|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
that itself leads to another loop about rarity traits and how they ultimately fail to achieve what they are supposed to do.
Personally, I pretty much love the rarity system in PF2.
I don't care what Paizo thinks they mean. To me, they mean
Common - The GM can pretty much allow all of these in by default without worry if they're running a normal kind of game. Players can just take these without notifying the GM. A very small number of explicit exceptions will be made either for campaign flavour or because Paizo and I disagree about game balance.
Uncommon - Pass them by me. I'll very very likely allow them but I want to see them first.
Rare - Pass them by me and I'm quite likely to not allow them.
Its not 100% perfect but it is pretty darn close. Makes my job as a GM much easier.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me wonders if the class was originally rare because they weren't sure if they were getting it right?
While Rarity isn't a power level indicator, it is sometimes used as a quality warning. It is there to protect GM's from being blindsided by issues.
Custom AP content tends to be overpowered, underpowered or incompletely written up. In response, the stuff is usually marked at least Uncommon. With some things even being Rare.Talking Corpse (basically PF2 Speak with Dead) is Uncommon, just so the GM knows that is in the game and they need to plan for/against it. Similar with all Rituals.
If they were worried the Exemplar could end up being a "AP quality case", markig it Rare as a warning makes some sense.
The exemplar was rare in the playtest, and I honestly don't think Paizo was designing a class with the idea of "eh, if we screw up it doesn't matter" because that's like fight a losing a battle pretty much. The reasons behind the rare trait are clear, but the problem is that those feel like advertisement for the Godsrain and weren't really earned. However, I do agree that on APs rarity traits are usually a sign that the content wasn't playtested at all and was released straight up from the designer's mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's rare for the same reasons Gunslinger or Inventor are uncommon. You won't find them everywhere on Golarion, and you'll find someone with a spark of divinity in them even less, so it's rare. Seems pretty simple to me.
Not to mention plot warping lore implications.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's rare for the same reasons Gunslinger or Inventor are uncommon. You won't find them everywhere on Golarion, and you'll find someone with a spark of divinity in them even less, so it's rare. Seems pretty simple to me.
Not to mention plot warping lore implications.
That's the point that keeps being made though. Paizo didn't have to give it flavor that resulted in a rare tag. Really, if they had just not given it the rare tag at all, its flavor would just be ignored just like how every classes' flavor sections get ignored.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything could be anything if you file all the flavor off of it, so that's not really a great argument for anything. This is what an Exemplar is on Golarion, which is where everything is written from the perspective of. It's rare on Golarion. I'm not really understanding the issue here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add my voice as one who doesn't particularly care for the Rare tag on this class. The Godsrain is a cool metaplot idea, but the first thing I thought was that I'm going to want to have Exemplar characters (from the perspective of GM) in APs set before the Godsrain and I see no reason why the only possible origin story for the Exemplar has to be transformed by Gorum's blood.
Exemplar to me is basically a superhuman folk hero as a class--sure any other class might become a folk hero, but Exemplars are tied to the stories told about them in a way no other class is, and thats something really cool but not really beyond the pale of oracles and champions. I don't feel its actually true that the Exemplar has to be Rare because of the Godsrain and without the Godsrain they wouldn't really be in any way fundamentally different.
Even the so-called plot warping abilities don't mean much to me in the way of rarity tagging. If your party saves a village by level 3, what they say about you is your Root Epithet. You dont have to be renown world wide to have a reputation or stories told about you. If your first adventure is about helping basically anybody at all, thats the foundation of your legacy and legend. Later scholars may trace it back to the source one day, but for now you're only level 3 so its just a dozen people and their dog sharing the stories. Being an Exemplar is about having that personal (divine) spark that makes people want to tell your story after you leave town, until that story starts getting mythologies and in turn colours that spark with the telling.
I guess I can see why some GMs might not like a "folk hero" type character in their gritty hard-bitten noir game, but it doesn't really feel to me any different from Gunslinger's uncommon except that the Godsrain origin is supposed to mean there arent many of them around right now, which again isnt something I feel needs the tag to be true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the point that keeps being made though. Paizo didn't have to give it flavor that resulted in a rare tag. Really, if they had just not given it the rare tag at all, its flavor would just be ignored just like how every classes' flavor sections get ignored.
I feel this illustrates how people on both sides of the divide on this thread aren't necessarily disagreeing with one another: I think many of us are in agreement that the Exemplar could be perfectly fine with common rarity if its flavor were done a little differently, and had that rare flavor been made an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, then the class would be much more accessible in this regard. I personally believe a lot of mistakes were made with the War of Immortals expansion, and making the Exemplar rare by default was one of them.
With all of this said, however, what we're dealing with is not the Exemplar as they should be, but the Exemplar as they are now, and what the Exemplar is as they are now is a class that asks the GM to do things to the narrative that aren't expected with any other class. If one were to take out those bits that make them more complicated to GM for, then they wouldn't need the rare tag, but they do have those bits, so they have the rare tag.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There were so many doomsayers when the class was first announced before its playtest warning of the Exemplar as the class for egotistical problem players that I really think the Rare tag was put to appease their like.
It also helped explain why Exemplars did not really appear in the setting before the War of Immortals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were so many doomsayers when the class was first announced before its playtest warning of the Exemplar as the class for egotistical problem players that I really think the Rare tag was put to appease their like.
It also helped explain why Exemplars did not really appear in the setting before the War of Immortals.
Exactly! People were decrying it from the get as "The Protagonist Class" because most of its features are straight up based on some or another mythological demigod who are usually pretty central to their narrative.
Even if we remove the in-word logic of "small number of people hit with Gorum Ichor," the narrative implication of pretty much every named class feature is "semi-divine warrior," which carries a lot of weight in pretty much every culture on the planet.
Frankly, the default assumption outside of Golarion isn't "marial oracle," it's "I'm the child/reincarnation of one of the Pantheon." You can explicitly flavor your character away from that if you want, but you're gonna be fighting against the fact that every feat and feature is a direct reference to Hercules/Rama/Cú Chulainn/Sun Wukong all the way from one to twenty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if you're talking about "outside of Golarion" you have automatically rejected the default Pathfinder rarity system. Whether you want to substitute your own is up to you.
Like the reason the Automaton ancestry is rare is because they were all made by the Jistka Imperium, which collapsed 5000+ years ago and not a lot of their stuff is still left. On a different planet, they might be common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Might be" is carrying a lot of weight there. Golarion is meant to be as diverse a "Fantasy" setting as plausible -- boasting everything from Sword & Sandal heroes, to Post Apocalyptic wastes, to Arthuresque courts, to Alien Invaders -- while still falling within the rough assumptions of The Genre. This is both to provide an in-world venue for diverse campaigns, and (I should think) to provide inspiration and resources for diverse worlds. Rarity tags deliniate the expected from the unexpected. Your homebrew world might be populated predominantly by Automata, Surki, and Yaoguai, but until you tell your players as much, most people's assumption is that there are going to be elves and dwarves involved. That's just the broad shape of the genre.
In general, the base classes are meant to be relatively setting agnostic -- note how few times the actual rules text on the Exemplar mentions Gorum's blood. Archetypes, as well feats and features published in APs and Lost omens books are ofted gated behind specific factions, and Ancestry options often gesture at the shape of lore. But Paizo is in no way demanding that you use Golarion, it is there as a bundle of templates for your convenience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rarity system is not only specific to Golarion it is specific to individual corners of Golarion (e.g. whether or not a katana is a common option).
If you tell your players "there's no divine magic in this setting" then they're not going to try to roll up with Champions and Clerics, assuming they are paying attention.
I'm not sure I understand how anything I said contradicts that?
Yes, the rarity system, at its lowest baseline, is specific to the genralized Inner Sea Region of Golarion. The whole point of "the Inner Sea Region of Golarion" is to cover the bases of a standard "European Medieval Fantasy" (with notable outliers -- genrally tagged with the rarity system). Katanas are Uncommon (i.e. out of place) in the standard TTRPG blend of Tolkien, Howard, Moorcock, and Vance. If you travel to Tian Xia, the explicit carveout in those rarities alerts you, implicitly, that you are now operating under the paradigm of "Silk Punk" instead. And so on.
Your second statement I can only assume comes from misreading mine. I explicitly said "until you tell your players as much." A) That was a summation of common genre expectations, and B) Somebody absolutely would argue their idea for The One Champion In The World, and you know it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon and Rare tags are simply meant to cue a GM to look at a thing and decide if it fits their game. That's all. It's not tied to mechanics, and it is only tied to Golarion incidentally because Golarion is the default setting. Uncommon represents options that stretch the 'standard' fantasy setting, and rare even more so. They indicate that a GM might need to do a little bit of extra work to make those options fit the game. Rare doesn't mean "no", or even "probably no". It means, 'take a look at this GM.'
The background Chosen One is rare for example because the DM has to do some extra work to make the concept of being the literal chosen one fit. Poppet is rare because an animated doll in a serious and gritty campaign could lampoon the entire thing just by existing. The Cobyslarni patron is rare because it represents a lot of lore that might not fit into a GM's story, and may thus require some retooling.
If you think something that is rare or uncommon should be allowed in a game, that's great. As a GM you can tell players that it's allowed, and as a player you can work with your GM to make that option fit. If a GM bans rare things out of hand without any negotiation that's a GM issue, not an issue with an option being rare.
Not many TTRPG's have something like this rarity system to help DM's to evaluate things. I think it's great that PF2 does, and I think for all the reasons discussed above, but especially for lore and roleplay implications, it warrants Exemplar having the rare tag.
Paizo developers might be a little overly cautious when it comes to assigning these tags, but generally I find they are useful when my players build characters so I can take a look at things that might be problematic to a theme or that might represent some extra attention on my part. As a player, those tags prod me evaluate if my character might be a bit much and to check in with my DM and talk about the concept I have and how we can make it work, if it can be made to work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also very much dislike that Exemplar has the rare tag. It is so easily to reflavored as anything like a Magic Swordsman, Magical Girl, Artifact User, Pact Holder, ect. But I assume it's akin to Starlit Sentinel in that there's just not a lot out there.
Roleplay wise I don't believe it's any more main character than divine sugar babies like Champ or Cleric. Or the other "I have special blood" class, Sorcerer.
In terms of mechanics, it's generally less impactful than a Champion or Fighter on a team.
In free archetype games, it's follow up feats are fairly weak. Everyone was worried about two flat damage... but Beastmaster adds more average damage, while also being a mount and a free move action, an extra bag of hitpoints, a scout, and a flanking buddy. And there are plenty of archetypes you could argue are mechanically stronger.... like Champion or even Alchemist.
In non FA games it adds a small amount of damage that becomes less problematic as dice increase. Or enables cool archetypes through Horn of Plenty or Shadow Sheath. Is it very strong? Yes, but the opportunity cost is pretty significant for most classes. Victory Wreath is strong (even though it got errata'd), but it also is a status bonus with a small area that many teams already cover some other way.
I'm just tired of it being treated like some crazy broken class and pointing to the rare tag like that soyjak meme, when it's mostly fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the point of the rare tag other than to allow a DM to disallow the class based on the rare tag.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just tired of it being treated like some crazy broken class and pointing to the rare tag like that soyjak meme, when it's mostly fine.
The class itself is NOT broken. The archetype is overpowered. Whether or not it is overpowered enough to be considered broken is a matter of opinion where reasonable people can disagree
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the point of the rare tag other than to allow a DM to disallow the class based on the rare tag.
This is the only point of the rare tag in any context. It's about worldbuilding a la "spells that are only found in ancient Jistkan libraries are not available anywhere else" not any guarantee that those things are useful or powerful.
When something is rare, and not especially powerful, that makes it more likely for the GM to allow it when it doesn't clash with anything else the GM is up to. Like asking "hey, can I be someone who got splashed by godstuff?" is roughly as big an ask as "hey, can I play a Minotaur?". It's just that there are a lot more Minotaurs on Golarion than there are people who got splashed with godstuff.
Remember how people in PF1 wanted to argue that their Sorcerers could have access to Blood Money because "my spells just pop into my head because I'm a sorcerer" despite that spell only existing in two of Karzoug's spellbooks and nowhere else in the universe? This sort of thing is specifically the problem that the rarity system is designed to solve. Even if Blood Money was terrible and nobody would want to cast it, you still shouldn't be able to get it unless you got it out of Karzoug's spellbooks.
I don't see the point of the rare tag other than to allow a DM to disallow the class based on the rare tag.This is the only point of the rare tag in any context. It's about worldbuilding a la "spells that are only found in ancient Jistkan libraries are not available anywhere else" not any guarantee that those things are useful or powerful.
When something is rare, and not especially powerful, that makes it more likely for the GM to allow it when it doesn't clash with anything else the GM is up to. Like asking "hey, can I be someone who got splashed by godstuff?" is roughly as big an ask as "hey, can I play a Minotaur?". It's just that there are a lot more Minotaurs on Golarion than there are people who got splashed with godstuff.
Remember how people in PF1 wanted to argue that their Sorcerers could have access to Blood Money because "my spells just pop into my head because I'm a sorcerer" despite that spell only existing in two of Karzoug's spellbooks and nowhere else in the universe? This sort of thing is specifically the problem that the rarity system is designed to solve. Even if Blood Money was terrible and nobody would want to cast it, you still shouldn't be able to get it unless you got it out of Karzoug's spellbooks.
That last point 100%. Stuff like that is why the rarity system exists. PF1 didn't have it and it led to all kinds of nonsense "because the rules say I can just learn it at level up somehow".
Same with Gunslinger: it's uncommon because it lets the "I don't want guns in my fantasy" people have that as a default, and everyone else can just go "yep it's allowed, have fun!" and be the cool GM for saying yes instead of the mean GM that banned stuff. (Nevermind that they're practically speaking the same outcome: psychologically speaking players don't react the same way to banning something the rules allowed than if you just don't allow something the rules already disallow.)
Exemplar is rare in part because of the class description itself making them an abberation in Golarian, but also in part because a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) think it has "main character energy." If you're not one of them (and I'm definitely not), it's pretty easy to allow. If you are one of them, the rules give you cover to disallow it.
The Dedication feat itself is busted, but that's an entirely different conversation. The class itself is fine.
I think Exemplar Archetype is very good for archers or dual wielders. Champion Archetype is better for up close, big hitting melees or sword and board types.
I think the rare tag works well for the Exemplar archetype. Those that don't want that extra power in their game can deny it. While those that don't mind can let other classes have fun with ikons which works well for lots of classes for flavor and a small power bump.
After playing it for a few levels, it's pretty fun. It doesn't feel over-powered, but doesn't feel weak either. The ikon power levels very uneven, but I think every class has a lot of feats or class abilities that feel weak. So that's not new.
I think given the rare tag works well for the class after thinking about it more, especially for the archetype.
There’s a big difference for main character syndrome between the Exemplar’s “I have inherited/stolen/acquired divine essence from a god answerable now only to myself and am a self sustaining demigod” vs the champion or cleric kneeling before a good who can take away their powers if they misbehave, or an oracle whose divine power comes with a curse they cannot avoid.
|
|
I think Exemplar Archetype is very good for archers or dual wielders. Champion Archetype is better for up close, big hitting melees or sword and board types.
I think the rare tag works well for the Exemplar archetype. Those that don't want that extra power in their game can deny it. While those that don't mind can let other classes have fun with ikons which works well for lots of classes for flavor and a small power bump.
After playing it for a few levels, it's pretty fun. It doesn't feel over-powered, but doesn't feel weak either. The ikon power levels very uneven, but I think every class has a lot of feats or class abilities that feel weak. So that's not new.
I think given the rare tag works well for the class after thinking about it more, especially for the archetype.
The character I chose for the one and only instance of Exemplar archetype that PFS allows is a Champion.
And thanks to Gleaming Blade, I came to discover the Nodachi which is a really interesting weapon. Especially when you can Strike as a Reaction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a big difference for main character syndrome between the Exemplar’s “I have inherited/stolen/acquired divine essence from a god answerable now only to myself and am a self sustaining demigod” vs the champion or cleric kneeling before a good who can take away their powers if they misbehave, or an oracle whose divine power comes with a curse they cannot avoid.
I mean, the sorcerer, champion, and cleric are potential issues with "main character syndrome" since "I have special blood" or "I am chosen by god" already sort of lean that way. It's just that there's a lot of history in this game of people playing those classes whose character is not the most specialest special boy or girl, but just "a regular member of an adventuring party" so we mostly think it's fine. If someone plays their character in an annoying way because "I'm just RPing my class" we can point to numerous ways to not play that class that way.
It's just that the Exemplar is new, no one had ever played one in a D20 game in 2009. So there's more of a risk of "playing it in an annoying way" is the thing that sticks, and that would be a shame since the class is pretty fun.
If nothing else the rare tag always being a "ask the GM" thing is a check against "am I too much of a spotlight hog?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the sorcerer, champion, and cleric are potential issues with "main character syndrome" since "I have special blood" or "I am chosen by god" already sort of lean that way. It's just that there's a lot of history in this game of people playing those classes whose character is not the most specialest special boy or girl, but just "a regular member of an adventuring party" so we mostly think it's fine. If someone plays their character in an annoying way because "I'm just RPing my class" we can point to numerous ways to not play that class that way.
It's just that the Exemplar is new, no one had ever played one in a D20 game in 2009. So there's more of a risk of "playing it in an annoying way" is the thing that sticks, and that would be a shame since the class is pretty fun.
If nothing else the rare tag always being a "ask the GM" thing is a check against "am I too much of a spotlight hog?"
A high level Champion can become an outsider. A high level Cleric can get a free pass to go hang out with their god.
Not to mention any character with a story active patron, potentially being a spot light hog as a great old power whispers secrets to them and gives them missions as a chosen one.
I am totally with you on this, it's partially an exposure issue.
I am constantly surprised by the pf2e community and how much debates and decisions always default back to Golarian lore accuracy, golarian rarity, and the inabilty to reflavor anything. Is it because much of the online community primarily plays PFS? I am a homebrew GM, and havent really run into this in other RPG spaces.
I am constantly surprised by the pf2e community and how much debates and decisions always default back to Golarian lore accuracy, golarian rarity, and the inabilty to reflavor anything. Is it because much of the online community primarily plays PFS? I am a homebrew GM, and havent really run into this in other RPG spaces.
During the development of Pathfinder 2nd edition there was a deliberate choice to make the material for the game not setting agnostic, with the understanding that "if you want to use Golarion stuff in another setting, you can figure out how it works there" instead of trying to make things generic so you can fit them anywhere (like PF1 did).
If nothing else, baking "how this works in Golarion" the original version is a prompt for "how you can make it work in your setting." Like my homebrew setting has a huge number of dead gods (i.e. most of them), and the Exemplar being rare on Golarion doesn't stop me from making it common in my homebrew setting for exactly the same reason. It's just that my dead gods are mostly underground rather than falling from the sky, so maybe I can make it a metaphor for like "atomic power." Nothing here was anything Paizo needed to tell me, I could just take what Paizo told me and apply it to my own setting.
I think issues of rarity are particularly setting specific by nature. Since some of the first rarity concerns yoú'd run into are "ancestries" but obviously the demographics of different places are going to be different. Some place other than Golarion might have zero gnomes but tons of androids.
|
|
As a counter-argument to the rarity of Exemplars in the Inner Sea region, any PFS character has access to the Exemplar class itself. A PFS party of PCs has the same chance of having an Exemplar or a Fighter or a Sorcerer.
The Exemplar archetype however is much much rarer. You can get it once on one of your PFS PCs and that's it. Better choose carefully.
|
|
The Exemplar archetype however is much much rarer. You can get it once on one of your PFS PCs and that's it. Better choose carefully.
And that is definitely once too often. We can disagree about how powerful the archetype is in a general game but it is definitely SIGNIFICANTLY overpowered in the PFS context.
Only played once so far with a character (rogue) with the Exemplar archetype. It outdamaged the barbarian that was a level higher than the rogue. The barbarian player seemed to be not all that impressed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The exemplar archetype though is something that potentially has a lot of fun value. Like if you've decided "I want to be a thrown weapon character" well that's obviously not the most powerful thing you can play, but it's a reasonable class fantasy, and Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
So I can see why you'd want to allow it sometimes, because it makes a weak thing more fun rather than a strong thing even more powerful.
And that is definitely once too often. We can disagree about how powerful the archetype is in a general game but it is definitely SIGNIFICANTLY overpowered in the PFS context.
Only played once so far with a character (rogue) with the Exemplar archetype. It outdamaged the barbarian that was a level higher than the rogue. The barbarian player seemed to be not all that impressed.
What how. Averages dont make sense, not even considering the +1 to accuracy (in this instance of level difference) or ranged damage difference with barbs raging thrower. They're pretty close, but the gap increases as dice increase. And the rogue is likely losing a tool that makes it get hit less (mobility).
Shadow Sheath Thief 1d4 (weapon) +1d6 (Sneak) +4 (dex) +3 (shadow sheath) = 13
Dragon Barb 1d12 + 4 + 4 = 14.5
Giant Barb 1d12 + 4 + 6 = 16.5
Edit: Adjusting Math cause I did an oopsie.
At 5 w striking:
Thief w/ Shadow Sheath
2d4 +2d6 (sneak) +4(dex) +6(shadow) = 22
Dragon Barb 2d12 +4 +4 = 21
Giant Barb 2d12 +4 +6 = 23
After Striking and level 7:
Thief w/ Shadow Sheath
2d4 +2d6 (sneak) +4(dex) +6(shadow sheath) +2= 24
Dragon Barb 2d12 +4 +8 +2= 27
Giant Barb 2d12 +4 +10 +2= 29
This also doesnt account for situations where the rogue just can not get off guard or into position for flanking, and it loses 4.5 - 9 damage. Should be rare ideally, but it can happen.
But I'm also in the camp of just let players have fun. A few extra damage isnt going to mess anything up, and if it's an important fight, I can adjust if needed.
|
|
Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
Shadow Sheath would be fine if it didn't also apply to finesse based melee weapons. It is written as if that is probably NOT the intent but the words definitely say that it does.
Oh, and your math is wrong. At L4+ Shadow Sheath does an extra 6 damage. So that 21 becomes 24
Shadow Sheath would be fine if it didn't also apply to finesse based melee weapons. It is written as if that is probably NOT the intent but the words definitely say that it does.Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
Does it? My reading is that Shadow Sheath requires a 1-handed weapon with the thrown trait, so you can absolutely use daggers and hatchets but not rapiers and short swords. The strongest choice here is probably the chakram, but I confess the one I want to play uses an endless supply of corset knives she pulls out of her hair.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it? My reading is that Shadow Sheath requires a 1-handed weapon with the thrown trait, so you can absolutely use daggers and hatchets but not rapiers and short swords. The strongest choice here is probably the chakram, but I confess the one I want to play uses an endless supply of corset knives she pulls out of her hair.Shadow Sheath would be fine if it didn't also apply to finesse based melee weapons. It is written as if that is probably NOT the intent but the words definitely say that it does.Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
Sorry, it cannot be used with rapiers. But a dagger or a starknife (probably best) is a one handed weapon with the thrown trait. Which can be used thrown, with TWF, and thrown (also with TWF).
Shadow Sheath would be fine if it didn't also apply to finesse based melee weapons. It is written as if that is probably NOT the intent but the words definitely say that it does.Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
Eh, if a finesse weapon user wanted damage they could have taken gleaming blade or barrow's edge instead.
Shadow sheath is clearly intended to be the small weapons / finesse ikon.
Only Dex characters can interact with thrown weapons, so it makes sense to make the ikon tailored to them to interact with thrown weapons as well.
Does it? My reading is that Shadow Sheath requires a 1-handed weapon with the thrown trait, so you can absolutely use daggers and hatchets but not rapiers and short swords. The strongest choice here is probably the chakram, but I confess the one I want to play uses an endless supply of corset knives she pulls out of her hair.Shadow Sheath would be fine if it didn't also apply to finesse based melee weapons. It is written as if that is probably NOT the intent but the words definitely say that it does.Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
There are some 1d6 Melee Weapons that qualify, but none have finesse. All the finesse weapons are 1d4. As far as I'm aware.
The Exemplar archetype however is much much rarer. You can get it once on one of your PFS PCs and that's it. Better choose carefully.And that is definitely once too often. We can disagree about how powerful the archetype is in a general game but it is definitely SIGNIFICANTLY overpowered in the PFS context.
Only played once so far with a character (rogue) with the Exemplar archetype. It outdamaged the barbarian that was a level higher than the rogue. The barbarian player seemed to be not all that impressed.
I kind of wonder if they put these limits around the boon only being available for exactly one character because they didn't want to just come out and ban it entirely because it'd be a bad look.
Like, they PFS ban spells and such, including in a couple of cases because the spells were just overpowered for PFS, but I wonder if they hesitated to do it for an entire multiclass archetype because it would effectively be Paizo telling Paizo "you screwed up real bad on this one."
|
|
The exemplar archetype though is something that potentially has a lot of fun value. Like if you've decided "I want to be a thrown weapon character" well that's obviously not the most powerful thing you can play, but it's a reasonable class fantasy, and Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
So I can see why you'd want to allow it sometimes, because it makes a weak thing more fun rather than a strong thing even more powerful.
I really really want to play a Rogue Gunslinger with the Exemplar Archetype and Shadow Sheath. Because the Dagger Pistol combination weapon in its melee form is indeed a 1h thrown weapon of Light Bulk.
I really really want to play a Rogue Gunslinger with the Exemplar Archetype and Shadow Sheath. Because the Dagger Pistol combination weapon in its melee form is indeed a 1h thrown weapon of Light Bulk.The exemplar archetype though is something that potentially has a lot of fun value. Like if you've decided "I want to be a thrown weapon character" well that's obviously not the most powerful thing you can play, but it's a reasonable class fantasy, and Shadow Sheath solves a lot of problems for thrown weapon characters with zero friction.
So I can see why you'd want to allow it sometimes, because it makes a weak thing more fun rather than a strong thing even more powerful.
Would the dagger pistols you pull out of your shadow sheath come out loaded, assuming the one you put in to copy was loaded?