck meeting that Strength requirement as a Thief Rogue, the most common choice, and can't be done until 10th level, which requires another feat), or Ranger (which requires an additional feat, and has an action tax for each time you want to do it), and it has more feat support than either of them. Honestly, the only thing holding the Spirit Warrior archetype back compared to the other two is having to invest in both a normal weapon for Runes as well as Handwraps, but if you're running an ABP game (as I am for at least two tables), it's basically a no-brainer option, especially for Rogue types, and that it's an Uncommon choice.

I really think Paizo should take another passover for these recent Rarity options, because it's starting to feel more and more like Rarity is being used to gatekeep powerful options instead of gatekeeping regional or truly inaccessible options, like it was originally intended to do.

[Tridus]

Teridax wrote:

In particular, and as Tridus also notes, I think we're kind of collectively sleeping on Victor's Wreath (you could say we're... resting on our laurels?): the ikon's busted active has perhaps been mentioned, but equally busted is the +1 to attack rolls in the immanence effect. If I were a Barbarian, I'd likely prefer this to certain weapon ikons, because attacking just a touch under Fighter proficiency is going to multiply the up-to-16 bonus on-hit damage I can deal with every Strike more than extra flat damage. This is the sort of synergy that enters dual-class territory, where some combinations break the game's balance due to combining features that should not exist together: combining a Fighter with pretty much any other martial is a classic example of an overly strong dual-class combo, and I think the situation is the same here, in that immanence effects seem intended to give the Exemplar power exclusive to them, in order to put them on par with other martials. Gaining that from an archetype, let alone the full benefits just from the dedication feat, means allowing the combination of two different classes' defining features in a way very similar to dual-classing, and so the Exemplar archetype should probably offer no amount of immanence from ikons at all.

Thanks. :) I mentioned Victor's Wreath earlier in the thread but it probably got buried. It's Immanence ability is literally a level 16 Cleric Feat (Eternal Blessing). Cleric feats aren't exactly top shelf, but if that was the only thing this did it would still be really strong. Think of a melee Rogue with this, Gang Up, and Opportune Backstab is giving their melee buddy the bonus along with them, making it easier to trigger Opportune Backstab, and then easier to crit while doing it, with no action cost. And that's not some obscure, unlikely thing to do: that's just a basic melee Rogue.

The Transcendence ability is... I don't even know what to compare that to because I'm not aware of any kind of equivalent ability that can be infinitely spammed like this. Removing ongoing effects other ways generally requires a high rank spell slot and a counteract check or some kind of resource. Not just "keep making saves until you succeed and have a +2 every time, I can literally do this 15 times a minute."

One action for "everyone make another save with a +2"? And you can just... do that again? This as an ability by itself would be a good feat.

Getting both of those combined for a single level 2 dedication is so far beyond the established power curve of the game that I literally cannot understand what Paizo was thinking... which leads me to the conclusion being that either the left hand wasn't talking to the right (because publishing this while also nerfing Monk Archetype in PC2 is... a choice), or that the compressed release schedule and lack of time on each book strikes yet again.

[Unicore]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I really think Paizo should take another passover for these recent Rarity options, because it's starting to feel more and more like Rarity is being used to gatekeep powerful options instead of gatekeeping regional or truly inaccessible options, like it was originally intended to do.

I think this is interesting, but also is probably impossible at this point.

Like you point out in talking about the spirit warrior archetype, it becomes a lot more powerful if the GM is using other variant rules. Expecting the developers to balance every new thing in the game against every possible variant rule is just not feasible, and giving things rarity tags that might be disruptive in certain games with certain rules in play feels like a very good use of the rarity tag.

GMs need to take accountability for balancing their games with the various variant rules they want to use. I think using uncommon and rare tags on most newer material is going to be pretty necessary moving forward as we have so many different variant rules in play, in APs and adventures now.

Deviant Abilities and Free Archetype are already in existing APs and we are certainly going to be getting some mythic ones in the not too distant future. I'd argue that PF2 is definitely hitting a point where are so many different ways to play it that just assuming everything is going to work just fine and be perfectly balanced no matter what variants you throw together is just not a good idea. Common stuff really needs to be reserved for "this can be thrown into just about anything and be fine." Everything else needs some kind of flag for players to talk to their GMs before making assumptions about using it.

[TheFinish]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, the only thing holding the Spirit Warrior archetype back compared to the other two is having to invest in both a normal weapon for Runes as well as Handwraps, but if you're running an ABP game (as I am for at least two tables), it's basically a no-brainer option, especially for Rogue types, and that it's an Uncommon choice.

I really think Paizo should take another passover for these recent Rarity options, because it's starting to feel more and more like Rarity is being used to gatekeep powerful options instead of gatekeeping regional or truly inaccessible options, like it was originally intended to do.

Spirit Warrior has a 6th level feat to apply your Handwrap Runes to whatever weapon you're holding. And that same feat makes it so that targets you hit with a weapon are off-guard against your next unarmed attack and vice-versa.

And this isn't even getting into the fact Spirit Warrior Dedication, in addition to giving you Flurry of Blows/Twin Takedown, also upgrades your Fist to d6 and gives it Parry.

There's been quite a few "??" choices in recent publications to be sure.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Unicore wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I really think Paizo should take another passover for these recent Rarity options, because it's starting to feel more and more like Rarity is being used to gatekeep powerful options instead of gatekeeping regional or truly inaccessible options, like it was originally intended to do.

I think this is interesting, but also is probably impossible at this point.

Like you point out in talking about the spirit warrior archetype, it becomes a lot more powerful if the GM is using other variant rules. Expecting the developers to balance every new thing in the game against every possible variant rule is just not feasible, and giving things rarity tags that might be disruptive in certain games with certain rules in play feels like a very good use of the rarity tag.

GMs need to take accountability for balancing their games with the various variant rules they want to use. I think using uncommon and rare tags on most newer material is going to be pretty necessary moving forward as we have so many different variant rules in play, in APs and adventures now.

Deviant Abilities and Free Archetype are already in existing APs and we are certainly going to be getting some mythic ones in the not too distant future. I'd argue that PF2 is definitely hitting a point where are so many different ways to play it that just assuming everything is going to work just fine and be perfectly balanced no matter what variants you throw together is just not a good idea. Common stuff really needs to be reserved for "this can be thrown into just about anything and be fine." Everything else needs some kind of flag for players to talk to their GMs before making assumptions about using it.

I don't expect rules to be given a rarity tag because there are optional rules that might be added to a game that greatly changes the power dynamic, though; rarity tags weren't designed with optional rules in mind. They were designed almost entirely for regional/exclusive options, either from APs, or from unique parts of the world. Very rarely will rarity be used to gatekeep power options (like Teleport, Speed/Keen runes, etc). Except now, I feel like it's being used for gatekeeping power options more and more, which isn't the point of Rarity.

It's different if you have a published adventure either advocating or outright requiring them, because now any rewards or encounters within the game will be balanced with the assumption that those options are in place. Like, we could have some ridiculous fights in Mythic campaigns when the book both rewards and gives you guidance/expectations on the power levels of those campaigns. It's not the case when you have an adventure that is written without those options, nor can it be considered possible, since the game isn't balanced around these options being commonplace. Mythic would be the current biggest problem now, since you will have Mythic PCs trouncing around non-Mythic enemies (even if by design), and it ultimately becomes the GM's job to balance the Mythic implementation for enemies, likely reserving Mythic benefits for boss-type creatures, and it being potentially largely different if the AP was balanced with the assumption Mythic rules would be in play.

Sure, we can say "Well, if the GM is playing the game different from the standard rules, they should accommodate those changes," but honestly, this feels more like "GMs who want an easy playstyle shouldn't implement alternate rulesets, even if they like them better than the standard rulesets." And really, even if we didn't consider alternate rulesets, even just having a different class from the Main 4 can create weird power imbalances, either for good or for ill of the adventuring party, yet for the most part, rarity has been used for setting/regional access.

[Red Griffyn]

Tridus wrote:

Thanks. :) I mentioned Victor's Wreath earlier in the thread but it probably got buried. It's Immanence ability is literally a level 16 Cleric Feat (Eternal Blessing).

Literally Marshal+Inspiring Stance at L4 and its not 1 action away. In the remaster archetype you can make the DC with assurance so long as you boost the relevant skill.

So L16 feat is a bad comparison. L4 archetype feat is an appropriate comparison.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think at the very least, to make the Exemplar archetype commensurate to similar things, there should be a clause that requires you to spend an action at the start of combat to activate your ikon (like entering a stance). The normal exemplar can start with their spark wherever they need it, but the MC one needs to spend an action.

[Squiggit]

Given how Paizo has handled other abilities in the past, I was really expecting the archetype to be something like

Spend an action to spark and you gain the immanence benefit until end of turn or end of next turn, possibly with like a 1min cooldown on the spark action. Then maybe a feat later to gain transcendence, possibly 1/hour or 1/day or disabling your ability to spark for some period of time after using it.

Also I don't want to dwell on it too much but "Paizo should just give up on balancing the game and make everything uncommon so GMs have to sort it out themselves" is such a genuinely disheartening cynical perspective on game design. PF2 has made a name for itself being really well tuned. It's a testament to that how much time we've spent litigating over a modest damage bonus as a true balance outlier. To go from that to "eh don't even bother" is just so like, genuinely sad idk.

[PossibleCabbage]

Spending one action/turn to activate your immanence makes it commensurate to other damage booster people get through archetypes like Heaven's Thunder(+1/+1 per weapon die) or Psi Strikes (+1d4 after you cast a one-action psychic spell like shield or guidance).

The problem is that when you make it an action tax per turn this becomes significantly more appealing to people with extra actions to burn. Like it's fine if monks get the most mileage out of Heaven's Thunder due to the Houses of Perfections' whole deal, but it's probably not ideal if weapon monks get the most mileage out of the Exemplar archetype.

[Tridus]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Thanks. :) I mentioned Victor's Wreath earlier in the thread but it probably got buried. It's Immanence ability is literally a level 16 Cleric Feat (Eternal Blessing).

Literally Marshal+Inspiring Stance at L4 and its not 1 action away. In the remaster archetype you can make the DC with assurance so long as you boost the relevant skill.

So L16 feat is a bad comparison. L4 archetype feat is an appropriate comparison.

Level 16 feat is a fair comparison since they do exactly the same thing with exactly the same investment: a feat.

There's nothing wrong with also comparing it to Marshal, but Inspiring Martial does an additional thing (the save bonus), so it's not quite as exact a comparison. Course in that case you're talking two feats, investment in a skill, and maybe also assurance, which is a substantial investment.

By either comparison, Exemplar Dedication Victor's Wreath is way out of line.

[Tridus]

Squiggit wrote:

Also I don't want to dwell on it too much but "Paizo should just give up on balancing the game and make everything uncommon so GMs have to sort it out themselves" is such a genuinely disheartening cynical perspective on game design. PF2 has made a name for itself being really well tuned. It's a testament to that how much time we've spent litigating over a modest damage bonus as a true balance outlier. To go from that to "eh don't even bother" is just so like, genuinely sad idk.

One of the biggest selling features for me of PF2 and the reason why I won't GM PF1 anymore is "stuff works as expected and I don't need a pile of house rules." Issues come up, but core content has been pretty good.

The second half of 2024 has done a beating on my faith in Paizo's quality control (PC2 and WoI in particular). They seem clearly overstretched and just putting stuff out half-baked to make the schedule. I remember what happened in PF1 with "we're going to toss out piles of material and let GMs sort it out." It was not a good thing.

[Squiggit]

I just don't really see that bearing out in practice. Exemplar dedication is an outlier, but even then mostly as a testament to how tight the game is. PC2 and WoI are largely fine.

[Unicore]

I don't know what people are expecting to see happen with it though. There might be a little extra room on the page it is on for changing the way it works (hard to tell with white space around an illustration), but not a lot. They are not going to officially Errata it without making sure it is going to fit within the book. Adding the rare tag was an easy fit. Changing the dedication text significantly feels like it is not going to be easy. Maybe they get to it sooner than later, but it feels like an exercise in disappointment to get your hopes up too much for that. I am not saying people should stop talking about it, or stop talking about how they will personally deal with it, but it was a rare option* to begin with so a lot of players weren't going to be given access to it, and saying "I am just not going to allow this" as a GM is a very easy fix for as long as it takes to see errata/if it ever does. But even if it generally feels to powerful as is, there are many ways to either use it or change it that people (myself included) have discussed above in this thread.

*AGAIN, this is not to say that it is ok for rare options to be grossly overpowered, but that many rare options (especially rules variations options) play differently than base game assumptions, and it is ok to use the rarity tags to flag mechanics that are really different from others in the game that might disrupt game balance, as those are mechanics that the GM really needs to be aware of when making choices about what content to use.

Overwhelmingly, I think the bigger issue is that people want the new classes introduced in the game to things that players can get excited about and generally assume that it will be easy to get GM buy in to use. Even at rare, I think the Exemplar is pretty good for this, but not perfect, which is why I think it makes sense to make it rare instead of uncommon like gunslingers and inventors. Personally, I think the Thaumaturge and the Psychic probably should have been uncommon as well (and that would have made the starlit span magus spam less of an issue as well) with either more of the Dark Archive book itself given over to making those classes work with any variant stuff in that book or just have a lot of that variant stuff given up and given over to expanding out those classes even more as more basic elements of Golarion that fit in as common classes. Both the Dark Archive and the Secrets of Magic book have a lot of content that barely ever see play at most tables as it is stuff that doesn't really get used with the adventures and it changes the way the game is played. Rage of elements largely avoids that situation, but I think War of the Immortals will likely fall into a similar place (although get more usage than Secrets of Magic or Dark Archives content, because people really, really like the idea of mythic play).

It is really just the archetype that people are identifying as problematic and so I think just saying "we don't use this archetype" is the best outcome most folks should expect for a long time, with options for working it back in mostly for folks that explore message boards and really want to make it work at their table.

[Tridus]

Squiggit wrote:

I just don't really see that bearing out in practice. Exemplar dedication is an outlier, but even then mostly as a testament to how tight the game is. PC2 and WoI are largely fine.

I'm playing an Oracle in Kingmaker, so "PC2 is largely fine" is... not an opinion I share. But hey, we might get errata at some point for minor details like "how many spells does the class get?" that we're just relying on PFS rulings for right now.

Basic stuff like that shouldn't really be in that state, but there's multiple basic, obvious problems with PC2 Oracle before even getting into the subjective stuff around what they actually changed.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Tridus wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I just don't really see that bearing out in practice. Exemplar dedication is an outlier, but even then mostly as a testament to how tight the game is. PC2 and WoI are largely fine.

I'm playing an Oracle in Kingmaker, so "PC2 is largely fine" is... not an opinion I share. But hey, we might get errata at some point for minor details like "how many spells does the class get?" that we're just relying on PFS rulings for right now.

Basic stuff like that shouldn't really be in that state, but there's multiple basic, obvious problems with PC2 Oracle before even getting into the subjective stuff around what they actually changed.

Yeah, it definitely feels like a lot of power creep went on in PC2 in regards to the classes. Some classes needed it because their baseline was junk (Swashbuckler, Alchemist), other classes didn't honestly need it because they were still powerful as it is but still got some anyway (Barbarian, Sorcerer), and some classes became more confusing/nerfed as a result when all they really needed was some basic tweaking (Oracle, Champion).

[pauljathome]

Tridus wrote:

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.

At the risk of being cynical, having this be a boon that can only ever be used once by a player means

1) People will buy War of Immortals for the power up
2) Since only one character per person can have it the PFS campaign will not be totally destroyed. While this is egregiously overpowered it probably isn't SO overpowered as to absolutely destroy the fun of the other players at the table. At least not most of the time.

[Calliope5431]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I just don't really see that bearing out in practice. Exemplar dedication is an outlier, but even then mostly as a testament to how tight the game is. PC2 and WoI are largely fine.

I'm playing an Oracle in Kingmaker, so "PC2 is largely fine" is... not an opinion I share. But hey, we might get errata at some point for minor details like "how many spells does the class get?" that we're just relying on PFS rulings for right now.

Basic stuff like that shouldn't really be in that state, but there's multiple basic, obvious problems with PC2 Oracle before even getting into the subjective stuff around what they actually changed.

Yeah, it definitely feels like a lot of power creep went on in PC2 in regards to the classes. Some classes needed it because their baseline was junk (Swashbuckler, Alchemist), other classes didn't honestly need it because they were still powerful as it is but still got some anyway (Barbarian, Sorcerer), and some classes became more confusing/nerfed as a result when all they really needed was some basic tweaking (Oracle, Champion).

(Obligatory shout out to evil champion, which was not fixed and still sucks)

Sorcerer is in a weird space. Getting dangerous sorcery was necessary given it's a highly poachable feat tax otherwise. Honestly the nerfbat to crossblooded feels like it more than kneecapped the sorcerer power ceiling, though. Being able to steal heal as an occult/arcane sorcerer was huge, as was being able to pilfer decent direct damage spells as a divine sorc or decent control (hideous laughter, roaring applause) as primal.

Some sorcerer focus spells saw boosts (dragon, imperial, and demon) but all of them were earned, given all of them had pretty garbage 1st level focus spells in the CRB.

Frankly, as someone who plays a lot of sorcerers - CRB sorc is likely stronger than PC2 sorc. Eliminating a feat tax and improving a few bloodlines doesn't make up for the orbital nuking of the crossblooded line of feats.

Now, am I happy dragon/demon/imperial got fixed and that dangerous sorcery is no longer a feat tax? Yes. PC2 sorcerer is objectively a better-written class. But again the ceiling is likely weaker.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

I just think that the Sorcerer is more mathematically powerful than it's CRB predecessor, since they can stack damage bonus effects on a given spell and completely outmatch most other spellcasters on that front (in terms of HPR and DPR, Sorcerer is undisputedly the best now, since a focused healer can do D12s and get bonus healing, and a focused damage dealer gets bonus flat damage and potential ease of hits/crits).

I can agree that it has lost some feat/spell versatility in exchange for that, but honestly, in terms of raw power, it is significantly more, and it is not like it doesn't have good feats anymore. Some feats are still really nice to have, and other feats are now more viable as a result of the change. My only complaint is other caster classes didn't get similar treatment, especially the classes that need it the most.

[Lyncyx]

My personal Opinion concerning Exemplar Dedication with Victors Wrath Ikon:

I play a Summoner riding his Dragon Eidolon. Before WoI, I would have chosen Marshal Dedication, Inspiring Marshal Stance, Snap out of It, Assurance (Diplomacy) and The General Feat Weapon Proficiency.

These are 3 Class Feats, 1 Skill Feat and 1 General Feat.

Now, I just use Exemplar Dedication (1 Class Feat). It gives me the same essential Stuff (+1 to hit Aura, reroll for even more saves) without the limiting requirements of increasing Diplomacy, needed Weapon Proficiency and Assurance and no action costs for the Aura!
And I can still grab a Stance somewhere else (Kineticist or Dread Marshal Stance anybody?).

What do I loose? +1 to mental saves.

This is in no way balanced!

Being Honest: I think since Mark Seifter left Paizo, they started ignoring his Math more and more.

In my Mind, the only other comparable broken thing is Kineticist Dedication. All their Feats should just only scale with half lvl!

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

Well, in the absence now, after 250+ posts, of official engagement; and as the self-nominated reverse shill of Paizo, I feel it is incumbent upon me to say something egregious in the hope that Michael Sayre pops in to patiently and cleverly correct my wild accusations, show some of the elegance of the behind the scenes math and generally introduce the deeper conceptual thinking that created what I obviously misconstrue as “borked”. So here goes:

“Perhaps the reason the Exemplar (and the dedication/archetype!) is so gosh-darned popular is because it is completely broken.”

(Sadly I am only a first level reverse shill, so I can only attempt summon Michael Sayre once per thread, and I’ve never really tried it *on purpose* before. Hope it works, because usually he presents some pretty interesting, well thought out stuff that folks wouldn’t otherwise be privy to except maybe on reddit or someone’s insta….)

[Witch of Miracles]

It strikes me as more likely that Exemplar is just The Anime Swordsman Class or the I Like Greek Mythology Class, two ideas that were not so easily served up in a one-stop package before.

I mean, I really don't like exemplar's flavor, and I do think it has some poorly balanced options. But it builds popular character concepts that were difficult to make before, and that's enough for it to get serious uptake.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think the exemplar itself is a problem, the power budget of the class is essentially:
- 1 Immanence effect at a time
- access to 3(+1 with a feat) different transcendence effects depending on which immanence effects were used last.
- immediately shifting the spark into a second ikon when you transcend regaining one's immanence.
- the ability to get more out of transcendance effects, via epithets and class feats.

The multiclass by comparison gets
- 1 immanence effect
- no riders on transcendance except ones you can get with feats.
- an action cost to regain immmanence unless you took the 10th level archetype feat to get a second, then you can just pass the spark back and forth.

So while the Exemplar is incentivized to transcend frequently to get to play with most of their tools, and even though their immanence effects can be strong this doesn't make the class hit harder than the barbarian or more reliably than the fighter. The issue, of course, is that the archetype is available to the barbarian and the fighters.
-

[Witch of Miracles]

For me, it's stuff like:
-Wreath transcendence is too strong in practice, especially out of combat
-Scar transcendence healing is nonsense out of combat, and negates the need for the exemplar to interact with party medicine

It's not nearly as bad as the archetype, which is comedically broken by the game's mathematical standards. But it feels off.

[ElementalofCuteness]

As far as out of combat healing, the gam expects you to be near full hit points when you go into your next fight so the Scar isn't actually that bad. On the other side what the Wreath doesn't tell you if depending on the initial effect if your allies crit fail or fail a disease or poison check it get's accelerated.

[Witch of Miracles]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

As far as out of combat healing, the gam expects you to be near full hit points when you go into your next fight so the Scar isn't actually that bad. On the other side what the Wreath doesn't tell you if depending on the initial effect if your allies crit fail or fail a disease or poison check it get's accelerated.

It's out of line with most other out of combat healing, which occurs in 10 minute chunks, costs resources, or has cooldowns. It's a heightened 1-action heal on yourself every round (transcend it and it's forced somewhere else, shift immanence to put it back, repeat again next round). Healing at this speed typically costs focus points or spell slots, but just... doesn't for the exemplar.

There are situations in APs where you only have a single 10 minute increment (if that) between waves of enemies, and an exemplar would be able to get themselves back to full without spending any resources from any HP value. I can't think of anyone else that can do that.

It feels like too many of these abilities were created without thinking about someone using them out of combat, really. Like, think about how barrow's edge transcendence interacts with someone striking the floor, by RAW, or with the dreaded bag of rats. It's bad.

[Teridax]

The Animist's garden of healing had a similar problem in the playtest, where it could just heal the whole party by about 100 HP out of combat. It got changed to only provide the healing once per character, and I don't see why the Exemplar's abilities should be treated any different. Beyond this, Victor's Wreath allows the removal of even permanent conditions on tap, meaning an Exemplar could simply spam this out of combat to render the entire party entirely immune to all conditions. Thus, I agree with Witch of Miracles that out-of-combat situations really weren't considered when designing several of the new sourcebook's mechanics.

[Tridus]

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

“Perhaps the reason the Exemplar (and the dedication/archetype!) is so gosh-darned popular is because it is completely broken.”

Exemplar the class is good, but I don't think its broken. I'm not sure it's even the best class in the game. It IS super fun to play if you're into the theme, though.

Exemplar the dedication is completely absurd because of how much it gives other classes that are spending comparatively little to get it, rather than it being "your entire class". It would be akin to Fighter Dedication giving the Fighter's weapon proficiency scaling. Spending one feat (a low price even without FA) to get a sizable chunk of class budget stacked onto another class is just not workable in a system that wants to be balanced.

And yes: sometimes broken things are fun to play with. PF1 was full of this and it did pretty well.

Lyncyx wrote:

Being Honest: I think since Mark Seifter left Paizo, they started ignoring his Math more and more.

I don't know if its Mark specifically, but its hard not to notice that the power scaling of options is just all over the map lately with seemingly no rhyme or reason. I thought it was just the remaster leading to compressed schedules and stretched resources meaning less care is being taken, because things that always got less attention like AP backmatter options have had this problem in the past. That it's now extended to "primary" source material is a real problem.

[Errenor]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Like, think about how barrow's edge transcendence interacts with someone striking the floor, by RAW, or with the dreaded bag of rats. It's bad.

I don't argue with other problems, but this one isn't it: "Your blade glows as it absorbs your foe’s vitality. You regain Hit Points equal to half the damage dealt." Yeah, sure, floor has no vitality, you regain nothing. Yes, GMs can judge Striking inanimate objects and they can judge using flavour. Yeah, sure, take that 1 hp from that one rat, no problem. How much of those you have in total? And btw half of them have 1 hp and half of that is zero. Enjoy, ratsucker. And then welcome to catching more of them in an hour as an exploration activity where there are rats. That's both indulging and adversarial scenario. It could (and probably would) be much easier: a mythic hero can't sustain themselves on rats, they aren't ratsuckers.

[Dubious Scholar]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

As far as out of combat healing, the gam expects you to be near full hit points when you go into your next fight so the Scar isn't actually that bad. On the other side what the Wreath doesn't tell you if depending on the initial effect if your allies crit fail or fail a disease or poison check it get's accelerated.

It's out of line with most other out of combat healing, which occurs in 10 minute chunks, costs resources, or has cooldowns. It's a heightened 1-action heal on yourself every round (transcend it and it's forced somewhere else, shift immanence to put it back, repeat again next round). Healing at this speed typically costs focus points or spell slots, but just... doesn't for the exemplar.

There are situations in APs where you only have a single 10 minute increment (if that) between waves of enemies, and an exemplar would be able to get themselves back to full without spending any resources from any HP value. I can't think of anyone else that can do that.

It feels like too many of these abilities were created without thinking about someone using them out of combat, really. Like, think about how barrow's edge transcendence interacts with someone striking the floor, by RAW, or with the dreaded bag of rats. It's bad.

There's so many trivial ways to heal up out of combat as is. Forensic Investigators, Kineticists, basically no resource cost ways to turbo-heal the party in 10m. Unless the next fight is happening sooner than 10m, a well-prepared party is going into it at full HP. (And a fight that's happening almost immediately favors the burst healing of Kineticist or focus spells anyways)

[exequiel759]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

For me, it's stuff like:

-Wreath transcendence is too strong in practice, especially out of combat
-Scar transcendence healing is nonsense out of combat, and negates the need for the exemplar to interact with party medicine

It's not nearly as bad as the archetype, which is comedically broken by the game's mathematical standards. But it feels off.

Out of combat healing isn't and never was a problem in PF2e. All parties have someone that specializes into Medicine because its one of the skills that allows you to spend all your skill feats into it and forget skill feats are a thing. And even when ignoring that, remastered alchemists now also have effectively infinite out of combat healing too and so does the animist with one of their new focus spells too. In fact, a ton of chages in the remaster made out of combat healing way easier which to me seems intentional, after all, the game is balanced with the assumption that people are at full or near full HP when entering combat and most of the time if, for whatever reason, you can't fully heal the most common thing to do is to rest for the day and reasume the adventure the next day.

[Witch of Miracles]

There is a huge difference between focus spells or medicine—which require a ten minute refocus after to Regen resources, or take 10 minutes—and an ability that heals d8 (+ 1d8 heightened) ten times a minute. Versatile vials are also on a ten minute recharge.

Not every encounter day is 3 moderate encounters with as long as the party wants between encounters. Not every adventuring day ends when the party says it ends. That abstracts too far away from actual play. Time costs are very real in many actual play scenarios, including in several published APs.

The difference between 1 minute and 10 minutes is also immense for 10 minute buffs. Spending resources to heal in order to take multiple encounters while buffed is a common strategy. The exemplar's healing is the difference between spending a heal spell to continue with buffs running and not spending one.

[Dubious Scholar]

A water kineticist is doing 1d8/2 levels to the whole party every ten minutes from level 1, and at level 6 they basically double that by adding a cone heal with separate cooldown.

Wood kineticists can actually do higher healing than that even.

They can heal the party for more than Exemplar can, and faster. Unless you have some extremely specific timeframe between fights (like, it would have to be something very specific like more than a minute and less than ten for Scar to come out ahead), Exemplar's self-heal isn't nearly the strongest option (and even then, it's only a self-heal, as opposed to pumping the entire party full of healing).

[graystone]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

The difference between 1 minute and 10 minutes is also immense for 10 minute buffs.

Unless you're trying to speedrun the entire adventure it's really not a big deal. With normal cautious movement, like actually looking for traps, opening locks, searching, ect and having actual distances between encounters, it'd be rough to get multiple encounters in a 10 min buff WITH Scar.