| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group would never power game with Exemplar dedication, the main reason I want it nerfed is so that people stop recommending it for builds on reddit. Every theorycraft build with it needs a giant asterisk, because its potency alone makes it a more common ban than other rare options.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM I think Exemplar archetype does a great job of adding a mythic type of power to another class. It feels like something really special add a powerful Ikon so rogue with exemplar archetype can add the shadow sheathe or barrow's edge to seem even cooler or the barbarian can add titan breaker to make their huge maul seem cooler. It's one of those archetypes that feels like a great addition to another class to make them even cooler.
Removing the ikon from the archetype would take away any reason to ever take it. The ikon is all the exemplar class has. You might as well just remove the archetype if you take way the ikon power.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Unfortunately the rare tag has come to mean several different things and so a GM cannot (and should not) look at that tag and go "Mechanically, this material is more powerful than most alternatives".
If they had a "Potentially overpowered" tag I'd agree.
I'd compare this to Free Archetype. When talking about Free Archetype they do a reasonably good job of describing the impact that option will have on a campaign. I think Exemplar needs that level of discussion, not just a "Rare" tag.
That’s something I’ve always complained about regarding rarity tags. The idea is for them to actually indicate something, yet without further explanation, most rarity tags don't convey anything at all. They just signal that an item is rare for some reason—leaving it up to you to figure out why, if there’s even a reason to begin with. (I’m reminded of the Mending Lattice: it’s tagged "uncommon" without explanation, so people infer—since most talismans are weak, limited, or highly situational—that a shield-repairing talisman which stands out from the rest "must be uncommon because it’s stronger than usual.")
On the bright side, the Runesmith comes with an archetype powerful enough to rival the Exemplar. It serves as a reminder that these tags are designed to define thematic rarity within the world of Golarion—usually relative to Absalom (though not always)—rather than serving as mechanical tags.
That’s why I stick to my "all-or-nothing" stance: given the confusion, either every rarity tag should come with a brief explanation (like an Access entry), or they shouldn't exist at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I'm inclined to leave the Exemplar archetype the way it is, since it doesn't have the problem of "you put this on another class and you outshine the original class at its shtick" since the Exemplar is not defined by one Ikon- it's defined by juggling at least two.
Plus things like Shadow Sheath remove so much friction in like "trying to make a thrown weapon character" that it feels like "I want to play my character concept ASAP" more than "I am trying to power game."
Using shadow sheath you can easily outdamge a shortbow with just one hand, and have the other free for a sword. Or throw two weapons with dual thrower for crazy damage.
It is absolutely broken.
The best thrown weapon is the boomerang and it doesn't need either shadow sheath or returning to work. If you are choosing to throw, I don't know, daggers and take shadow sheath then you are doing it entirely because of flavor because there's a much better thrown weapon alternative for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best thrown weapon is the boomerang and it doesn't need either shadow sheath or returning to work. If you are choosing to throw, I don't know, daggers and take shadow sheath then you are doing it entirely because of flavor because there's a much better thrown weapon alternative for that.Like I'm inclined to leave the Exemplar archetype the way it is, since it doesn't have the problem of "you put this on another class and you outshine the original class at its shtick" since the Exemplar is not defined by one Ikon- it's defined by juggling at least two.
Plus things like Shadow Sheath remove so much friction in like "trying to make a thrown weapon character" that it feels like "I want to play my character concept ASAP" more than "I am trying to power game."
Using shadow sheath you can easily outdamge a shortbow with just one hand, and have the other free for a sword. Or throw two weapons with dual thrower for crazy damage.
It is absolutely broken.
Boomerangs absolutely benefit from shadow sheath? They only return on a miss, and all the extra shadow sheath damage is nuts.
But here is the thing, sure someone can use something utterly sub-optimally for flavor. That doesn't mean that it isn't way overpowered. We can't balanced around someone just screwing around with it.
Boomerangs have this in their description "The boomerang is a carved piece of wood designed to curve as it flies through the air, returning to the wielder after a successful throw". They don't need returning or shadow sheath at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I think about exemplar archetype, I mostly just am reminded I wish the spirit damage was its own feature, rather than part of weapon ikons, and weapon ikons themselves focused on things like Shadow Sheathe's special drawing effect as their "primary" benefit. That way the archetype could have build enabling things without also poaching extra damage.
But. I'm also clearly an outlier that is just kinda... Not particularly bothered by the other ikons being poachable? I'm more still kinda surprised there's so many effects in Exemplar that the actual class itself seems just kind of bad at utilizing well, like the resistances, or whatever bizarre thought process went into Leap The Falls. Feels almost like a lot of them assume you'd get some "lingering spark" effect that kept certain effects active even after the spark moved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel some of the different opinions expressed here still end up converging: if you're indifferent about a feat's power and only care about its flavor, then reducing that feat's power without impacting its flavor will have no negative impact to you. If you care about balance, then balancing that feat will have a positive impact on you. These opinions aren't in opposition with one another, and neither I think point against balancing notable outliers like Exemplar Dedication.
Were this a different game where balance routinely flies out the window and thus isn't generally seen as important, I could also agree that this kind of topic wouldn't be worth pushing if there were far bigger fires to put out. This, however, is Pathfinder 2e, a generally well-balanced game that has a solid track record for identifying and addressing balance outliers, and a community known for generally valuing balance quite highly. Tables can certainly self-regulate, which is made easier in the Exemplar's case with the rare tag giving the GM even more veto power, but I don't think that ought to be the expectation in this game. By itself, these outliers may seem trivially small individually, but leaving these outliers to accumulate is how you end up with GMs sharing ban lists for character options in other systems, including 1e. I haven't yet seen the Runesmith Dedication feat, so I'll reserve judgment on that for now, but I'd certainly like Exemplar Dedication to exclude its ikon's immanence effect and only provide its transcendence, as that would bring the feat in line with other dedications.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue I have is I'm not really in agreement about any of the nerf proposals here, outside of "weapon ikons should probably not get the full scaling effect", and would actually be genuinely really disappointed if anything besides that were to happen. My fundamental issues with the archetype likely overlaps with people in here, but has more to do with what frustrates me about the way ikon effects work, and how their passive effects being active is too binary with immanence. Shadow Sheathe is one of the only exceptions that feels like it still "works" without its immanence, because it still does something passively (lets you continue to draw copies of the weapon).
With exemplar itself not likely to get any deeper retooling to make other ikons more nuanced with how they interact and with a spark, just axing immanence from the archetype (or shunting it to a second feat) would just leave it kind of frustrating. Less so than psychic archetype's excessive beatdown, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of getting far afield of the point of the post, but mechanically that isn’t true that is just flavor text. Boomerangs have the Recovery trait which reads “ Recovery weapons are thrown weapons designed to return to the thrower when they miss the target. When you make an unsuccessful thrown Strike with this weapon,...Boomerangs have this in their description "The boomerang is a carved piece of wood designed to curve as it flies through the air, returning to the wielder after a successful throw". They don't need returning or shadow sheath at all.The best thrown weapon is the boomerang and it doesn't need either shadow sheath or returning to work. If you are choosing to throw, I don't know, daggers and take shadow sheath then you are doing it entirely because of flavor because there's a much better thrown weapon alternative for that.Like I'm inclined to leave the Exemplar archetype the way it is, since it doesn't have the problem of "you put this on another class and you outshine the original class at its shtick" since the Exemplar is not defined by one Ikon- it's defined by juggling at least two.
Plus things like Shadow Sheath remove so much friction in like "trying to make a thrown weapon character" that it feels like "I want to play my character concept ASAP" more than "I am trying to power game."
Using shadow sheath you can easily outdamge a shortbow with just one hand, and have the other free for a sword. Or throw two weapons with dual thrower for crazy damage.
It is absolutely broken.
Boomerangs absolutely benefit from shadow sheath? They only return on a miss, and all the extra shadow sheath damage is nuts.
But here is the thing, sure someone can use something utterly sub-optimally for flavor. That doesn't mean that it isn't way overpowered. We can't balanced around someone just screwing around with it.
"returning to the wielder after a successful throw" doesn't read like flavor text at all to me. It would also be kinda dumb to put something that reads almost like rules text when you know people are going to misinterpret it that way. It also far from the only weapon that includes unique rules in its description (fire poi comes to mind), and its totally on brand for a boomerang to return after every attack since that's its weapon fantasy.
I haven't yet seen the Runesmith Dedication feat, so I'll reserve judgment on that for now
Prereq of +2 int.
You get:1) two first level runes
2) a max of 1/2/3 etched runes at levels 2/9/17
3) action to invoke a single rune within 30ft
Other feats in the archetype grant combat trace, higher level runes, etc. Notably doesn't give you runesmith DC.
I haven't yet seen the Runesmith Dedication feat, so I'll reserve judgment on that for nowPrereq of +2 int.
You get:
1) two first level runes
2) a max of 1/2/3 etched runes at levels 2/9/17
3) action to invoke a single rune within 30ftOther feats in the archetype grant combat trace, higher level runes, etc. Notably doesn't give you runesmith DC.
Ok the DC thing has to be a mistake though, otherwise it barely does anything. It’d be like if wizard dedication gave you cantrips but no spell save DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of getting far afield of the point of the post, but mechanically that isn’t true that is just flavor text.
You know people on these boards keep saying that we can't ignore flavor text and that it's still rules text... Seems odd now to see someone coming out on ignoring the flavor text. I've seen such text vehemently argued as relevant that sounded far less like an actual rule.
Ok the DC thing has to be a mistake though, otherwise it barely does anything. It’d be like if wizard dedication gave you cantrips but no spell save DC.I haven't yet seen the Runesmith Dedication feat, so I'll reserve judgment on that for nowPrereq of +2 int.
You get:
1) two first level runes
2) a max of 1/2/3 etched runes at levels 2/9/17
3) action to invoke a single rune within 30ftOther feats in the archetype grant combat trace, higher level runes, etc. Notably doesn't give you runesmith DC.
Yeah, that's one for the errata thread for sure if it isn't there already.
Probably the runesmith DC in the archetype is just trained as normal. The designers probably forgot to add it to the dedication text.
Still I think the Attribute Requirement ma Runesmith much weaker then Exemplar. However is it really that powerful? No one has really explained how a long-sword swinging for 1d8+6 is massively more powerful then 1d8+4 at level 2. Is 2 more flat damage really that impressive...? (Yeah we know Shadow Sheathe is +3) However what about damage Runes then on weapons? Last I checked (Which was a while ago) Paizo has not balanced Pathfinder 2E around you grabbing any of the +1d6 (Average 3.5) damage runes which is just icing on top. I could be wrong of course it has been a while since I looked into this.
Also no one is talking about if you get to high levels using Eagle Knight Archetype. Think it's level 12 or 14. "Oh hey you want to Reactive Strike when a monster hits your allies? HERE!" Feat, which is a much later then Justice Champion's Reaction but unlike Champion's Reaction Poaching you only get 1 Reaction, Eagle Knight also get's the Fighter's Second Reaction but only for Reactive Strike.
With exemplar itself not likely to get any deeper retooling to make other ikons more nuanced with how they interact and with a spark, just axing immanence from the archetype (or shunting it to a second feat) would just leave it kind of frustrating. Less so than psychic archetype's excessive beatdown, but still.
I feel like if the Exemplar itself needs help, then the best way to go about that would be to apply fixes to the main class, rather than keep its MC archetype strong. I do think the premaster Psychic MC archetype was too good and needed a change, even if gutting it was not the right move, and I feel excessively strong MC archetypes run the risk of devaluing the main class itself: if you can get the best bits of a class just by opting into its dedication, why go for the main class at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with that. Psychic MC was never an issue. The issue is that Psychic has so little as class that if you take from MC the only thing that really offers anything - his Amp + Cantrips, then thats like most of the class. But if you take that away from dedication - the dedication gives literally nothing casue class has nothing else. In both cases, Exemplar and Psychic - the dedication is not an issue. The issue is perception that dedication gives too much becasue.. there is nothing else going on for these classes. But if dedication wouldn't give Amp + Cantrips or Icons then what is left on these classes to give? Their feats suck. They don't get any skill masteries. Psychic gives occult casting but at this point you are better taking Bard or Witch or Sorc.
I really don't agree with this. The Psychic may be a weak class, but they do have several components that don't all need to be given away to other classes. Psi cantrips I think are fine to poach, but their amps, the things that are supposed to make the class a better user of Focus Points, should in my opinion be kept exclusive to the class. The way the archetype was excessively nerfed was also in my opinion entirely avoidable: had the dedication given two cantrips, as is standard for caster dedications, that would have put it on par with others.
The same I think can be said for the Rogue: for sure, the archetype offers many good benefits, including a mini-sneak attack, but it makes very sure not to give you those sneak attack benefits in full. Thus, you can't out-Rogue a Rogue even if you spend five feats boosting your skills with Skill Mastery.
Which brings us to the Exemplar: say what you want about the class, but they too have different attractive components in the form of the immanence and transcendence effects on their ikons. In particular, weapon immanence is what lets them scale up to the damage of other martial classes, which I think makes those particularly ill-suited to be shared in a MC archetype. An Exemplar dedication that offered transcendence, but not immanence would already be a unique and strong feat for its level: it wouldn't be the crux of certain builds as is the case now, particularly Shadow Sheath, but it would still be able to offer powerful actions to those looking to opt into the class's mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't yet seen the Runesmith Dedication feat, so I'll reserve judgment on that for nowPrereq of +2 int.
You get:
1) two first level runes
2) a max of 1/2/3 etched runes at levels 2/9/17
3) action to invoke a single rune within 30ftOther feats in the archetype grant combat trace, higher level runes, etc. Notably doesn't give you runesmith DC.
The real point about the complaint is the benefits that you can get from these runes with archetypes.
Basically, the dedication allows the character to etch runes.
Every rune, except the diacritic, has a passive effect that has unlimited duration until you invoke it. So if you like, they are basically an unlimited passive buff that benefits a character all day long. There aren't limits on how many runes a character/item can have, just your limit of how many you can have etched at the same time.
So only with level 1 runes you can get:
- A higher frightened condition reduction. Reduces by 2 at the end of your turn if you are up to 10ft from an ally (Baruiel rune).
- An extra 2 persistent bleed damage per weapon die for weapons and unarmed attacks that deal piercing or slashing damage (Esvadir rune).
- +1 of status bonus to AC when a shield with this rune is risen (Holtrik rune).
- +1 status bonus to Deception, Diplomacy, and Performance checks. Increases to +2 at level 9 and +3 at level 17 (Ledria rune).
- 1 bludgeoning splash damage per bludgeoning weapon dice and you are to this splash if it's a melee weapon (Marssyl rune).
- +2 to shield Hardness against ranged attacks that increases by 1 every 4 levels (Oljinex rune)
- 30ft imprecise scent (Rehgog rune)
- +1 to Survival and terrain lore. Increases to +2 at level 9 and +3 at level 17 (Sertum rune)
- Speak/Read/Write an additional language at your choice +1 Society checks. Note that you can etch a rune in just 10 minutes, so you can easily change this language to another in a 10 minutes activity. The Society bonus increases to +2 at level 9 and to +3 at level 17 (Tilus rune)
So basically a martial with a runesmith dedication can etch one of these runes at level 2 (or 1 if you take it with ancient elf), 2 at level 9 and 3 at level 17. So for example it can start with a extra 2 persistent bleed damage due to the Esvadir rune increasing up to 8 when you have the major striking rune and at level 9 you can add a +1 to status AC to your shield at level 9 once that you can etch 2 runes and add a +6 to your shield hardness against ranged at level 17.
All this at cost of just one dedication feat. And I'm excluding the Invokation effects because we still not sure about the runesmith DC and that usually you don't want to lose your passive effects unless the situation makes it worth like to kill an enemy close to death sooner an then take 10 minutes to etch it again.
All that said this is basically all that you get because:
- Your runes offensive can improve as you level up but once that you DC doesn't improves you will loosing its effectiveness over time.
- Most of runesmith feats resumes to improve your rune invokation or trace but as I said before, your runesmith DC even if it is set to trained, doesn't progress to more than trained, and you can only trace when you get the level 6 archetype feat Tracing Studies.
- The archetype expanded repertoire feat allows to get level 5 runes but such runes are all diacritics and only works for invokation.
- Grater Expanded Répertoire can give you some stronger lvl 9 runes but it is a lvl 18 feat so probably you will pass most of the game without benefit from it and if you don't have a free archetype you will need to take it in place of a probably good level 18 feat of your own class. Luckily it doesn't requires the Expanded Repertoire feat but maybe this is a typo error due to the feat name and the fact that it also allows to take lower level runes too.
Anyway if the Paizo designer review it due to the complains the easiest way to "fix" the archetype IMO is just to switch the etch ability to trace in the dedication feat and change the Tracing Studies to Etch Studies to put the etch activity there. This also fixes the fact that most of runesmith feats depends from the trace action what makes then basically dead feats until you get the studies.
Also I need to notice that these passive bonus are specially good for martials but casters doesn't get nothing really that useful from it except some skills status bonus runes.
With exemplar itself not likely to get any deeper retooling to make other ikons more nuanced with how they interact and with a spark, just axing immanence from the archetype (or shunting it to a second feat) would just leave it kind of frustrating. Less so than psychic archetype's excessive beatdown, but still.I feel like if the Exemplar itself needs help, then the best way to go about that would be to apply fixes to the main class, rather than keep its MC archetype strong. I do think the premaster Psychic MC archetype was too good and needed a change, even if gutting it was not the right move, and I feel excessively strong MC archetypes run the risk of devaluing the main class itself: if you can get the best bits of a class just by opting into its dedication, why go for the main class at all?
Yes, this is a real risk. MC archetypes run on a delicate point where they need to be useful but cannot become a real alternative to their class. It's easy to miss here and make a MC archetype too good or too bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips without amp are not worth taking dedication for. They are too weak.
Alright, might as well pack it in with caster archetypes then, because that's what their dedications offer by default. We can complain about the power level of those dedications and advocate for buffs, but whatever standard we want to set, it ought to be consistent, instead of having one outlier that's head and shoulders above the rest.
Besides you literally described the problem I highlighed - take immanence and amp away and what do you have left for these classes?
As I described, that still leaves psi cantrips for the Psychic, skill increases for the Rogue, and transcendence for the Exemplar. Perhaps those are not necessarily to your taste, but they are a key part of those classes all the same -- and, importantly, a part of the class that is safe to share without giving the whole class away.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With exemplar itself not likely to get any deeper retooling to make other ikons more nuanced with how they interact and with a spark, just axing immanence from the archetype (or shunting it to a second feat) would just leave it kind of frustrating. Less so than psychic archetype's excessive beatdown, but still.I feel like if the Exemplar itself needs help, then the best way to go about that would be to apply fixes to the main class, rather than keep its MC archetype strong. I do think the premaster Psychic MC archetype was too good and needed a change, even if gutting it was not the right move, and I feel excessively strong MC archetypes run the risk of devaluing the main class itself: if you can get the best bits of a class just by opting into its dedication, why go for the main class at all?
I don't even think the Exemplar needs to be a class. Should have always been an archetype to add to some other class to make it more mythic and heroic.
I think that was the role the mythic rules were designed to fill wasn't it?I don't even think the Exemplar needs to be a class. Should have always been an archetype to add to some other class to make it more mythic and heroic.With exemplar itself not likely to get any deeper retooling to make other ikons more nuanced with how they interact and with a spark, just axing immanence from the archetype (or shunting it to a second feat) would just leave it kind of frustrating. Less so than psychic archetype's excessive beatdown, but still.I feel like if the Exemplar itself needs help, then the best way to go about that would be to apply fixes to the main class, rather than keep its MC archetype strong. I do think the premaster Psychic MC archetype was too good and needed a change, even if gutting it was not the right move, and I feel excessively strong MC archetypes run the risk of devaluing the main class itself: if you can get the best bits of a class just by opting into its dedication, why go for the main class at all?
The exemplar would have fit better as a 2 to 20 mythic archetype. Most of what they list is really just some other class that does it better.
It feels far more like a mythic path than a class all its own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even think the Exemplar needs to be a class. Should have always been an archetype to add to some other class to make it more mythic and heroic.
When the class was in playtesting, I would have agreed with you, and in fact I probably expressed that same opinion on the forums. Since the Exemplar released, though, I do think they're justified as their own class, and I think their gameplay of chaining different transcendences across ikons both carries enough complexity to need a whole class to accommodate, and requires a class's power budget to accommodate the base immanence effects.
It's also why I don't think base immanence should be a part of the MC dedication: 2 to 8 on-hit damage at no action cost isn't something you really get from any feat, let alone a 2nd-level feat, because that's the kind of thing you get from a core class feature, such as a Barbarian's Rage. There are other immanence effects that aren't as strong, but giving a Fighter a permanent +8 to their Strike damage or a Barb a permanent +1 to their attack rolls is the kind of power boost I'd expect more from dual-classing than archetyping. There's talk above in the thread of just capping the benefits, but that doesn't work for every immanence effect, and in my opinion is too strong even in its most basic form: if the Barbarian Dedication feat requires you to spend an action, reduce your AC by 1, and disable your concentrate actions for that +2 to damage (and some significant temp HP, mind) for 1 minute, then even just a +2 to damage alongside an entirely separate transcendence action is going to be too much for a dedication.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of getting far afield of the point of the post, but mechanically that isn’t true that is just flavor text.You know people on these boards keep saying that we can't ignore flavor text and that it's still rules text... Seems odd now to see someone coming out on ignoring the flavor text. I've seen such text vehemently argued as relevant that sounded far less like an actual rule.
I like oddball weapons with unique gimmicks even when traits cover most of them, but wow do they need to specify what is mechanics and what is flavor...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like oddball weapons with unique gimmicks even when traits cover most of them, but wow do they need to specify what is mechanics and what is flavor...
This is worth its own thread (and I think threads have been written about this!), but I think one of the subtler conflicts between the rules and play is that many of us players and GMs expect a clear separation between flavor text and rules text, so that we can avoid confusion, but also potentially reflavor certain mechanics more easily if we want. In practice, though, the developers don't go: "I'm going to write some flavor text, then I'm going to sit down and write out a separate block of rules text after that," they generally write combined rules text and flavor text in the same paragraph, sometimes the same sentence. In most cases this works fine, but when it creates ambiguity, it gets very annoying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the class was in playtesting, I would have agreed with you, and in fact I probably expressed that same opinion on the forums. Since the Exemplar released, though, I do think they're justified as their own class, and I think their gameplay of chaining different transcendences across ikons both carries enough complexity to need a whole class to accommodate, and requires a class's power budget to accommodate the base immanence effects.
It's also why I don't think base immanence should be a part of the MC dedication: 2 to 8 on-hit damage at no action cost isn't something you really get from any feat, let alone a 2nd-level feat, because that's the kind of thing you get from a core class feature, such as a Barbarian's Rage. There are other immanence effects that aren't as strong, but giving a Fighter a permanent +8 to their Strike damage or a Barb a permanent +1 to their attack rolls is the kind of power boost I'd expect more from dual-classing than archetyping. There's talk above in the thread of just capping the benefits, but that doesn't work for every immanence effect, and in my opinion is too strong even in its most basic form: if the Barbarian Dedication feat requires you to spend an action, reduce your AC by 1, and disable your concentrate actions for that +2 to damage (and some significant temp HP, mind) for 1 minute, then even just a +2 to damage alongside an entirely separate transcendence action is going to be too much for a dedication.
Honestly, I feel like a lot of transcendence effects are things I'd already spend a lvl 2 class feat for, even as just an encounter power, with the second ikon being when it does feel more like the class. I'm fine with some not working as well for multiclassing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also thought the exemplar didn't need to be a class before release, but now I think it deserves to be one. However, I do think its slightly underpowered in some areas and I think that's likely because the exemplar was in development right when the whole OGL fiasco happened and the Remastered was forced into Paizo.
But even then, I'm really happy the exemplar isn't just mythic because mythic in this edition is, in all honesty, hot garbage. Its easily the worst designed piece of content in PF2e by far and every time I look into it I get more disappointed. If I ever use it I'll homebrew the heck out of it.
I like oddball weapons with unique gimmicks even when traits cover most of them, but wow do they need to specify what is mechanics and what is flavor...I think it's just probably an honest mistake.
If it was intended to return on a hit as well as a miss they would have 100 different, easier and more clear, ways to phrase it.
It's just probably a writter misunderstanding what the actual trait does imo rather than anything deliberate.
Absolutely, my point being more so that a mistake in the flavor text doesn't lead to years of debate, as the boomerang one has been there since the first printing of the legacy version.
I also thought the exemplar didn't need to be a class before release, but now I think it deserves to be one. However, I do think its slightly underpowered in some areas and I think that's likely because the exemplar was in development right when the whole OGL fiasco happened and the Remastered was forced into Paizo.
But even then, I'm really happy the exemplar isn't just mythic because mythic in this edition is, in all honesty, hot garbage. Its easily the worst designed piece of content in PF2e by far and every time I look into it I get more disappointed. If I ever use it I'll homebrew the heck out of it.
I think that there is something about the very idea of mythic play in pathfinder (2e or 1e) where it only really works as a very tightly controlled GM tool specifically for making difficult fights even more difficult. Player facing mythic options have never worked out.
In PF2, player facing mythic’s biggest problem is that the players that want it are already using FA to get whatever feats they want, so it is an incredibly tight needle to thread to provide mythic options that just don’t over power the game balance but feel like they are worth taking over what can be made by combining all the other archetype options freely,
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is something about the very idea of mythic play in pathfinder
This is probably a "me" problem but I've never understood what mythic is even trying to accomplish. In what way is a mythic character more mythic than a halfling who arm wrestled a giant and won, or more mythic than a fighter who won an argument about the most esoteric details of arcane magic with an ancient golden dragon (both actual examples from play)?
In what way is a level 5 character more mythic than the l6 or 7 (or even 5) character beside him?
I could maybe sort of understand it if you took the PF1 rules but restricted the player to only the mechanically useless flavour abilities like being immortal or famous. But once you give abilities that actually DO something useful mechanically them you're just making characters more powerful and it just seems to me to have just about the same effect as to just give them an extra level or 2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's supposed to invoke real life myths, things like a late game characters barely touch on. Things like creating masses of land, reshaping political landscapes for generations, or directly answering to gods. Granted, I don't think the 2e rules accomplish that.
The fundamental problem with mythic is that it's trying to evoke the feeling of, like, Heracles being able to divert an entire river and building a whole-ass mountain in minutes, but also needing to wrestle a dude twice his size to death over the course of those same minutes too, because in the old days those were 'equal' tasks in the minds of people. But we live in the modern, scientific era, and especially in the power scaling nerd space where 'being able to cut lightning' = 'light speed response' and so people start asking questions like 'why can't I build a hill and then drop it on people for mass x acceleration damage in a round if I can build a mountain in minutes' because a mountain is a physical object and not a metaphorical representation of the hero's journey.
And so you have to square being able to swim across a mile long river in a minute with not also having that much speed in combat, and that just breaks down. Or trying to deal with the 'super strike' which belongs in storybooks and not games, let alone cooperative games (see SRW for how games have to try and manage 'sure kill' techniques when players can and will use them wherever)
I do think there is a way to square that circle by setting the appropriate scale: if everything is big and battles are being fought across mountains and wide fields, then it becomes easy to state that you can swim a mile a minute or drop a hill on someone. The problem I think is that Mythic tried to kludge in this epic feeling without altering the underlying scale: for all the florid text in the feats, we're still fundamentally doing the same things, moving at the same pace, and obeying the same balance framework. We're not really operating a cut above most adventurers, we're largely just adventurers who use Hero Points a bit differently. Mythic's design was ultimately too timid to break us from PF2e's balance constraints when that was the system's golden opportunity to let us do so, which I think is one of the reasons why it failed.
I thought the early level mythic stuff was...fine? (Except the level 2-4 feats, most of those were absolutely dire.) Being hard to kill and being able to do amazing (for your leve) feats of skill, even at things you have only a nodding aquaintance with, is fine.
But the level 12+ stuff was generally awful, as were the spells, and the monster rules. Then the stuff that wasn't useless was often absurdly strong.