The third ikon has a cost, its power budget. I don't see exactly why you seem to think that if the exemplar lacked a third ikon that its power budget wouldn't be spent on either a new combat feature or buffing an already existing combat feature. Ikons are where most the budget of the class is located, and all ikons are designed to be used in combat, thus they are combat features. This isn't like taking away all the extra skill feats and skill increases from the rogue to double their sneak attack or something like that. If anything, it would be closer to what barbarians got in the remaster when they lost deny advantage in favor of furious footfalls.
Pathfinder does not have power budgets. It has selection budgets. For example, in character creation the player can select one Background. Different backgrounds, such as Laborer boosting Strength or Constitution and training in Athletics, offer more power for a particular class, such as Fighter which loves Strength and Constitution. Seeing a Fighter with Street Preacher background, which boosts Wisdom or Charisma and trains in Religion, would be unusual. Likewise, at a level when the character can gain a skill feat, the character can select only one skill feat, but some feats are more powerful for that particular character than other feats.
Instead, Pathfinder 2nd Edition has a power cap. Class feats are generally increase power, but none will suddenly make the character 50% more powerful. If a spellcaster takes Cantrip Expansion, then the caster could become slightly more powerful by adding a long-range damage cantrip that they had passed up before, but that cantrip was sixth on their list of cantrips they wanted. And during a particular very dangerous combat, the spellcaster would probably be casting spells from their spell slots rather than cantrips. Maximum power inches upward constrained by PF2's tight math.
As far as I can tell in reading over the Ikon rules, an Exemplar could chose Gleaming Blade ikon twice. Imagine an exemplar wielding a pair of agile swords. He selects Gleaming Blade ikon twice, one for each sword. The Gleaming Blade Immanence does not double, because each Strike is only with a single sword. The Transcendence does not double, because the exemplar can make a two-action Flowing Spirit Strike only one per turn. The only two advantages of two Gleaming Blades is that the spark moves to the other blade, so the Immanence can be used on a third-action attack with the sword in the other hand, and the other-hand sword is ready for Flowing Spirit Strike on the next turn without having to Shift Immanence.
But is that better than taking Gleaming Blade on one agile sword and Gaze Sharp as Steel? With one sword and both Gleaming Blade and Gaze Sharp as Steel ikons, the exemplar could start each turn with his spark on Gaze Sharp as Steel and spend one action for A Moment Unending for 1d6 precision damage on their next Strike. A Moment Unending transfers the spark to the sword for Flowing Spirit Strike, and Flowing Spirit Strike transfers the spark back to the body for A Moment Unending. That is also a useful combat routine.
Let's crunch the math. I assume a 1d6 weapon with 55% chance of hitting on an unpenalized attack and STR +4. Two Gleaming Blades would deal (55%)(1d6+6) + (55%)(1d6+6) + (15%)(1d6+6) = (1.25)(1d6+6), average 11.875 damage. A Gaze Sharp as Steel and a Gleaming Blade would deal (55%)(2d6+2+STR) + (55%)(1d6+2+STR) = (1.65)(1d6) + (1.1)(6), average 12.375 damage. And the Gaze-and-Gleaming exemplar also has a free hand and could apply A Moment Unending to a ranged Strike with a bow.
The player of an Exemplar in my playtest did tell me that Exemplar relied on knowing how to play PF2 well.
I also feel its not honest compare the heal spell to Gaze Sharp as Steel when heal is one of the best spells in the game that just happens to have a less useful secondary use while Gaze Sharp as Steel was designed to be a backup option. I think it would be much more fair to compare the healspell with the victor's wreath ikon since the latter its mostly used for its immanence effect but it also happens to have a fantastic situational trascendence effect as well.
I making an analogy matching the individual effects of Heal to the individual effects of an entire Transcendence rotation, not directly comparing Heal versus Gaze Sharp as Steel as if an exemplar had a choice between the two. Casting Heal to heal is the analog to Flowing Spirit Strike and the side effect of also hurting undead is the analog to gaining the benefit of A Moment Unending by using Transcendence to move the spark back to the Gleaming Blade weapon instead of simply using Shift Immanence.
You said it yourself. The steamer in your kitchen is there because you sometimes want to eat steamed vegetables, but why would I choose Gaze Sharp as Steel for a reason other than flavor when I could choose two weapon ikons that do the same thing but better? You don't even need two weapons AFAIK since based on the exemplar's feats a single item can have multiple immanence and trascendence effects. This is why I think Gaze Sharp as Steel is bad, because its only use case is totally situational and even in those sitautions there's still other ikons that can do pretty much the same thing but way better.
A "totally situational" use of Gaze Sharp as Steel, such as using it with a non-ikon bow, is the match to me cooking steamed vegetables once a month. Situations come up about once a month.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm,,,Why don't you take the uneated dish home and eat it later?
After a patron took some home, nearly choked to smurfing death on it, and sued the restaurant, there is now a policy in place prohibiting anyone from taking food home.
It does look like you might have gotten close to finding the breakpoint.
Your example uses a 15% accurate max MAP attack, which seriously skews the result to favor Gaze. That detail alone is getting close to dishonest territory, TBH, as that's too unlikely a scenario.
And it lacks any other damage source, such as runes or weakness...
And it is a 1 turn comparison, when the whole point of double weapon Ikon is that the 2 turn rotation keeps the offense up...
Basically, I'm saying that yeah, if one needs that kind of unrealistic comparison to get Gaze to appear as one single 1/2 a dmg point higher, then Gaze is very much trash.
(still can be worth it for the RP, but it's numbers really are joke-level horrible)
____________________
The more realistic white room would be 2A for offense across 2 turns.
Gleaming Blade & Gleaming Blade |versus| Gleaming Blade & 1 Gaze + Strike.
If I was building a dmg Exemplar, I'd def not double up with the same weapon Ikon.
Maybe Gleaming + Breaker unarmed. I do highly value a free hand.
Because most martials are pretty darn Strike-focused, my own preference for Exemplar would def focus on the other Ikons as much as possible.
Barrow's + Scar + Bangles with a focus on disabling. The existing Pathbuilder PC is a jumping little Tripkee water guy. Really wish there was easier access to "don't trigger Reactions" jumping, as there's no way the PC fits the Ghoul archetype...
______
I also failed to notice that Mathmuse used Gleaming's & Gaze's Trans effects for their example, which already required the previous turn, and makes that example that much more inaccurate/non applicable, lol.
It does look like you might have gotten close to finding the breakpoint.
I had assumed before the calculation that two Gleaming Blades would come out half a damage point ahead rather than half a damage point behind. When two options are that close, other considerations such as roleplaying drive the decision.
Your example uses a 15% accurate max MAP attack, which seriously skews the result to favor Gaze. That detail alone is getting close to dishonest territory, TBH, as that's too unlikely a scenario.
And it lacks any other damage source, such as runes or weakness...
I wanted minimal additional effect both for my convenience and to keep the analysis short. I put the exemplars at 1st level, so no striking runes.
However, I did make a mistake. I forgot to add the damage from critical hits. Adding in the critical hits gives two Gleaming Blade swords 13.3 damage on average and Gleaming Blade and Gaze Sharp as Steel 13.5 damage on average, much close to each other.
And it is a 1 turn comparison, when the whole point of double weapon Ikon is that the 2 turn rotation keeps the offense up...
I set up both exemplars with a 1-turn rotation for simplicity. I am inexperienced with exemplars, so I don't know the rotations that most people use. I saw exequiel759's comment, "The exemplar I want to play is going to take Gleaming Blade, Gaze Sharp as Steel, and Scar Of The Survivor," and decide to go with those three ikons.
I am unlikely to gain experience with exemplars this year. I am in the 3rd module of the Strength of Thousands adventure path, which was written before War of Immortals, so it has no exemplar NPCs. I have not yet found a reason to add one. I did add Mkosa, a 5th-level halfling druid with Mythic Sage's Calling, for a little practice with Mythic Callings.
Basically, I'm saying that yeah, if one needs that kind of unrealistic comparison to get Gaze to appear as
(still can be worth it for the RP, but it's numbers really are joke-level horrible)one single1/2 a dmg point higher, then Gaze is very much trash.
____________________The more realistic white room would be 2A for offense across 2 turns.
Gleaming Blade & Gleaming Blade |versus| Gleaming Blade & 1 Gaze + Strike.
I also failed to notice that Mathmuse used Gleaming's & Gaze's Trans effects for their example, which already required the previous turn, and makes that example that much more inaccurate/non applicable, lol.
The Exemplar class says under Shift Immanence, "In addition to the above usage, you can also Shift Immanence as a free action triggered when you roll initiative." So the exemplar can start with their ikon where they want it. I suppose in an actual game rather than a white room, both exemplars would start with the spark in their Gleaming Blade ikon. On their 1st turn, they would Stride and Flowing Spirit Strike. The exemplar with two Gleaming Blade ikons would end his turn with the spark on his other Gleaming Blade. The exemplar with Gleaming Blade and Gaze Sharp as Steel would end his turn with the spark on his Gaze. That sets up their 1-turn rotations, assuming that they can stand still rather than chase after opponents.
Is this unrealistic?
You can Spark Transcendence only once each round.
I had missed that. The once-per-round restriction is not mentioned under the Spark Transcendence feature nor under the descriptions of the Ikons and their Transcendence abilities. Instead, it is mentioned under the Transcendence trait.
Thank you, Zalabim, for clarifying the rule. Other people were criticizing my ideas as infeasible without mentioning that rule, so I could not see what I had done wrong.
People are comparing with inventor, thaumaturge, swashbuckler or the like, but not barbarian here? It seems like an obvious thing to do with strength exemplar.
If you're wanting to compare martial prowess and combat damage, the barbarian does make a bit more sense.
However, if you're comparing all the red tape, hoops, and actions classes have to do before being allowed to perform their primary shtick appropriately and effectively, then the other classes make more sense.
It's all in the context.
I feel this whole tangent about Gaze Sharp as Steel doesn't take into account that this whole discussion began because we were arguing that most exemplars switch between 2 ikons and ignore the 3rd one. Gaze Sharp as Steel can be a good option for ranged exemplars, but that doesn't solve the issue of the 3rd ikon since ranged exemplars are still going to be switching between their ranged weapon ikon and Gaze Sharp as Steel ignoring the 3rd ikon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The platonic ideal the designer wanted was for players to want to swap to Ikons like the Sandals and scoot around the battlefield, or Raise their Ageis during those non-nuke turns.
If the player + table results an environment were the gameplay is too unga-bunga to use non-weapon Trans abilities, it's not a problem with Exemplar.
Classes like Fighter and Gunslinger exist for that reason and playstyle.
It's super duper rare for me to ever invoke an argument in the realm of "no, it is the players that are wrong" but that is kinda the case here.
Because players can select a complete kit via Ikon selection, including taking multiple weapon Ikons, the core mechanics of Exemplar being a character that rotates between Ikons really does work.
Complaining / playing an Exemplar like a one-trick pony is like whinging that the steak they ordered doesn't taste like mushroom soup.
_____________________
But what is a big problem with Exemplar is how badly "Paizo balance" can screw players more than usual. While a good selection of Ikons and Epithets are possible, it is genuinely not okay that so many Ikons (and Epithets) are trash. The comparative balance between these things is a f@!&ing joke.
I cannot believe that options like the single-type resistance Ikons were printed, even Harvest seemingly requiring a 2nd foe to use the Trans ability is a design idea I would 100% reject for a weapon Ikon.
(every GM should allow the PC to pop that Trans to perform the 1/2 Stride, even if there is no 2nd foe around)
I'm still having to explain here just how bad Gaze really is, because Exemplar's spark mechanics obfuscate that travesty that much more than normal.
Because Gaze is a Trans ability, it triggers the 1 per turn lockout.
If an Exemplar instead spends 1A to Shift the spark back to a weapon, then they could then pop the weapon's Trans ability that same turn, and that Trans itself is a damage boost far more potent than Gaze.
I cannot stress enough that Gaze is trash.
It's defensive status AC bonus directly competes against Aegis, and it's offensive potential is so bad, that it is genuinely going to be inferior to the empty 1A of Shift Immanence in many/most scenarios due to Exemplar's spark mechanics.
Gaze doing 3.5 dmg is just too low. You could outright double Gaze's damage and it still would struggle to justify its selection.
The thing has too many apples to apples comparisons with other Ikons to ever be a "valid" pick from a numbers PoV.
The only part of Gaze that's a unique orange is that passive +1 status to Perception. Which, yeah, is not enough value.
Which is just a rant pointed at the designer who made it, and whomever approved that for print.
__________________
These two topics are fused together; based on what I've seen around, a large part of the reason players spam one Ikon's Trans is *because* they have taken one or two trap Ikons like Gaze, and even if they have not run the numbers, they can feel how worthless it is.
|
_____________________
I'm still having to explain here just how bad Gaze really is, because Exemplar's spark mechanics obfuscate that travesty that much more than normal.
Because Gaze is a Trans ability, it triggers the 1 per turn lockout.
If an Exemplar instead spends 1A to Shift the spark back to a weapon, then they could then pop the weapon's Trans ability that same turn, and that Trans itself is a damage boost far more potent than Gaze.
I...
Geez Trip, stop with the wishy-washy ambiguity!
Tell us how you really feel.Just spitballin' here: What if it were 1d6 per damage die, then at 10th it goes to d8s, and 18th to d10s?
_____________________
I'm still having to explain here just how bad Gaze really is, because Exemplar's spark mechanics obfuscate that travesty that much more than normal.
Because Gaze is a Trans ability, it triggers the 1 per turn lockout.
If an Exemplar instead spends 1A to Shift the spark back to a weapon, then they could then pop the weapon's Trans ability that same turn, and that Trans itself is a damage boost far more potent than Gaze.
I...
Geez Trip, stop with the wishy-washy ambiguity!
Tell us how you really feel.Just spitballin' here: What if it were 1d6 per damage die, then at 10th it goes to d8s, and 18th to d10s?
I doubt nerfing it would make it better.
|
|
I doubt nerfing it would make it better._____________________
I'm still having to explain here just how bad Gaze really is, because Exemplar's spark mechanics obfuscate that travesty that much more than normal.
Because Gaze is a Trans ability, it triggers the 1 per turn lockout.
If an Exemplar instead spends 1A to Shift the spark back to a weapon, then they could then pop the weapon's Trans ability that same turn, and that Trans itself is a damage boost far more potent than Gaze.
I...
Geez Trip, stop with the wishy-washy ambiguity!
Tell us how you really feel.Just spitballin' here: What if it were 1d6 per damage die, then at 10th it goes to d8s, and 18th to d10s?
How is 1d6 precision per damage die as opposed to a flat 1d6 for Trans Gaze nerfing?
How is 1d6 precision per damage die as opposed to a flat 1d6 for Trans Gaze nerfing?I doubt nerfing it would make it better.I'm still having to explain here just how bad Gaze really is, because Exemplar's spark mechanics obfuscate that travesty that much more than normal.
Because Gaze is a Trans ability, it triggers the 1 per turn lockout.
If an Exemplar instead spends 1A to Shift the spark back to a weapon, then they could then pop the weapon's Trans ability that same turn, and that Trans itself is a damage boost far more potent than Gaze.
Geez Trip, stop with the wishy-washy ambiguity!
Tell us how you really feel.Just spitballin' here: What if it were 1d6 per damage die, then at 10th it goes to d8s, and 18th to d10s?
Gaze Sharp as Steel's Transcendence currently starts with an additional 1d6 precision damage to the next successful Strike. This damage increases to 2d6 at 10th level and 3d6 at 18th level.
Aristophanes' sentence is easily misread by missing the "per damage die" part, especially since the usual phrase is "weapon damage die." That misreading would be 1d6 to start, increasing to 1d8 at 10th level and 1d10 at 18th level. That would be a nerf.
I think Aristophones' intention was start with 1d6, increase it to 2d6 precision damage at 4th level by putting a Striking rune on the weapon, increase it to 2d8 at 10th level, to 3d8 at 12th level with a greater Striking rune, to 3d10 at 18th level, and to 4d10 at 19th level with a major Striking rune. That rate of increase seems awfully irregular, so perhaps the d8 should be moved to 8th level and the d10 should be more to 16th level to even out the gaps between increases.
I myself am disappointed that the precision damage in Gaze Sharp as Steel as written does not increase until 10th level. For comparison, a rogue's Sneak Attack Damage starts as 1d6, increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 11th level, and to 4d6 at 17th level.
I am still embarrassed that I missed the line, "You can Spark Transcendence only once each round," in the Transcendence trait sidebox. I checked the War of Immortals playtest document and the sentence is there, too. I just did not notice that my playtesting player was following a rule that I had missed. Paizo gave redundancy in the playtest document because Spark Transcendence also said, "Frequency once per round" there.
And now I agree with Trip.H. Limiting Transcendence to once per round makes Gaze Sharp as Steel a lot less attractive. I considered redoing my calculations under the correct rules, because I noticed the word "successful" in Gaze Sharp as Steel, which makes the Transcendence less likely to fail when used alone.
But Exemplar now seems less fun, so I lack the enthusiasm to go over the numbers again. Being able to combine Transcendences in a single round was more playful. In Pathfinder design, limiting Transcendence to once per round makes it easier to analyze. Fast-paced combinations are harder to balance. On the other hand, a great moment of fun of Pathfinder combat is setting up a situation for a decisive blow, such as a rogue moving into flanking position for a Sneak Attack. Preferably, the setup and the payoff happen on the same turn, because letting a round pass between the setup and the payoff is likely to change the situation enough to deny the payoff, such as the opponent Stepping out of the flank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is 1d6 precision per damage die as opposed to a flat 1d6 for Trans Gaze nerfing?I doubt nerfing it would make it better._____________________
I'm still having to explain here just how bad Gaze really is, because Exemplar's spark mechanics obfuscate that travesty that much more than normal.
Because Gaze is a Trans ability, it triggers the 1 per turn lockout.
If an Exemplar instead spends 1A to Shift the spark back to a weapon, then they could then pop the weapon's Trans ability that same turn, and that Trans itself is a damage boost far more potent than Gaze.
I...
Geez Trip, stop with the wishy-washy ambiguity!
Tell us how you really feel.Just spitballin' here: What if it were 1d6 per damage die, then at 10th it goes to d8s, and 18th to d10s?
Lol mb, I thought your proposal was going from 1d6-2d6-3d6 to 1d6-1d8-1d10.
I personally don't think it would change that much really since in average that's between 1-4 extra points of damage when compared to the current version. I'd rather prefer if it kept the current scaling (1d6-2d6-3d6) but it lasted for 1 round instead of 1 attack. It would feel a bit like "we have sneak attack at home" but it would be worth the action cost. I would still prefer this even if they nerfed the progression to 1d6-1d8-1d10, in the case Paizo didn't want rogues dipping into exemplar.
Would Gaze Sharpe as Steel stack with Rogues precision damage with a dual class rogue/Exemplar.
If all the appropriate conditions were met, then yes. To my knowledge there is no rule stating that like damages do not stack.
Since the whole point of Gaze Sharp as Steel is that your eyes make you really accurate ("You take in every movement around you, affording you unparalleled accuracy."), wouldn't it make more sense for it to grant a bonus to attack instead? Like "Make a Strike. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your attack roll and deal an additional 1d6 precision damage to the target. This damage increases to 2d6 at 10th level and 3d6 at 18th level."
It would be a bit worse since it can't be used with other combat feats like Viscious Swing or similars, but I feel the exemplar's equivalent to those feats already exists in the weapons ikons and I don't really think most exemplars dip into archetypes that grant those feats anyways (at least not for those feats neccesarily).
Plus, the circumstance bonus to attack would compensate for that "loss".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Better to just tweak the existing one. Non-weapon ikons making strikes is awkward because you don't get full damage that way.
A +2 on the attack roll is effectively about +10% to average damage with the Strike action, by the DPR math... less damage if it hits, but more likely to hit and do damage in the first place.
And in PF2e, every bonus counts because of the tight math.
The real tricky part of pf2 is that it can be really hard to anticipate how a build plan will play out in "real" combat.
There's always a push-pull tension between building a PC as flavorful and thematically as possible, versus selecting for mechanical performance.
I love the idea of many of the "bad" archetypes, but the knowledge that they are essentially wasted feats pushes me away from ever selecting them.
________________
That's just a lead in to say that while you totally can build an Exemplar however you want, I would suggest that you don't over-commit to any specific build/feat/strat. So long as you are willing to appraise how it's going, and make calls like "okay, this throwing build sucks, I need to beg the GM to swap Shadow Sheath for something else," then I'll say go for you little goblin idea.
I have seen folk get stuck in an unfun PC, and they only finally crack & speak up after the misery built up for a while. Don't fall into that trap, everyone wants everyone to have fun, so as soon as you are not satisfied, try to make changes.
(And yeah, I do gotta put a *danger* warning over that build. Investing in CHA actions for a thrower that needs DEX is already kinda rough, means Athletics is kinda off the table. I've ranted long enough about Gaze having the worst numbers / being a trap, so skip. Steal also doesn't work in combat by default, nor upon bulk L items. GM houserule yes/no to stealing potions off belts alone will make a huge difference in what that PC can do.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real tricky part of pf2 is that it can be really hard to anticipate how a build plan will play out in "real" combat.
There's always a push-pull tension between building a PC as flavorful and thematically as possible, versus selecting for mechanical performance.
I love the idea of many of the "bad" archetypes, but the knowledge that they are essentially wasted feats pushes me away from ever selecting them.
This is one of the best uses of Free Archetype. If your core build is capable, you're totally free to take a "bad" archetype for flavour or situational fun and it doesn't really hurt you. You're still going to be capable at the core stuff since your class feats and such are intended to be able to do that.
I enjoy FA a lot more in games where people use it to do flavourful things than when someone does it to chain a bunch of power combo archetypes together.
|
I've been loving it for the few builds I've messed around with. Radiant epithet with horn of plenty makes a very good healer for something that isn't a caster. Proud epithet along with mirrored aegis makes for a good pseudo guardian. The penalty can also stack with taunt if you grab guardian dedication. The trick is to find potent combinations of ikons and epithets to fit a niche.
There are probably more combinations that aren't gonna stand out I'd say. You have to be picky. The support oriented builds are the strongest imo.