Hi,
I have a question about the ikons of the exemplar. At level 1, we have 3 ikons to choose. Each ikon is imbued in an item.
My question: is it possible to imbue the same item with 2 different ikons if the prerequisities are ok for the 2 ikons on the object. For example, gleaming blade and barrow edge on a bastard sword.
Thank you for your response.
It causes a balance problem if a single item is the host of two Ikons and therefore both Ikons can be powered at the same time.
At minimum, if it is allowed to have two Ikons in the same item, they have to be considered separate Ikons as far as being powered by Immanence.
And it is a common ruling to not allow even that, and require that each Ikon has to be in a separate item. I'm not sure about the percentages of the ruling among the community.
Yes, you can imbue the same item/object with multiple ikons.
The only restriction on imbuing an item is given in the ikon's usage entry, e.g. "Usage: melee weapon that deals slashing or piercing damage" for Barrow's Edge.
However, your divine spark can only ever be in one IKON, not one item/object. As such, even if your bastard sword is both your Gleaming Blade and your Barrow's Edge, only one of those ikons can be empowered at any one time and you benefit from only one of those ikons at a time.
Also, if you acquire feats with the ikon trait, upon acquiring the feat you have to make the permanent choice which of your IKONS, not items/objects, gets the effects of that feat. For example, if you acquire Compliant Gold, you'll have to put it either into your Gleaming Blade or Barrow's Edge, regardless of whether these two ikons are tied to the same item/object or not. So if you put it into Gleaming Blade, then Compliant Gold provides neither its immanence nor its transcendence abilities while your spark is in your Barrow's Edge.
tl;dr
Think of all your Exemplar abilities being tied to ikons, not to objects. The same item can hold multiple ikons, but you can only empower one ikon at a time, regardless of how many ikons are imbued into that item.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not allow using the same weapon as two ikons, although I would consider making an exception if it's something weak like a dagger. Being able to get the benefits of moving your spark AND the benefits of weapon ikon damage boost AND the benefits of a two-handed weapon feels cheesy and against the spirit of the class to me.
Folks have talked plenty about the RAW wording, and I'm less concerned with that than the way it invalidates the thing that makes the class interesting: flowing between different modes.
The question of its RaW legitimacy aside, my balance concern is that if you have two ikons housed in the same weapon you'll only have to invest in one set of runes to benefit either ikon you want to use. You can keep using the same physical weapon with all its enhancements (runes, spells, feats), while switching from one weapon ikon to the other
That's the absolute worst take of them all. Forcing a martial to pay double in fundamental & property runes just so they can use their base class abilities? Who does that?
I also do notice all the conditionals people are putting forth, spitting their ifs & woulds & weres.
As someone who has plenty of experience playing with such Exemplars at the table and not just in hypothetical whiterooms of their own imagination: There's no real problem or balance issue having the same item imbued with two different ikons.
A Sandal-wearing sword & board exemplar who uses Marathon Dash to move his allies forward, next turn Raises the Walls of his Mirrored Aegis to get his flanking buddy and himself a 1min +1 AC status bonus, and then smashes enemies with his gleaming blade is a lot scarier than a 2hand-weapon exemplar who alternates between Barrow's Edge attack-heals and strikes with his Gleaming Blade.
A well-played Exemplar is a terrifying force to be reckoned with, while a badly-played Exemplar is truly underwhelming. Using the same weapon for two ikons does not provide Exemplars with higher power ceilings at all, on the contrary, I'd even say the floor drops lower for inexperienced Exemplar players.
So ignore what the nay-sayers scream at the top of their lungs and just try it at the table. Then you'll see that all their doom and gloom disappears in a puff of smoke.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the absolute worst take of them all. Forcing a martial to pay double in fundamental & property runes just so they can use their base class abilities? Who does that?
Hold up now. You are talking about two different things here.
One is having two weapons that you have to keep upgraded with runes.
The other is using your base class abilities.
Even with the ruling that you can only house one Ikon in any given weapon, that doesn't mean that the Exemplar is forced to have two weapons that they keep upgraded.
It just means that they have to have two weapons that they keep upgraded if they want to have two different Weapon Ikons. There are other Ikon types besides Weapon. No one is forcing them to have two weapons. That is a choice. Exemplar as a class can definitely still use their base class abilities even with the ruling that you can only have one Ikon in any single item.
Synthesis: You can have two ikons in the same object, but it requires an Interact action to swap between the two uses and you have to pay twice to apply any runes to applicable separate ikons in the same object.
Synthesis: You can have two ikons in the same object, but it requires an Interact action to swap between the two uses and you have to pay twice to apply any runes to applicable separate ikons in the same object.
Perfection.
It just means that they have to have two weapons that they keep upgraded if they want to have two different Weapon Ikons.
Nah. Doubling Rings exist. Twin Takedown Rangers have been using them for years.
I would probably allow them to inhabit the same item and just work like normal with only one active at a time. But in general I am a pretty fun first GM.
Tangentially, I think also think it's silly that if you apply an ikon like Titan breaker to your natural weapons / fists. It doesnt count for any stances you might pick up, and that stances don't qualify because they count as seperate attacks.
That was a lot of words for what essentially amounts to "cool story bro". Lol.
But yes I am generally a permissive GM, and I personally dont see an issue with this or how it's going to break open anything. If it allows a player to have more fun, I would be cool with it.
But having a different point of view or being more restrictive isn't necessarily a bad thing, or wrong. Different tables for different people. You do you boo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a decent narrative reason that one physical object might count as two ikons (e.g. "the blade of the sword" is one ikon, and "the gem in the pommel" is another), I wouldn't have a problem with that. Like hypothetically you could have a combination item, like a bow staff, that has both a ranged ikon and a melee ikon.
But you still need to go through the same process of "your spark is in one ikon at a time and getting it somewhere else requires spark transcendence or shift immanence.
Like I don't think it's all that meaningful to differentiate between your belt and your shoes in this way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a lot of words for what essentially amounts to "cool story bro". Lol.
But yes I am generally a permissive GM, and I personally dont see an issue with this or how it's going to break open anything. If it allows a player to have more fun, I would be cool with it.
But having a different point of view or being more restrictive isn't necessarily a bad thing, or wrong. Different tables for different people. You do you boo.
It lets you transcend with a weapon every round without any cost in actions or hands.
Does that "break" something? Probably not, but it is a power boost.
The general language of the class feature for ikons implicitly, but not explicitly, suggests that they must be different items. This is mostly spelled out in how:
No.
I'm repeating myself here but the actual rules on Ikons have only a single requirement: meeting the Usage entry.
Everything else is homebrew and people refusing to accept what is written plain in front of them.
They start bringing up "power", "balance", what some people they never met might have thought at a time, what they would do if they were those people, what their friends probably might be doing, ... basically, they're fantasizing all over the place in their own little worlds.
But what they absolutely refuse to do: accepting the rules.
Do I think the Ikon rules are perfect? No. I absolutely hate that they don't work with unarmed ranged attacks and abilities like stance-given attacks (e.g. Clawdancer). But I'm not gonna start claiming my fantasies to be actual rules just to spoil people's fun with the Exemplar class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm repeating myself here but the actual rules on Ikons have only a single requirement: meeting the Usage entry.
Everything else is homebrew and people refusing to accept what is written plain in front of them.
They start bringing up "power", "balance",
If a ruling is only in place because of a power and balance problem that it fixes, and the ruling made is also a valid interpretation of the written rules - then it would fall into the Ambiguous Rules rule. Which is RAW.
Ruling that Ikons must be in their own separate items is valid under the rules for Ikons. Nothing in the Ikon rules says that a character is guaranteed the right to put multiple Ikons in a single item.
Your argument is that nothing in the rules says that they are forbidden from putting multiple Ikons in the same item. While that is also valid, that doesn't invalidate the ruling in my previous paragraph.
So we have a scenario where the rules could be interpreted in multiple different and valid ways. So it is not much of a houserule to use the Ambiguous Rules rule to rule it one way or the other.
|
|
The general language of the class feature for ikons implicitly, but not explicitly, suggests that they must be different items. This is mostly spelled out in how:No.
I'm repeating myself here but the actual rules on Ikons have only a single requirement: meeting the Usage entry.
The usage entry is how you decide the base item. That doesn't change the fact that the Ikon is the item (or bodily feature).
This thing about putting the item "in" an item isn't from the book and only turns up in posts asking this same question. It's not a thing in the rules in the first place.
Only body Ikons use the word "imbued."
...
You're using an awful lot of words to avoid speaking the truth of what you do:
Houserule
Houserules are absolutely allowed RAW, yes. That doesn't make them RAW. The system just allows them.
So please have the honesty to call your houserules as such.
|
|
Though we usually read the worn and weapon Ikons' description with a one Ikon = one item understanding, it is actually written nowhere in the RAW.
So, yes, one item with several Ikons is allowed.
The Ikon is the item, RAW. This "in an item" thing only shows up when people want to do exactly this and are trying to loophole it. But the loophole does not exist, because the Ikon is the item.
Finoan specifically cited the Ambiguous Rules section, which is under General rules. You can find it on Archives of Nethys here.
Exactly.
The "Ambiguous Rules" paragraph in the "Game Conventions" guidelines section specifically says to "work with your group to find a good solution", i.e. "make a houserule".
Referring to the Ambiguous Rules paragraph to give your own houserules a figleaf cover of being an actual rule of the game is the very dishonesty I pointed out here.
But if that wasn't clearly understood before, I hope this helps.
The Ikon is the item, RAW. This "in an item" thing only shows up when people want to do exactly this and are trying to loophole it. But the loophole does not exist, because the Ikon is the item.
If ikons = items, then you're fine with enemy spellcasters using this spell to steal your eye-catchingly beautiful face?
Weird point of discussion. Lets say I am an Orc with Ganzi Versatile Heritage. I have both fists and a tail weapon.
I have Titan Breaker and Hand of the Wildling as Ikons.
I have two fists, can I have Titan Breaker in one and Wildling in the other? Or are Fists "one weapon".
If I get Stumbling/Goat/Dragon/Whatever Stance. It counts as a seperate attack. RAW Titan Breaker doesn't work with it (at least my understanding of it), and stances fall outside of combat, so you cant move an Ikon to a stance. But should it work? When does common sense beat RAW?
Can I suffuse my tail with divine energy to move Titan Breaker to my Tail?
If I get an awesome warhammer, can I move Titan Breaker to it? Can I move it back to my fists?
If I'm not allowed one in each fist, and have Hands of the Wildling on my fists and Titan Breaker on my Tail, can I swap them? Rules state you have to spend a day per Ikon.
If two ikons can't inhabit the same thing, you couldn't swap your natural weapons ikons. Which might be intended, I'm just playing devils advocate.
|
|
You can have two weapon icons on the same weapon. You can still only use the icon effect every 9th action as your spark has to go through the cycle of Immanence / transcendence between each of your icons until you get rapid spark at 10th level. I am assuming two strikes and move each turn.
No you can't, but no you don't. You can already use the same one every turn if you want to, at the cost of an action to Shift Immanence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the actual benefit to having your sword be both, say, Gleaming Blade and Barrow's Edge? Just so you can invoke the transcendence of either without losing your bonus spirit damage on attacks.
You can already keep your spirit damage up all the time by shifting your spark to a non-weapon ikon and just using that transcendence at the start of your turn, like Gaze Sharp as Steel will add precision damage to your strike with your weapon ikon on top of the spirit damage it's getting.
Like I guess this means you could then invoke a weapon transcendence every single turn, but that genuinely doesn't seem as good to me as the other stuff you do with your other transcendences. Like maybe you could heal with Barrow's Edge every turn, or you could instead just juggle Barrow's Edge and Scar of the Survivor and heal every turn anyway (you don't need to cycle through them, you just need to put the spark in a different ikon than it was- you can just swap between your favorite two ikons), the +1 to fort saves is more useful than extra damage on strikes when it's not your turn.
Taking two weapon ikons just seems like a weaker choice compared to "taking a weapon ikon and a useful other ikon that makes it easy to switch back to your weapon ikon." Though I guess there are valid character concepts where you might want to have a melee ikon and a ranged ikon, but this seems weaker than just taking Victor's Wreath and a Weapon ikon.
What is the actual benefit to having your sword be both, say, Gleaming Blade and Barrow's Edge? Just so you can invoke the transcendence of either without losing your bonus spirit damage on attacks.
So you can use a two handed weapon to Transcend every turn without dealing with handedness issues. Or to keep a free hand for other nonsense while you normally transcend every turn.
Having two weapons ikons is fine if you just want to focus on damage over flexibility. Is it particularly strong? Eh. Is it a potential power boost? Maybe slightly. But its not without a large opportunity cost.
Even though I think it's fine. I can see how others might not like it.
So you can use a two handed weapon to Transcend every turn without dealing with handedness issues. Or to keep a free hand for other nonsense while you normally transcend every turn.What is the actual benefit to having your sword be both, say, Gleaming Blade and Barrow's Edge? Just so you can invoke the transcendence of either without losing your bonus spirit damage on attacks.
Aren't the only non-weapon Ikons that care about your hands the Shield (which obviously you aren't using with a two-handed weapon) and the Horn of Plenty (which can eventually produce Tentacle Potions that you can use to pull other stuff out of it anyway.)
Yeah you're not wrong Cabbage.
It saves you that third action each turn that you would spend manually moving your back spark too. A lot of Exemplars end up with some Charisma. That's a Demorilize or Feint attempt.
The free hand matters for manuevers, battle medicine, activated items, or occasional environmental interactions.
But I'm not sure it matters a lot because the best weapon ikons are largely incompatible with eachother (Gleaming Blade, Titan Breaker, Shadow Sheath).
Assuming you could put two ikons in a single weapon. It would be best with a Greatsword or Polearm I think.
This leaves you with something like Gleaming + Barrows Edge Greatsword. Seems fine?
Pick 2 of Barrows Edge / Mortal Harvest / Noble Branch Polearm. Less good, but maybe interesting? Seems fine.
Pick 2 of Barrows Edge / Mortal Harvest / Titan Breaker Greataxe. Axe group isnt exciting and reap the field is better on a polearm, cause without reach youre asking to take reactions, but at least it synergizes with sweep. Titan Breaker Barrows Edge is essentially the same as the greatsword above. Also seems fine.
I'm not sure any of these combos are worth losing a third Ikon with more interesting utility or abilities, even accounting for the action saving.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the actual benefit to having your sword be both, say, Gleaming Blade and Barrow's Edge? Just so you can invoke the transcendence of either without losing your bonus spirit damage on attacks.
So you can Transcend with a weapon Ikon every turn for no cost.
Right now you can:
use a big two-handed weapon Ikon for the highest damage, but every other turn you use a different Ikon for your Transcendence.
use a bit two-handed weapon Ikon for the highest damage, and spend an action every turn to Shift Immanence back to your weapon.
use two weapon Ikons and Transcend with one of them every turn, but this limits you to one-handed weapons or at least one unarmed attack, and has a cost in runes or doubling rings.
If one weapon can be both of your Ikons, you get two-handed damage, weapon Transcendence every turn, and no action cost.
Assuming you could put two ikons in a single weapon. It would be best with a Greatsword or Polearm I think.
This leaves you with something like Gleaming + Barrows Edge Greatsword. Seems fine?
Pick 2 of Barrows Edge / Mortal Harvest / Noble Branch Polearm. Less good, but maybe interesting? Seems fine.
Pick 2 of Barrows Edge / Mortal Harvest / Titan Breaker Greataxe. Axe group isnt exciting and reap the field is better on a polearm, cause without reach youre asking to take reactions, but at least it synergizes with sweep. Titan Breaker Barrows Edge is essentially the same as the greatsword above. Also seems fine.
I'm not sure any of these combos are worth losing a third Ikon with more interesting utility or abilities, even accounting for the action saving.
Not those combos no, but remember that you also give your ikons additional trancendance powers later on that are quite powerful.
Barrows edge overall is kinda boring, To the point that its kinda arbitraty what it does once you actually get that transcendance.
And you still have your third ikon to other things until then, or might retrain into two weapon ikons once these transcendances are available.
I don't think there are that many powerful weapon based Trascendance abilities besides Infinite Blades Celestial Arrow.
Steel on Steel available at lvl 4 and not required to be put on a weapon, scales to more average damage than Compliant Gold. 12d4 (30) Cone vs. 6d8 (27) Line at level 12. Compliant Golds reach is also annoying to use and competes with Warped By Rage.
Motionless Cutter is fine, but best on a Reach weapon and hard to set up every turn because 3a. Also better with Warped By Rage. And competes with Reactive Strike.
Through the Needles Eye? Not good. Binding Serpent Arrow? Also not good. Mated Birds? Not really applicable. Besides Infinite Blades Celestial Arrow, which is amazing but would force you on Unfailing Bow (doodoo garbage) and is available after Rapid Spark anyway, there's not a lot of options that would be worth doubling up on a weapon ikon in my opinion.
My point is you dont even need double weapons or double ikons in a single weapon to Transcend for epithets and AOE damage every turn.
You can put Steel on Steel on your Horn of Plenty. And Hands of the Wildling on a d8 natural weapon. And swap between them spamming AOE transcendance abilities while making a Strike without MAP every turn and have both your hands free and triggering epithets every time.
Steel on Steel Horn and a Starshot? Alternating AOE abilities with MAPless strikes mixed in triggering epithets every turn.
You can do the same thing with Steel on Steel and/or Breath of Vital Ash on a non weapon Ikon, and Compliant Gold. Mixing 2h Strikes in with your aoe damage and triggering epithets every turn anyway.
There aren't any weapon based aoe Transcendance abilities that use a (2h) weapons damage dice besides Motionless Cutter and Infinite Blades Celestial Arrow. So as far as spamming AOE abilities it's kind of moot what weapon you pick.
