| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed a disturbing trend in recent paizo publications that is power creeping other melee options to exceed my beloved Double Slice. Gleaming Blade is officially beyond the pale. Now, without investing in a second weapon, a fighter or barbarian or anything really can pick up exemplar dedication, and absolutely destroy doubleslice in a dpr race (d12 weapon vs d8, +2 spirit dmg per hit). For the same cost (1 class feat/dedication feat for games with free archetype).
Remove the imminence ability from the Archetype entirely and it would still be a valid pickup. Paizo pls nerf!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We spent so much effort excising the +damage +math feats from Pathfinder when we went to 2E, I don't know why it would make a return like this.
I would personally disallow it at my tables, and I am an extremely permissive GM.
Don't remember the immenance effect, it is what keeps people wanting to take the Archetype,no one wants to transcendence then respark their item for 1 action even if this is powerful this is similar to Psychic Dedication for Magus, Martials need this in my opinion to balance the Magus players who spam Imaginary Weapon which at level 8 Mythic supports by spending 1 mythic point as 1 action to fully recharge your Focus Pool...Maybe make thew immenance 2 feats but still not fully remove it!
I've noticed a disturbing trend in recent paizo publications that is power creeping other melee options to exceed my beloved Double Slice. Gleaming Blade is officially beyond the pale. Now, without investing in a second weapon, a fighter or barbarian or anything really can pick up exemplar dedication, and absolutely destroy doubleslice in a dpr race (d12 weapon vs d8, +2 spirit dmg per hit). For the same cost (1 class feat/dedication feat for games with free archetype).
Remove the imminence ability from the Archetype entirely and it would still be a valid pickup. Paizo pls nerf!
But the Transcendence effect is effectively 3 actions after the first time you use it, since you need to Shift Immanence in order to able to use it again.
Obviously in a white room where both stand next to an HP blob and whack it to death Gleaming Blade wins, but in a real fight the Double Slice martial has 1 action to do something else, while the multiclass essentially becomes a melee Magus trying to Spellstrike each turn, except they have no way of recharging it except Shift Immanence.
EDIT: I forgot, but also minor point, Gleaming Blade's Transcendence turns all damage into Spirit, which can be good or bad depending on the situation, unless you spend a Feat to be able to change it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact this is a Rare class and rare archetype it is probably ok. If your GM is letting you take this then they are letting a nascent god into their game and accept that the power level is going up.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Power level that wouldn't be ok is ok because of Rarity" is EXACTLY how Rarity is NOT supposed to be used.
While the archetype is pretty busted (even if just for the flat damage increases) I think the OP's example isn't a great one. Flowing Spirit Strike with a greatsword is generally worse than just attacking three times, with the advantage that you can put off spending that third action. If that were the main benefit of the feat it'd probably be fine.
"Power level that wouldn't be ok is ok because of Rarity" is EXACTLY how Rarity is NOT supposed to be used.
Especially considering the exemplar itself is pretty much just whatever.
TBH I'm surprised how much I've seen people trying to justify the archetype's current state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact this is a Rare class and rare archetype it is probably ok. If your GM is letting you take this then they are letting a nascent god into their game and accept that the power level is going up.
Rarity is represented both by regional/personal access, as well as the potential complications of the type of campaign you are running (and in most cases, the campaign-issue ones are usually Uncommon, with Rare/Unique being reserved for AP rewards or specialty region options not available to the public).
It does not, and should not, be represented by a "power curve" that isn't normally available at that level.
Also, sure, we can use Rarity as an excuse to deny things, but in this game the game is using Rarity to justify power creep, which isn't the point of Rarity, so instead of denying things because "the setting doesn't commonly have this happen," we are denying things because "the character option is overtuned and shouldn't be available to players as a result."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, sometimes rarity is used to demonstrate options that aren't overpowered but still cause headaches for the GM. Why engage with a murder mystery if you can just ask the corpse who did it? Or better yet, just bring him back to life and ask him. Or you can just ask God who did it.
But it is never used to communicate that an option is overpowered for its level. PF2E doesn't have such options (at least not on purpose; I hope they fix live wire).
PF2E doesn't have such options (at least not on purpose; I hope they fix live wire).
It does now, it seems, but we will wait patiently for the street date release and see what the text actually says. I had a feeling something like this was going to happen with the Exemplar, with the slang class description literally being "I am infused with God power." I even stated such feelings when they first announced the Exemplar.
That being said, I'd rather they leave Live Wire alone and just adjust the other attack cantrips to be on par with Live Wire. It's finally time Paizo acknowledged the balance point behind spells and have printed content to match them up as such; they understood it back when they decided to publish the Shadow Signet item, and why they took way too long to publish something, or didn't give a basic pass-through to other cantrips/spells they already published when it came time to the Remaster, I don't know. But that's enough rambling for something that should be its own thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you talking about the half of a miss or the scaling twice as fast? Because I was talking about the scaling twice as fast. There's no way that's not a typo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you talking about the half of a miss or the scaling twice as fast? Because I was talking about the scaling twice as fast. There's no way that's not a typo.
Not the first time a spell was published that way. And it still hasn't been errata'd.
As for the cantrip, even if it does 2D4 per rank, it still only does 1D4 per rank on a miss; it well outpaces most every attack roll cantrip in the game just based on sheer efficiency alone, but it's still not comparable to Electric Arc, which does 2D4 to 2 targets, both allowing a save, so it's actually still worse than that by comparison.
IRT should probably also get an errata, but it's nowhere near as egregious as live wire. Once you hit level 3, there's no reason to cast any other attack cantrip, or even a basic save cantrip. Live Wire just invalidates every other damaging cantrip.
The damage from live wire is all against one target, whereas electric arc splits it among two. Focus fired damage is better than the same damage split up among multiple targets.
IRT should probably also get an errata, but it's nowhere near as egregious as live wire. Once you hit level 3, there's no reason to cast any other attack cantrip, or even a basic save cantrip. Live Wire just invalidates every other damaging cantrip.
The damage from live wire is all against one target, whereas electric arc splits it among two. Focus fired damage is better than the same damage split up among multiple targets.
It's really not. A 5th level casting of it for 2-3 Actions is only 16D4, which is an average of 40 damage, with a save. Yes, the 2 round version doubles it, but 1. It's still a save, 2. It's a line, so you won't get that many creatures, and 3. It requires set-up/protection, and enemies can line-of-sight/line-of-effect it and not be hit by it if they are strategic enough, so it's far more high-risk/high-reward than you think. It's also especially true if you have to declare targets/directions/whatever at the time of casting, so enemies can simply look, see they are being stared at with the casting/channeling of a spell, and duck behind a wall to not be hit.
Electric Arc still does more raw damage, though. 2(2D4+(1D4*X)) is still better than X(2D4), both of which do half damage on successes (though honestly, even the former has more chances to fail than the latter). As for single target damage being more valuable, I disagree, since it seems more like spells of certain ranks can only do certain values of damage for that rank, and AoE spells push the same value as single target spells.
I really hope these mythic rules are playable.
I really hope these mythic rules are playable.
Playable and fun/reasonable are two different things. I have no doubt that Mythic rules are the former, but I highly doubt they are the latter.
Any particular reason for that?
Any particular reason for that?
Well, we have the precedent from PF1, where Mythic broke an already broken game in many other ways. We have the speculation and posts from others on the forums here in regards to currently published Mythic options that either obsolete or hamper expected gameplay elements. And we also have personal stigmatisms for what the system is meant to accomplish being in direct contrast of what the stated design goals of the new edition was, which was to keep things in balance, not throw them out of whack. Put it all together, and you have a reasonable concern behind the system in question.
Any particular reason for that?Well, we have the precedent from PF1, where Mythic broke an already broken game in many other ways. We have the speculation and posts from others on the forums here in regards to currently published Mythic options that either obsolete or hamper expected gameplay elements. And we also have personal stigmatisms for what the system is meant to accomplish being in direct contrast of what the stated design goals of the new edition was, which was to keep things in balance, not throw them out of whack. Put it all together, and you have a reasonable concern behind the system in question.Eh, that seems a bit hyperbolic. Mythic hardly breaks the game.
Mythic stuff that needs a fix because it impacts too much of the game:
- Exemplar Dedication is indeed too crazy powerful. Martials benefit more, but there is OP goodies for all. Just disallow it for now or give it to all your players.
- Mythic Resilience I would for now give the same on/off treatment as Resistance, namely mythic characters automatically bypass it. Casters are screwed over more by Resilience, but honestly, this is just anti-fun for everyone at the table. Almost every character has abilities which require an opponent to make saves.
Mythic stuff with a smaller impact on the game but that could use a second look:
- Kineticists. Either some Mythic feats below lvl 12 specifically for them, or added text on enough existing feats allowing for their blasts and impulses to benefit. Perhaps even a Destiny specifically for them as their mechanics are so walled off from the rest of the system.
- Rewrite Fate vs Calling's mythic proficiency boosts. Your Calling should define your signature bad ass area of expertise. My current fix would be to only let those boosts cost a Mythic point if you get a success or higher.
Really? So features that outright nullify spellcasters and other save-based effects are A-Okay? And classes with features that specifically are written not to work with Mythic abilities because the rules don't account for that particular class aren't broken at all? Not to mention the absolute swing it causes for lower level games, getting upwards of a +8 on a given check is pretty bonkers.
Exemplar is "crazy powerful," but so is the class itself, both of which are locked behind a Rarity tag that GMs absolutely have the right to say "No" to. As for "giving it to all your players," I imagine there will be a Paizo AP, either one in development right now, or in the future, that will do just that as an adventure reward.
Mythic Resilience just has a consistency issue in that it works against both Mythic and non-Mythic effects, whereas most defensive benefits work specifically for non-Mythic effects. If the idea is that it actually is supposed to work against Mythic opponents, then it should be limited at-most or circumstantial at-worst.
Kineticists simply have a mechanical issue that can only really be fixed by imposing an errata to the class, stating that a 1-action Elemental Blast counts as a Strike for the purposes of abilities and effects that require Strikes. There is no reason to change an entire subsystem when that change would likewise have to apply to every subsystem created simply because Kineticist is trying too hard to emulate a mechanic while still using that same mechanic as both a balance point and a means to differentiate it.
Really, this is the biggest problem with Mythic; making it a tier above Legendary breaks the math in the early game (seriously, a +8 swing is bonkers), and then devalues it significantly more in the late game. While I do not mind having a Mythic tier, I would prefer that it is only accessible to those that can reasonably reach it (i.e. higher levels only), and that it honestly would have been easier to designate this sort of thing via Traits, wherein spending Mythic points would give the ability the Mythic trait, whereas anything that is increased to Mythic tier automatically gains the Mythic trait, no points required.
Really? So features that outright nullify spellcasters and other save-based effects are A-Okay? And...Any particular reason for that?Well, we have the precedent from PF1, where Mythic broke an already broken game in many other ways. We have the speculation and posts from others on the forums here in regards to currently published Mythic options that either obsolete or hamper expected gameplay elements. And we also have personal stigmatisms for what the system is meant to accomplish being in direct contrast of what the stated design goals of the new edition was, which was to keep things in balance, not throw them out of whack. Put it all together, and you have a reasonable concern behind the system in question.Eh, that seems a bit hyperbolic. Mythic hardly breaks the game.
Mythic stuff that needs a fix because it impacts too much of the game:
- Exemplar Dedication is indeed too crazy powerful. Martials benefit more, but there is OP goodies for all. Just disallow it for now or give it to all your players.
- Mythic Resilience I would for now give the same on/off treatment as Resistance, namely mythic characters automatically bypass it. Casters are screwed over more by Resilience, but honestly, this is just anti-fun for everyone at the table. Almost every character has abilities which require an opponent to make saves.
Mythic stuff with a smaller impact on the game but that could use a second look:
- Kineticists. Either some Mythic feats below lvl 12 specifically for them, or added text on enough existing feats allowing for their blasts and impulses to benefit. Perhaps even a Destiny specifically for them as their mechanics are so walled off from the rest of the system.
- Rewrite Fate vs Calling's mythic proficiency boosts. Your Calling should define your signature bad ass area of expertise. My current fix would be to only let those boosts cost a Mythic point if you get a success or higher.
The Exemplar Dedication is busted, as Angwa acknowledged. In fact, they acknowledged all of your points except one as a negative. The Exemplar class itself is widely considered balanced to other martials, so I would love to hear exactly how out of balance it is with something like a Fighter or Barbarian in your opinion.
As for the unaddressed point, +8 is supposed to be swingy at low levels. Thats the entire point of giving it to you at low levels. You can not like it, but to some degree mythic is meant to break the conventional math. There are issues that may pop up, but pretending like this is somehow unintentional or against the point of the game is missing the point of mythic.
Also Exemplar isn’t part of mythic. It is a base class that has mythic themes. You can use an Exemplar in basic play the same as a fighter, it just won’t fit as easily. Hence the rare tag.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I've been playing an Exemplar for over a year now and they aren't anymore 'crazy powerful' than any martial class. The final version is actually a really well balanced class, while still retaining its thematic niche.
The Exemplar Dedication is busted, as Angwa acknowledged. In fact, they acknowledged all of your points except one as a negative. The Exemplar class itself is widely considered balanced to other martials, so I would love to hear exactly how out of balance it is with something like a Fighter or Barbarian in your opinion.
As for the unaddressed point, +8 is supposed to be swingy at low levels. Thats the entire point of giving it to you at low levels. You can not like it, but to some degree mythic is meant to break the conventional math. There are issues that may pop up, but pretending like this is somehow unintentional or against the point of the game is missing the point of mythic.
Also Exemplar isn’t part of mythic. It is a base class that has mythic themes. You can use an Exemplar in basic play the same as a fighter, it just won’t fit as easily. Hence the rare tag.
How can a class that is only recently released to subscribers have a "widely considered" opinion about it whatsoever? It's not like the majority of Pathfinder players are subscribers, so that's not a realistic claim. The book hasn't even hit the streets yet, and we are somehow calling the class something that may not even be called that by the public, even if simply because nobody else has had their chance to draw their own conclusion. And no, playtesting and its consequential results don't count because the class may not be the same as that product. This is like a movie trailer with statements like "Critics are raving" and other similar false advertisements, and taking them for face value instead of waiting for the movie to actually be seen in theatres for the public to criticize it, whom will probably have a stark contrast viewpoint from it. And really, if we were to take the Exemplar dedication as a "teaser" for the main class, the expectation that the class will also be broken isn't an outlandish conclusion to draw.
For a game that has done a lot to disallow the ability to "break the conventional math," there were things far less broken than Mythic that were immediately errata'd, and saying that it's intentional for low levels to have a +8 swing, when absolutely nothing else in the game, heck most every other Mythic rule, does not allow for a +8 swing, shouldn't be surprising that it is met with confusion and headscratching. Really, I would expect the higher levels to have the higher swings (especially because the higher levels have the harder challenges).
Also, never said Exemplar was Mythic only, but I will say that if there is any class that can be "innately" Mythic, Exemplar is one of them. "I am infused with raw God power" is quite literally one of numerous definitions of Mythic.
Yeah, I've been playing an Exemplar for over a year now and they aren't anymore 'crazy powerful' than any martial class. The final version is actually a really well balanced class, while still retaining its thematic niche.
I suppose it has been a year since the Exemplar has been announced. But considering that Exemplar gets some crazy abilities that Fighters and Barbarians can't do, the question of whether it's balanced around a Fighter's +2 or the Barbarian's Rage abilities and features, is something that has yet to be determined.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can a class that is only recently released to subscribers have a "widely considered" opinion about it whatsoever? It's not like the majority of Pathfinder players are subscribers, so that's not a realistic claim. The book hasn't even hit the streets yet, and we are somehow calling the class something that may not even be called that by the public, even if simply because nobody else has had their chance to draw their own conclusion. And no, playtesting and its consequential results don't count because the class may not be the same as that product. This is like a movie trailer with statements like "Critics are raving" and other similar false advertisements, and taking them for face value instead of waiting for the movie to actually be seen in theatres for the public to criticize it, whom will probably have a stark contrast viewpoint from it. And really, if we were to take the Exemplar dedication as a "teaser" for the main class, the expectation that the class will also be broken isn't an outlandish conclusion to draw.The Exemplar Dedication is busted, as Angwa acknowledged. In fact, they acknowledged all of your points except one as a negative. The Exemplar class itself is widely considered balanced to other martials, so I would love to hear exactly how out of balance it is with something like a Fighter or Barbarian in your opinion.
As for the unaddressed point, +8 is supposed to be swingy at low levels. Thats the entire point of giving it to you at low levels. You can not like it, but to some degree mythic is meant to break the conventional math. There are issues that may pop up, but pretending like this is somehow unintentional or against the point of the game is missing the point of mythic.
Also Exemplar isn’t part of mythic. It is a base class that has mythic themes. You can use an Exemplar in basic play the same as a fighter, it just won’t fit as easily. Hence the rare tag.
So you have yet to see the Exemplar yet? You are basing your opinion on it entirely off the dedication? Because what I very obviously meant by saying “widely considered” is that nearly everyone who DOES have their copy, and HAS seen the class, and are weighing in on their takes believe the class to not only be fine, but to be perfectly balanced.
Until you have read the class proper, your opinion on its balance is speculative at best and doomsaying at worst and is of no interest to me in turn.
I have no interest in arguing the point further. Ultimately this is your opinion on the matter, and you are obviously far more passionate in this than I am.
IRT should probably also get an errata, but it's nowhere near as egregious as live wire. Once you hit level 3, there's no reason to cast any other attack cantrip, or even a basic save cantrip. Live Wire just invalidates every other damaging cantrip.
The damage from live wire is all against one target, whereas electric arc splits it among two. Focus fired damage is better than the same damage split up among multiple targets.
It's really not. A 5th level casting of it for 2-3 Actions is only 16D4, which is an average of 40 damage, with a save. Yes, the 2 round version doubles it, but 1. It's still a save, 2. It's a line, so you won't get that many creatures, and 3. It requires set-up/protection, and enemies can line-of-sight/line-of-effect it and not be hit by it if they are strategic enough, so it's far more high-risk/high-reward than you think. It's also especially true if you have to declare targets/directions/whatever at the time of casting, so enemies can simply look, see they are being stared at with the casting/channeling of a spell, and duck behind a wall to not be hit.
Electric Arc still does more raw damage, though. 2(2D4+(1D4*X)) is still better than X(2D4), both of which do half damage on successes (though honestly, even the former has more chances to fail than the latter). As for single target damage being more valuable, I disagree, since it seems more like spells of certain ranks can only do certain values of damage for that rank, and AoE spells push the same value as single target spells.
I do remember that someone did the math on IRT and found that even with the mistake in the heightened entry (and the developers have acknowledged that it was a mistake), there's only one heightened rank where IRT beats other area spells of that rank. A spellcaster preparing IRT in all their high level slots isn't going to be doing much more damage with those slots than if they had prepared spells of that rank. However, the whole point of learning spells of a new rank is that they are better than your lower level spells heightened to that same rank. Maybe IRT isn't powerful enough to warrant skipping out on the higher level stuff, but it's concerning how close it is.
As for your point on single target damage not beating area damage, I don't understand your reasoning. You're saying that single target spells and area spells of the same rank have roughly the same damage listed? I believe that's true. The trade off for using the single target spells is usually that they come with extra effects to make the target limitation worth it. But imagine if there was a rank 3 spell called Condensed Fireball that did 12d6 fire damage to one target with a basic Reflex save (heightened adds 4d6 per level). It may be the same amount of damage as a Fireball hitting two creatures, but Condensed Fireball has an easier time reducing creatures to zero HP. That means the enemy team loses more actions and has less chances to damage you.
I do remember that someone did the math on IRT and found that even with the mistake in the heightened entry (and the developers have acknowledged that it was a mistake), there's only one heightened rank where IRT beats other area spells of that rank. A spellcaster preparing IRT in all their high level slots isn't going to be doing much more damage with those slots than if they had prepared spells of that rank. However, the whole point of learning spells of a new rank is that they are better than your lower level spells heightened to that same rank. Maybe IRT isn't powerful enough to warrant skipping out on the higher level stuff, but it's concerning how close it is.
As for your point on single target damage not beating area damage, I don't understand your reasoning. You're saying that single target spells and area spells of the same rank have roughly the same damage listed? I believe that's true. The trade off for using the single target spells is usually that they come with extra effects to make the target limitation worth it. But imagine if there was a rank 3 spell called Condensed Fireball that did 12d6 fire damage to one target with a basic Reflex save (heightened adds 4d6 per level). It may be the same amount of damage as a Fireball hitting two creatures, but Condensed Fireball has an easier time reducing creatures to zero HP. That means the enemy team loses more actions and has less chances to damage you.
IRT has innate issues with it being a 2 round spell (because reducing it to a 2-action or 3-action spell literally makes its damage beyond garbage, and its range/effects suffer as a result as well), so it doing more damage on average than spells of its equivalent rank by requiring 2 rounds (even heightened) means it outright loses on action economy alone; that's why it doesn't matter if it does the same or even higher damage than spells of its equivalent rank. It takes two full rounds, and it requires the enemies to just sit there and be willing to take it, and for you to not be downed or disrupted in the process. It's very easy to lose the spell and do nothing with it as a result of tactics. Really, if you cast a different spell of equivalent rank followed up by a cantrip, you're probably going to more reliably land those spells, and you are doing similar or higher damage, all while saving actions. Really, the 2 round spells doing bonkers damage is the only saving grace for those spell types; they're otherwise literally trap options.
They do, because Paizo believes that a single target spell doing 6D6 at rank 3 is the same power equivalent as an AoE spell doing 6D6 at rank 3. In short, it's a flat projected damage value for spells and effects of those ranks. As you posit, at-best, single target effects impose debuffs/conditions, and very rarely (if at all) do more damage. Look at 4th level, Vision of Death does 8D6 with Frightened on a save, whereas a Fireball heightened to that value does 8D6 in an area, and if extrapolated IRT, it does 24D4 over the course of 2 rounds (so 12D4 per round). The average damage for both of these effects is 28. (30 for IRT, so it averages 2 more DPR with its added stipulations and action costs; wow, so gamebreaking, Paizo better nerf it!)
So you have yet to see the Exemplar yet? You are basing your opinion on it entirely off the dedication? Because what I very obviously meant by saying “widely considered” is that nearly everyone who DOES have their copy, and HAS seen the class, and are weighing in on their takes believe the class to not only be fine, but to be perfectly balanced.
Until you have read the class proper, your opinion on its balance is speculative at best and doomsaying at worst and is of no interest to me in turn.
More subscriber gatekeeping. "We got the book early, you can't have an opinion on it/your opinion is invalid until you get the book too." This crap happened with the Howl of the Wilds with the ancestries, where people listed the printed rules as already known fact by expecting you to be a subscriber just like them and have the same knowledge they do, and when it turns out you're not, you're labeled as something worse than a bottom class poster, and you get ridiculed and villified for it.
We really need to have a subscribers-only messageboard where you people can just keep these discussions to yourselves, since apparently our opinions and statements on said content is invalid simply because we don't have access to the content yet.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I can't be bothered to read stuff easily obtainable in other forums or screenshotted in youtube videos I can scroll, but I'll happily flout and whine about my ignorance on this forum" is something I respect as part of your brand.
So you have yet to see the Exemplar yet? You are basing your opinion on it entirely off the dedication? Because what I very obviously meant by saying “widely considered” is that nearly everyone who DOES have their copy, and HAS seen the class, and are weighing in on their takes believe the class to not only be fine, but to be perfectly balanced.
Until you have read the class proper, your opinion on its balance is speculative at best and doomsaying at worst and is of no interest to me in turn.
More subscriber gatekeeping. "We got the book early, you can't have an opinion on it/your opinion is invalid until you get the book too." This crap happened with the Howl of the Wilds with the ancestries, where people listed the printed rules as already known fact by expecting you to be a subscriber just like them and have the same knowledge they do, and when it turns out you're not, you're labeled as something worse than a bottom class poster, and you get ridiculed and villified for it.
We really need to have a subscribers-only messageboard where you people can just keep these discussions to yourselves, since apparently our opinions and statements on said content is invalid simply because we don't have access to the content yet.
As I have said, you can have your opinion. I have no issue whatsoever with that. But as someone who has read the class properly, I have no interest in the opinion of the willfully uninformed.
The class has been reviewed by multiple YouTubers like Nonat1s, the Rules Lawyer, Wisdom Check and Phoebe Bane.
Perhaps you should check those out if my “gatekeeping” is ruining your experience. If you choose not to do so, that is your choice. Until then, I will continue with my “gatekeeping” and not argue with you on mechanics that you do not know or have read.
Thank you.
"I can't be bothered to read stuff easily obtainable in other forums or screenshotted in youtube videos I can scroll, but I'll happily flout and whine about my ignorance on this forum" is something I respect as part of your brand.
How is the information "easily obtainable" if I have to dig through forums I never frequent or scroll through Youtube video drivel (plus the ads that come with them)? You're making assumptions that I can have the same "easy" time taking a different route compared to someone that gets it straight from the source simply because those different routes are easy for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IRT has innate issues with it being a 2 round spell (because reducing it to a 2-action or 3-action spell literally makes its damage beyond garbage, and its range/effects suffer as a result as well), so it doing more damage on average than spells of its equivalent rank by requiring 2 rounds (even heightened) means it outright loses on action economy alone; that's why it doesn't matter if it does the same or even higher damage than spells of its equivalent rank. It takes two full rounds, and it requires the enemies to just sit there and be willing to take it, and for you to not be downed or disrupted in the process. It's very easy to lose the spell and do nothing with it as a result of tactics. Really, if you cast a different spell of equivalent rank followed up by a cantrip, you're probably going to more reliably land those spells, and you are doing similar or higher damage, all while saving actions. Really, the 2 round spells doing bonkers damage is the only saving grace for those spell types; they're otherwise literally trap options.
It's the two-action damage that was considered in the analysis. It's that damage that is good enough to compete with spells of higher ranks. It is not garbage damage.
They do, because Paizo believes that a single target spell doing 6D6 at rank 3 is the same power equivalent as an AoE spell doing 6D6 at rank 3. In short, it's a flat projected damage value for spells and effects of those ranks. As you posit, at-best, single target effects impose debuffs/conditions, and very rarely (if at all) do more damage. Look at 4th level, Vision of Death does 8D6 with Frightened on a save, whereas a Fireball heightened to that value does 8D6 in an area, and if extrapolated IRT, it does 24D4 over the course of 2 rounds (so 12D4 per round). The average damage for both of these effects is 28. (30 for IRT, so it averages 2 more DPR with its added stipulations and action costs; wow, so gamebreaking, Paizo better nerf it!)
You know the initial damage for IRT is getting heightened, too, right? You don't need to spend extra actions to get IRT's damage to compete with spells of much higher rank. It's just that powerful.
And the point I was making about Condensed Fireball was to illustrate the power of live wire compared to electric arc. All of live wire's damage is against a single target, so that damage is inherently more valuable because that target is reaching 0 HP faster. The total damage may be slightly lower, but each individual enemy will die faster.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can a class that is only recently released to subscribers have a "widely considered" opinion about it whatsoever? It's not like the majority of Pathfinder players are subscribers, so that's not a realistic claim. The book hasn't even hit the streets yet, and we are somehow calling the class something that may not even be called that by the public, even if simply because nobody else has had their chance to draw their own conclusion.
This is a weird place to go with your argument when you just called the class "crazy powerful" apparently without even looking at it.
It's the two-action damage that was considered in the analysis. It's that damage that is good enough to compete with spells of higher ranks. It is not garbage damage.
You know the initial damage for IRT is getting heightened, too, right? You don't need to spend extra actions to get IRT's damage to compete with spells of much higher rank. It's just that powerful.
And the point I was making about Condensed Fireball was to illustrate the power of live wire compared to electric arc. All of live wire's damage is against a single target, so that damage is inherently more valuable because that target is reaching 0 HP faster. The total damage may be slightly lower, but each individual enemy will die faster.
Really, the only thing the two round version does is gives you the DPR as if you cast the spell twice consecutively without burning a slot, since a lot of its benefits are subsumed with the action economy. Which isn't nothing, but it's also riskier by comparison, since you have to wait a turn for both of them to pay off, and a lot can change in a round. Even so, my math did demonstrate that it's 2 higher on average for 4th rank, which, if we're going to call 2 average points of damage and 4 added minimum points of damage gamebreaking, then we better give Briny Bolt, Hydraulic Push, et. al. a rebalance for the same reasons. Compared to a Lightning Bolt of the same rank, a value of 5D12, which is an average of 32.5 damage, and has twice the length, meaning you can hit enemies further back, it's still weaker. The only major benefit compared to a Lightning Bolt of identical level is that it's able to be "chained" twice without burning a spell slot at the cost of added action cost, which again, has its own risks and problems.
I know the point you were demonstrating, and it's really invalid. Paizo balances AoE damage and single-target damage mostly identically, with outliers mostly being in the lower levels (and having garbage critical effects, like Hydraulic Push and Briny Bolt), meaning the argument of "Paizo can print single target damage spells that can absolutely rekt individual creatures to match overall AoE damage" is debunked. Literally, we have numerous examples of single-target spells doing the same, or barely higher damage on average compared to AoE versions of spells.
This is a weird place to go with your argument when you just called the class "crazy powerful" apparently without even looking at it.
How can a class that is only recently released to subscribers have a "widely considered" opinion about it whatsoever? It's not like the majority of Pathfinder players are subscribers, so that's not a realistic claim. The book hasn't even hit the streets yet, and we are somehow calling the class something that may not even be called that by the public, even if simply because nobody else has had their chance to draw their own conclusion.
Not that crazy if you put even a little bit of thought behind it, as well as come from a different perspective besides your constant high horse. Plenty of threads popped up saying "Exemplar dedication is OP, plis nerf," meaning it's not unreasonable for an uninformed person to assume "Well, if the dedication is that broken, the main class is probably as broken if not more, since it offers more than a mere dedication does." But again, it requires a different perspective, which I can understand is too much for a lot of people.
And sure, reading between the lines, the complaints are more directed in saying that it's broken because it gives significant initial benefits to other classes while it's used as the mathematical balance point for the class (Psychic dedication does this too with the Amp cantrips, Monk dedication used to do this with Flurry of Blows before the Remaster), but the same argument for denying the dedication becomes the same argument for denying the main class, which is that it's locked behind a Rarity tag that the GM has all the power behind to allow or disallow. Meaning it's pointless for people to berate me for my apparent false claim when the validity of said claim is irrelevant to the reasoning for a GM to allow or disallow the class.
Really, the only thing the two round version does is gives you the DPR as if you cast the spell twice consecutively without burning a slot, since a lot of its benefits are subsumed with the action economy. Which isn't nothing, but it's also riskier by comparison, since you have to wait a turn for both of them to pay off, and a lot can change in a round. Even so, my math did demonstrate that it's 2 higher on average for 4th rank, which, if we're going to call 2 average points of damage and 4 added minimum points of damage gamebreaking, then we better give Briny Bolt, Hydraulic Push, et. al. a rebalance for the same reasons. Compared to a Lightning Bolt of the same rank, a value of 5D12, which is an average of 31.5 damage, and has twice the length, meaning you can hit enemies further back, it's still weaker. The only major benefit compared to a Lightning Bolt of identical level is that it's able to be "chained" twice without burning a spell slot at the cost of added action cost, which again, has its own risks and problems.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the two-round version. It's not relevant to the heightening error. And even if the damage isn't incredibly broken, we know it's a mistake because the developers told us so and that it's on the errata queue. I don't know why they haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe there's just a lot of stuff on the errata queue. The Steal action didn't get fixed until the remaster, after all. This game is huge, and there's a lot to be addressed.
I know the point you were demonstrating, and it's really invalid. Paizo balances AoE damage and single-target damage mostly identically, with outliers mostly being in the lower levels (and having garbage critical effects, like Hydraulic Push and Briny Bolt), meaning the argument of "Paizo can print single target damage spells that can absolutely rekt individual creatures to match overall AoE damage" is debunked. Literally, we have numerous examples of single-target spells doing the same, or barely higher damage on average compared to AoE versions of spells.
You're making my point. Single target spells don't get to do double the damage of area spells of the same rank because that would be broken. That's why Live Wire's scaling is so clearly a typo. No other cantrip in the game scales this well.
The reason why you see so many "the dedication is op" has nothing to do with the class power level.
The dedication is OP because it gives the full gimmick of a class to everyone with a level 2 feat and no restrictions whatsoever.
It's as if Fighter dedication was "you gain a +2 untyped bonus on all your attacks"
Or rogue dedication being "you get full scaling sneak"
And etc.
Basically:
The dedication allows you to fully stack 2 classes damage gimmicks into 1. It has nothing to do with the overall class power.
Yes. Some of them give gimmicks that other classes desperately want for themselves but can't get, or have their own options that are much weaker.
Horn of Plenty is much better than Cauldron and also acts as Quick Bomber for elixirs if an Alchemist gets it.
Normally an Alchemist can't reduce actions to drink elixirs at all, can't get action reducers to deliver elixirs to allies, and can't get the ability to brew magical potions until a separate feat at level...16? Ish?
Horn of Plenty does all of that for them. It's also very strong for an Exemplar who gets (1) magical crafting skill feat, (2) some good magic potion formulas, (3) alchemist MC dedicaiton, and (4) the additional alchemist MC feat for daily items to load extra free elixirs.
But I'm not too worried about exemplars investing +2 intelligence, crafting to expert, a skill feat, and two class feats to pull this off. They deserve it at that point for what they're giving up. An alchemist chirurgeon/mutagenist is going to find it much cheaper and more powerful. Just ignoring the potion aspect is still a very strong addition to their basic class abilities at 2nd leve.
Some else to help balance Ikona nd the additional Spirit damage is, how residence works. If you fight a Dread Wraith for exemplar it has Resistance 10 all except (Force, ghost-=touch rune, and Positive/Vitality) No matter how much bonus damage you add of different types, like the damaging runes which deal a D6 or the Additional Spirit Damage from the Ikons all get Negated.
Some else to help balance Ikona nd the additional Spirit damage is, how residence works. If you fight a Dread Wraith for exemplar it has Resistance 10 all except (Force, ghost-=touch rune, and Positive/Vitality) No matter how much bonus damage you add of different types, like the damaging runes which deal a D6 or the Additional Spirit Damage from the Ikons all get Negated.
They have a level 1 Feat called Energized Spark which lets you pick almost all the damage types in the game to be an option to replace your Spirit damage whenever you use an ability that does Spirit damage or your Spirit Striking feature - you get to pick one every time you pick the Feat.
Someone with the Dedication couldn't get as many, of course, especially since Exemplars get it for free as part of their Dominion Epithet, but it does let them get around scenarios like this.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the two-round version. It's not relevant to the heightening error. And even if the damage isn't incredibly broken, we know it's a mistake because the developers told us so and that it's on the errata queue. I don't know why they haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe there's just a lot of stuff on the errata queue. The Steal action didn't get fixed until the remaster, after all. This game is huge, and there's a lot to be addressed.
You're making my point. Single target spells don't get to do double the damage of area spells of the same rank because that would be broken. That's why Live Wire's scaling is so clearly a typo. No other cantrip in the game scales this well.
I bring it up because it was the same argument being made for Live Wire; because it frontloads all of its damage, it's "too powerful" from a scaling standpoint because it's got higher burst. It's referenced because the overall damage takes two rounds to pull off, with added risks, all to have the same DPR as if you just cast it twice consecutively, the only difference being it was done with one spell slot instead of two, even though all of the damage occurs in a singular round. Sure, Live Wire doesn't have this two round build-up, but honestly, even ignoring that, damage comparisons show that IRT heightening currently still isn't the most powerful. It's potent, sure, but it doesn't break the game, and comes across its own issues later down the line, such as its range and effects being outpaced; the only possible outlier is its damage, and even that's not that much of an outlier to be a problem.
The same can be said for Live Wire; I don't think 2D4 per rank is overpowered since we have Electric Arc doing 4D4 plus 2D4 per rank in terms of raw damage. An outlier by comparison, sure, but I'd almost rather we boost attack-based cantrips to justify their "nothing-on-a-miss" mechanic, or just give them the same benefits as save-based cantrips, doing half damage on a miss, to justify their reduced damage. Really, the biggest benefit behind Live Wire is that it still does half damage on a miss, the same as other save-based spells, as an attack cantrip, while being able to make comparable raw damage to Electric Arc (which, in my opinion, is overtuned). If it still did nothing on a miss, its damage would be perfectly justified IMO, since still doing damage on a miss is quite valuable, as most enemies can very easily succeed on saves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some else to help balance Ikona nd the additional Spirit damage is, how residence works. If you fight a Dread Wraith for exemplar it has Resistance 10 all except (Force, ghost-=touch rune, and Positive/Vitality) No matter how much bonus damage you add of different types, like the damaging runes which deal a D6 or the Additional Spirit Damage from the Ikons all get Negated.
I'd note that if you look at anything with that ghost-style resistance entry that was published post-remaster, Spirit is a type they don't resist. Generally running older ones as resistant to spirit damage because they were published before it existed as a damage type isn't great practice.
Constructs will be immune to spirit damage, unless they're a special case, but very little else resists that damage type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bring it up because it was the same argument being made for Live Wire; because it frontloads all of its damage, it's "too powerful" from a scaling standpoint because it's got higher burst. It's referenced because the overall damage takes two rounds to pull off, with added risks, all to have the same DPR as if you just cast it twice consecutively, the only difference being it was done with one spell slot instead of two, even though all of the damage occurs in a singular round. Sure, Live Wire doesn't have this two round build-up, but honestly, even ignoring that, damage comparisons show that IRT heightening currently still isn't the most powerful.
I'm not following the logic here. Are you saying that because IRT's two-round option exists, damage now is as good as damage later? That's just not true. Let's say you have two enemies who each deal the same damage to you per turn. If you only use Electric arc on each of them, you get hit 8 times, 4 from each enemy. If you only cast Live Wire on them, the first enemy goes down halfway through the battle and can't hit you anymore, so you only get hit 6 or maybe 7 times. As another example, imagine if ignition dealt an extra 4d4 damage on a crit instead of 1d4 persistent damage.
It's potent, sure, but it doesn't break the game, and comes across its own issues later down the line, such as its range and effects being outpaced; the only possible outlier is its damage, and even that's not that much of an outlier to be a problem.
Not gonna argue with this. I still think the scaling on IRT is a bit too high, but not egregiously so. But Live Wire's scaling is enough to competely invalidate all other attack cantrips. What sounds more appealing? 6d4 fire damage or 5d4 slashing + 5d4 electricity damage?
The same can be said for Live Wire; I don't think 2D4 per rank is overpowered since we have Electric Arc doing 4D4 plus 2D4 per rank in terms of raw damage. An outlier by comparison, sure, but I'd almost rather we boost attack-based cantrips to justify their "nothing-on-a-miss" mechanic, or just give them the same benefits as save-based cantrips, doing half damage on a miss, to justify their reduced damage.
Unless the game's rigorous balance was designed around a cantrip that didn't exist 5 years ago, boosting everything else to keep up with it is a bad idea. That would require reevaluating almost the entire game and leaving behind a lot of OGL content due to power creep.
And most attack cantrips already have features to offset having no damage on a miss. Gouging Claw does persistent even on a regular hit. Telekinetic Projectile has a lot of options for what type of physical damage to deal. Ignition provides both melee and ranged options. Needle Darts can exploit metal weaknesses.
Really, the biggest benefit behind Live Wire is that it still does half damage on a miss, the same as other save-based spells, as an attack cantrip, while being able to make comparable raw damage to Electric Arc (which, in my opinion, is overtuned). If it still did nothing on a miss, its damage would be perfectly justified IMO, since still doing damage on a miss is quite valuable, as most enemies can very easily succeed on saves.
Doing damage on a miss is the least offensive thing about Live Wire. If it's heightened entry were changed to Heightened (+2), the damage on a miss would be fine. It can be Live Wire's niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not following the logic here. Are you saying that because IRT's two-round option exists, damage now is as good as damage later? That's just not true. Let's say you have two enemies who each deal the same damage to you per turn. If you only use Electric arc on each of them, you get hit 8 times, 4 from each enemy. If you only cast Live Wire on them, the first enemy goes down halfway through the battle and can't hit you anymore, so you only get hit 6 or maybe 7 times. As another example, imagine if ignition dealt an extra 4d4 damage on a crit instead of 1d4 persistent damage.
I'm saying that, because the burst takes time and effort to set-up, with a fair chance of no pay-off and wasted resources, the added burst is not a problem, because it's a high-risk/high-reward paradigm. And that without this, the damage values for the spell aren't so egregious as to absolutely warrant an errata. In short, I don't really think the IRT nerfs are justified, even if the devs have it slated.
But Live Wire's scaling is enough to competely invalidate all other attack cantrips. What sounds more appealing? 6d4 fire damage or 5d4 slashing + 5d4 electricity damage?
The same can be said for Electric Arc: What sounds more appealing? 6D4 fire damage, or 6D4 electricity damage, doubled to two targets, which still does half damage on a successful save? Even bumping it to 6D6 fire damage (at the risk of being beat down by enemies), and providing a flanking benefit, it's still a hard sell, since again, 6D6 (average 21) versus 12D4 (average 30, 15 per target, from a safer distance, with half on a success) is not comparable. Even if we normalized Live Wire's damage to scale identical to other single target cantrips, it is still strictly more potent solely because it does damage on a miss, and has a lot of the benefits of their counterparts, meaning it's still power creep, because that's a huge benefit that other attack cantrips do not possess. The factor that you can combine the damage into one target doesn't change, as overall, you're still doing 12D4 (well, 10D4) points of raw damage, whereas other cantrips simply cannot match that level of damage; really, Electric Arc is the only one that can match/surpass it, with the sole caveat that it's split between two targets, and the question becomes if that's even balanced, which, in my opinion, it's not. The reason it's fine for spell slots is because those are limited, have other opportunity costs that cantrips can't match, and don't automatically scale, especially with Incapacitate trait in effect. It's not fine for cantrips, which are at-will.
Unless the game's rigorous balance was designed around a cantrip that didn't exist 5 years ago, boosting everything else to keep up with it is a bad idea. That would require reevaluating almost the entire game and leaving behind a lot of OGL content due to power creep.
And most attack cantrips already have features to offset having no damage on a miss. Gouging Claw does persistent even on a regular hit. Telekinetic Projectile has a lot of options for what type of physical damage to deal. Ignition provides both melee and ranged options. Needle Darts can exploit metal weaknesses.
I don't disagree; I've actually made this complaint about Electric Arc in the past, where the simplest solution for cantrip balance (nerf Electric Arc versus boosting all other cantrips to match its damage output) is likely the one that the developers would go for, since it's the least amount of effort, and probably closer to expected power levels, but that was instantly shot down because apparently Electric Arc doubling most all other cantrips, and outright matching other cantrips in suboptimal scenarios, is totally fine, but Live Wire combining all of Electric Arc's damage to a single target, with a miniscule Critical benefit on top of it, is too much. To me, it feels almost hypocritical.
A lot of those benefits are ancillary, and also do not shore up the damage differential between them and Electric Arc. And again, their raw damage output is only comparable or slightly better than Electric Arc if there is only one target. If you can target 2 enemies with Electric Arc, it's game over.
Doing damage on a miss is the least offensive thing about Live Wire. If it's heightened entry were changed to Heightened (+2), the damage on a miss would be fine. It can be Live Wire's niche.
The same can be said for every attack roll cantrip, especially since Paizo has acknowledged that attack roll cantrips going against AC, and doing nothing on a miss, isn't really the ideal design point for spells, hence why the Shadow Signet item was created. Making them do half damage on a miss won't break them, and actually give them better parity compared to cantrips like Electric Arc.
In short, I don't really think the IRT nerfs are justified, even if the devs have it slated.
Alright, suit yourself.
The same can be said for Electric Arc...
So rather than buffing every cantrip to match Live Wire and Electric Arc, you think it would be best to nerf both of them? I can understand that. But I prepare electric arc regularly, but in every fight I've faced, there's been a compelling reason to use one of my other cantrips. That's a swarm. I should cast caustic blast. That's made of fire. I'll use frostbite on him. If I had live wire in those situations when I was level 5 or higher, I fear I would not have used anything else.
The same can be said for every attack roll cantrip, especially since Paizo has acknowledged that attack roll cantrips going against AC, and doing nothing on a miss, isn't really the ideal design point for spells, hence why the Shadow Signet item was created. Making them do half damage on a miss won't break them, and actually give them better parity compared to cantrips like Electric Arc.
I'd like a link to that post where Paizo says that.
I'd like a link to that post where Paizo says that.
Well, that's a bit of a problem, since I'm not certain it's even a forum post. I've searched for Shadow Signet (only found a 1K post thread that brought up old memories), I've looked into Michael Sayre's posts, and even tried Mark Seifter's posts, all with no luck. I did find the 3 moderate encounters adventuring day post, but that's about it.
It's entirely possible that, if it was in a thread, the thread is deleted. Or, it's on a thread on Reddit, or a post on Twitter (which is where Michael Sayre posted about spellcaster balance points, particularly the Wizard). Either way, I've expended enough time and effort trying to find it, and I do know that in the 1K post thread that others mentioned a developer making a similar comparison/statement about spell attacks, using Shadow Signet as an example, so it isn't just me saying it.