My own revisions have gone the opposite direction in many ways. Rather than cut down on uses, I tried to mitigate some of the more outrageous powers and feats. Mythic power attack for instance doesn't exist, while fleet charge and similar abilities work more like charge (e.g. require a straight line).
The largest issue I've seen overall with mythic is that it amps up martial characters damage by allowing them to deliver full attacks or more than full attacks every round consistently. The simple reality is most monsters in the bestiary are not predicated upon that assumption, and you end up with monsters going splat with regularity.
I'd also change the ability score boosts so they apply +1 to two different scores at each appropriate level, rather than +2 to one score. Results in slightly more balanced characters.
There are other more subtle issues - guardians feel quite weak, summoning classes take it on the nose, ect - but my suspicion is that when monsters don't go splat immediately you'll see tougher fights. Reducing mythic uses just seems to encourage hording, which doesn't 'feel' right to me, while reducing the number of powers you can pick seems to encourage focusing on those most powerful, rather than taking more flavorful ones.
Fair enough. Those points seem valid.
Couldn't a new sentence added to Amazing Initiative fix this? Something like..."This additional standard action cannot add with another standard action to provide a full-round action." After all, if a caster can't cast a 2nd spell, a melee shouldn't get a full attack? This way, it works more like a haste attack?
Amazing initiative is much less of a problem than fleet charge.
After playing in one campaign with Mythic Power, then DMing half of this one, I've determined the Mythic rules are unplayable if the DM is using enemies built within the rules. The first campaign worked rather well because it was homebrew, and even though we were heinously OP as a party, the DM simply created encounters that were an appropriate challenge for us using his own designs and often breaking the rules outright. We were all OK with this and knew it was going to happen. Even that campaign mostly folded toward the end because combats were silly and worthy of the DPR Olympics.
In this campaign, I've given up using the rules because with just a single arcane spellcaster using Wild Arcana and Mythic Spellcasting no enemy survives past rolling initiative. I'm 100% scrapping the combat and dice rolling from here on out and just narrating fights, then moving on to roleplay to progress the story.
I honestly think the Mythic rules aren't fixable by simply adjusting what people get at various levels. The core system gets pretty unbalanced as you level up, and Mythic simply compounds that problem exponentially. It would need to be re-designed from the ground up to function well IMO.
Sorry if that didn't contribute anything useful to the thread. I was simply providing my experience with the Mythic rules for reference.
Does this seem a significant enough reduction to keep PC's in check? Any input is appreciated.
One option, of course, is to boost the encounters the party faces. I've found Sc8rpi8n_mjd's WoTR stat blocks document to be really helpful here. But that's not what you're asking about, so let's put that aside.
As far as trying to keep the PCs from getting too powerful, I (like some of the other GMs who commented above) have found the biggest problems to stem from particular abilities/feats. For what it's worth, here are 7 path abilities and feats which have stood out as far as making things unbalanced during my party's run through the first 5 books of WoTR, and some possible suggestions for how to tone them down:
1. Fleet Charge
Problem: Allows players to perform full attacks every turn.
Possible Fix?: Perhaps, as was suggested above, only allow this to work if the attacker moves in a straight line?
2. Precision
Problem: At higher levels, allows players to reliably hit with 4 attacks instead of just 1-2.
Possible Fix?: Perhaps have each level of precision increase the attack bonus of iterated attacks by (say) 2 instead of 5?
3. Flexible Counterspell
Problem: Allows players to completely shut down enemy spellcaster bosses.
Possible Fix?: Perhaps don't allow it to work against mythic spells, and require the sacrificed spell to be one level higher than the spell being countered?
4. Channel Power
Problem: The stackable damage multiplier allows spellcasters to boost spell damage to the point at which they can one-shot (or two-shot with quickened spells) virtually any opponent.
Possible Fix?: Perhaps don't allow it to stack with things like the empower and maximize metamagic feats?
5. Mythic Rapid Shot Feat
6. Mythic Manyshot Feat
7. Mythic Improved Critical Feat
Problem: Each of these feats allows players to effectively multiply the amount of damage they can do by a hefty amount. And when combined with all of the other ways in which the mythic rules increase damage output (due to stat increases, etc), they enable players to deal absurd amounts of damage. (I'm sure these feats are not the only culprits, but they're the ones which have had the biggest impact on my game.)
Possible Fix?: Not sure what to do with these feats besides ban them, but perhaps someone else has some clever ideas about how to water them down a little?...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another possible option: Double the Mythic Trials needed for each Mythic Tier. The PCs end up with 5 Mythic Tiers at the end of the campaign instead of 10.
I was thinking that unless you have mythic points left in your mythic power pool you couldn't benefit of any of your mythic feats, abilities or spells including abilities gained from tiers even passive abilities like bonuses to ability scores. Combined with a reduction in mythic power points and a reduced amount regained each day this should see to that the players would be really careful about using their mythic abilities.
I have also considered giving all mythic monsters more mythic power points and all basic abilities gained by tiers (hard to kill, amazing initiative etc.)
In addition I was thinking that the pc's had to perform mythic tasks to regain used mythic power, but I haven't quite figured out how I would handle this.
I feel such measures just serve to make mythic a tedious rule-set addition without much purpose. If PCs are only going to get 1-2 uses per day why not simply give them some 1/day powers and avoid the entire headache? You also tend to promote (in my opinion) a greater degree of optimization when you start provide more freedom, which works against you in the long run.
A better solution is making sure there are incentives for the party to press on through multiple encounters, which is a huge part of what I think mythic was supposed to do. Between various recovery abilities and the ability to end fights quickly the party should be able to get through far more encounters without resting than normal, assuming they don't go absolutely nuts with mythic every round. Let them be mythic.
Limited time before a villain acts, or before the party's allies act (perhaps foolishly) without them, or hostages, or any thing of leavers can be used to shift mythic parties away from the 4 encounter work day.
That's a more generic commentary though.
I think that all of us who are running this can agree on that.
I think that all of us who are running this can agree on that.
Yeah, see my above post!
Ayup.
And I continue to point out that the root of your problems are the fundamental disconnect between the way you play the game and the way the designers design APs. That mythic simply allows you to further blow the curve out does not make mythic the root of the 'problem'.
That the same faces here are by and large the same faces time and again on AP threads commenting on how they are too easy should make that rather clear.
Bullpucky. While I frequently complain about AP difficulty, a lot of people here who have turned up to complain about the mythic difficulty of this AP are people I have not seen complain about general AP difficulty before. The problem is that high-level mythic gameplay has elevated the power curve way more than the designers realized when writing the system.
And there have been at least a few GM's who went into this AP with a standard or deliberately nerfed party and still come back telling us that their group walked all over the AP. So your first paragraph also is wrong.
What magnus said. Although this is my first AP, until now I have designed my own adventures for...ummm... 30 years or so. This has helped me decide what I would change for other high level or mythic campaigns. But my experience, so far, with mythic is nothing I want to go through again.
So if anyone important is reading, please no more mythic APs. (or not without an average mode at least thrown in)
I will admit I'm more than halfway tempted to start designing a Mythic AP that runs to level 20. The problems being: what should it be about and how the heck would I playtest it? (Though playtesting isn't as big an issue as I should have the plot established prior to other concerns.)
If I did succumb to this temptation, I'd likely have the characters undergo Mythic Ascension at a very low level - probably level 2 or 3... or maybe even have the game start out with Ascension. And I might very well use Mythic Paths for monsters instead of the Mythic monster-build which seems... subpar compared to the Mythic Paths. (That and I've not been able to figure out how to create Mythic monsters using Hero Labs.)
A couple things to consider:
* Solo encounters need to have a huge influx of hit points, but a reduction in damage. The reason: you need a Mythic Solo Encounter to actually last long enough to seem epic, but the damage scale for Pathfinder (and D&D 3) is such that most monsters appropriate to a CR are too lethal if they last more than two rounds. Thus you want foes that last... and are able to hurt the party without killing them in one or two blows (unless those specific attacks are limited and have a recharge time).
* Other encounters need to be combined so to eliminate the advantage of action economy. One problem in the AP seems to be various mini-encounters that the party just steamrollers over. Having minions for sub-bosses helps reduce the chance of the sub-boss just dying quickly - unless of course the sub-boss has multiple actions that it spreads against everyone it fights.
* Treasure tends to be too generous. Either limit down-time so the party has no chance to create magic items, or reduce the amount of treasure so parties can't just make uber-items to further enhance their power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So lets see, Magnus admits (give him credit) that he thinks APs as a whole are too easy.
Seannoss admits that this is the first AP he's played, and thus that he has no basis for comparison.
--------------------------------
Here's the reality. All APs are going to be too easy if your party is relatively (not even highly) optimized and you run them out of the box. You [b]have[/b to make adjustments for experienced or optimizing players if you want to challenge them, because the design intention is that extremely novice players can play APs without excessive difficulty. Mythic only further contributes to what is an existing problem in the same way that higher levels contribute, because the more options you have available the further you can separate from what is considered by designers to be baseline.
Take a look at the NPC Guide which published characters that designers were playing or have played in the back section. Actually, let me go ahead and do it for you, since every time this is brought up you people seem to ignore it.
Compare the spell selection of Velmarius Elazarin (4th level sorcerer played by Jason Bulmahn) to that of the vast majority of characters you see posted. In particular observe the lack of save or dies like sleep and color spray. Holy crap, he's only got an 18 charisma at level 4, a 12 con, and bought up to a 14 intelligence. What's more, he's got Combat Casting, Weapon Finesse, and Skill Focus (Diplomacy).
Zandu Vorcyon (played by Christopher Carey) is a 4th level human ranger with a melee attack at +4 for an average of 5.5 points of damage (before the 19-20 crits) and a ranged attack of +9 for 1d8+1.
James Jacobs has a 12th level Bard / Fighter (8/4 split) with saves of +7 / +13 / +5, a melee attack of +18/+13 for 1d6+9 / 15-20 plus 1d6 fire), and less than one hundred hit points.
Lets not forget Erik Mona's Ostog the Unslain Barbarian (4th level) who wears no armor and has a total AC of 11. He packs a 'monstrous' attack of +11 for 2d6+10 when raging.
----------------
If that isn't a wakeup call to you I don't know what to say. These people are playing what can almost be described as a different game from many of the posters here. It should not be a shock when you find the game they play too easy. I suspect that for the characters above and their ilk the AP probably plays just fine.
DISCLAIMER: Peter Stewart hasn't played the ap at all
Disclaimer: CWheezy ran a mammoth lord through and claimed he didn't understand why he blew up encounters.
All APs are going to be too easy if your party is relatively (not even highly) optimized and you run them out of the box. You have to make adjustments for experienced or optimizing players if you want to challenge them... Mythic only further contributes to what is an existing problem in the same way that higher levels contribute, because the more options you have available the further you can separate from what is considered by designers to be baseline...
I agree with a lot of this. One data point it may be worth taking into account, though: I've run a couple different APs with the same players, and we've never encountered anything like the balance problems we've encountered running WoTR.
For my players, the other APs we've gone through have been more or less fine, balance-wise. But WoTR has been crazy.
|
Peter, we're likely going to have to agree to disagree then.
I've been a player in two other APs and a GM/player in a lot of Pathfinder Society.
Not even in Society play have I seen players roflstomp encounters the way it's possible (and happening) at my WoTR campaign. When you have to replace encounters completely with someone else's stats (Scorpion's statblocks) there's obvious a lack of something in the AP.
The NPC Codex is nice, but is NPCs with NPC wealth and tactics.
Perhaps I've played too much society, where people actually care about their character growth and survival.
Peter,
I'm running a level 10 Warpriest, 3 Heirophant of Iomedae, and I am in book 3 at the moment. I have yet to feel this AP is a challenge in any shape or form.
Str: 16 (24) (+2 Human, +2 from G.Garrison Book 1, +2 Mythic, +2 Level)
Dex: 13
Con: (16) 12 (+4 belt, looted somewhere in book 2)
Int: 10
Wis: (16) 14 (+2 headband, looted somewhere in book 2)
Cha: 10
I'm running a 1hander/Shield in full plate. AC 32 at the moment.
Saves:
12 Fort
6 Ref
12 Will
My mythic feats/powers are legendary weapon, divine source (War/Travel Domain), Mythic domain.
My mythic feats are: Mythic Combat Reflexes, Mythic Improved Initiative.
Normal Feats include Power Attack, Step Up chain, Combat Ref., Imp Initiative, Imp. Critical, Shield Focus.
It's sort of silly to say that because the AP is balanced for niche Dev characters, that the problem is with the players saying it's to easy. If we take my character, and bring it down to a 15 point buy, I'd have the exact same stats except for a 14 strength (before racial bonuses). Now, don't forget I'm running without a belt of str. I'm 24 str from extra static bonuses. That's also not counting the dragon scale that allows me to Alter Self 3/day for an additional +2 str. So, with a 15 point buy, 14 starting str I'd be looking at roughly a 22-24 str without an enhancement bonus. Or the TL:DR version - 15 point buy / niche dev characters are meaningless in this AP, due to mythic and AP rules.
It doesn't matter if someones attack bonus is 1-2 points lower (hell, 3-4 really from my experience so far), if the Mythic Rules let you make extra attack actions on top of your full attacks anyway. Or cast extra spells. Or get +10 total stats (+12 if you spend a mythic power to get another bonus) to whatever stat you want. The entire AP is easy mode.
I'd say play the AP before you start telling people they're wrong for saying the AP is to easy, or they feel mistakes were made. You can't have a good handle on the Mythic rules from just reading really, as the power level changes every time you get a mythic tier to such a huge degree. It's hell on a DM to balance things appropriately - because they can't rely on the AP as written to provide an engaging narrative due to there being no real credible threat as written for a large percentage of the player base (use PFS as a litmus for the types of characters going through it).
Remember, the same devs that are putting out these AP's are also making the new classes, the feats etc. They should know how people play the game, and not plan for players making fighters with 10 base physical stats and 50% of all feats being skill modifiers.
Lastly, so some of you can have a chuckle - our primary healer is an alchemist, and we spend some of our hard earned WBL on healing potions so he can keep us alive. My WP has yet to heal anything, and I only really need to cast Prot Evil, Divine Favor and I spend 90% of my Mythic Points on casting Stone Shape. Sadly, no I'm not even a dwarf. Edit -> I'm also the groups only divine caster. Haha?
Peter, we're likely going to have to agree to disagree then...
Which is fine. Informed adults can draw different conclusions from the same data on a matter that is not inherently objective (like AP design and system balance in a P&P RPG).
My point is less that the AP is perfect, there are no problems, and mythic is a flawless work of art, and more that I'd be very reluctant to take the game balance advice of many of the people posting here given that many of them (CWheezy, Magnus, others) play a game that on average is very disconnected from casual beer and pretzels gaming or immersive RP games. These are many of the same players I've watched argue with designers about simulacrums and similar things, and watched argue on despite explicit designer statements that they were running things against the spirit and letter of the rules.
Further, even if I did accept their premise (mythic is too strong, AP is too weak) the changes I'd make (as noted above) are not in line with the changes that they would make. My preference is a removal or debuffing of many number inflating abilities, rather than a reduction in amount of mythic powers or number of uses while retaining the same broken options. If I bring a gun to a knife fight the problem is not the number of bullets I have - it's the fact that I have a bloody gun in a knife fight.
It is entirely possible that designers and writers did screw the pooch to one degree or another between Mythic and the AP, but my first inclination when the usual suspects come griping is not to assume they are correct (especially when cursory examination shows that they are rather disconnected from basic assumptions of APs - see above).
I had deep reservations about how things played out during the mythic playtest, and was so vocal that I just about got kicked off the forums by SKR at the time. I thought that the designers went the wrong way on a lot of basic things and missed a great many small changes. I thought shifting to tier = 1/2 level was a mistake, rather than powering up each tier to be worth a full level, because I didn't think such a change could be implemented effectively given the print schedule. I thought not playtesting the vast majority of path abilities was a horrible mistake. I thought the way many abilities were reworked (especially mythic saves) worked against the expressed intentions of the mythic ruleset.
I drew these conclusions and reservations as a result of months of mythic playtesting running both a high level wizard without mythic tiers and a high level cleric with them in a 5 person party (6 characters) with a moderate amount of optimization. My first action when I snagged my copy of Mythic Adventures was to start going through and make changes to paths, innate abilities, and similar things to bring the book more in line with my expectations (and there were a great many changes!).
I will say once more though that I think a lot of this still has to do with mythic simply making more obvious the disconnects between designers and even moderate optimizers. The biggest thing that Mythic did in my experience was radically shift action economy directly (marshal abilities, mythic initiative) or indirectly (arcane surge, fleet charge, mythic vital strike, ect) - which I can see very rapidly blowing up even moderate differences in power.
The NPC Codex is nice, but is NPCs with NPC wealth and tactics.
Perhaps I've played too much society, where people actually care about their character growth and survival.
Small point of fact: The character's I'm referencing are not from the NPC Codex (hardcover book of NPCs with core), but are instead from the NPC Guide (softcover book) and are direct translations of developer characters with PC wealth from one of their ongoing campaigns.
Peter,
I'm running a level 10 Warpriest, 3 Heirophant of Iomedae, and I am in book 3 at the moment. I have yet to feel this AP is a challenge in any shape or form.
** spoiler omitted **
Could you by chance post an AC breakdown, attack and damage routines, and buffs you regularly have running?
It's sort of silly to say that because the AP is balanced for niche Dev characters, that the problem is with the players saying it's to easy.
The AP isn't balanced for niche developer characters. It's balanced for very low optimization beginning players that are assumed to make sub-par choices throughout character design and play rather than those that build specifically towards goals with a solid understanding of the more powerful options available.
Consider the challenge designers face in writing APs which can be played by people ranging from those just out of the Beginner Box to those with decades of experience. There is absolutely no way to cater to all demographics. Now layer on top of that the complexity of a new system that extends play. There is absolutely no way to appeal to every demographic - and I think with WotR in particular there was a struggle to balance mythic options that they assumed would be new to players. The designers have to make a choice in who they build their baseline around, and the choice is very easy when considered logically.
Newer, less experienced players inherently have more trouble making adjustments to stats in general, and especially on the fly. More experienced players (including GMs) do not. You build at the bottom and let those who are inherently more willing to dedicate time optimizing within the game to adjust as needed for their own campaigns.
If we take my character, and bring it down to a 15 point buy, I'd have the exact same stats except for a 14 strength (before racial bonuses). Now, don't forget I'm running without a belt of str. I'm 24 str from extra static bonuses. That's also not counting the dragon scale that allows me to Alter Self 3/day for an additional +2 str. So, with a 15 point buy, 14 starting str I'd be looking at roughly a 22-24 str without an enhancement bonus. Or the TL:DR version - 15 point buy / niche dev characters are meaningless in this AP, due to mythic and AP rules.
I think this little bit is more telling than anything else you said. The difference between Dev characters and assumptions is not in the point buy being slightly lower or a 2 point drop in strength. It's in more well rounded stats in directions that go beyond combat. You've posted a character with stats concentrated on Strength, Wisdom and Constitution (with a small Dex dip for combat reflexes). Those are very solid investments for a frontlinish melee character with a bit of background casting, but combined with everything else point towards a character that is not in line with expectations for APs (new / young players, older non-optimizing players).
It doesn't matter if someones attack bonus is 1-2 points lower (hell, 3-4 really from my experience so far), if the Mythic Rules let you make extra attack actions on top of your full attacks anyway. Or cast extra spells. Or get +10 total stats (+12 if you spend a mythic power to get another bonus) to whatever stat you want. The entire AP is easy mode.
We are not talking about swings in attack bonuses of 1-2 or 3-4 points. We are talking about swings in spell DCs of 3-6 points, swings in attack bonus, armor class, saving throws, and so forth at least that large, and most especially huge swings in damage potential within 5-10 levels. By the time you move towards the last couple books (5/6) you can be looking at characters that average swings in the 5-12 range for core statistics rather easily. Now compound those differences with action economy enhancers.
It's rather easy to see why things would seem to get out of hand more easily.
I'd say play the AP before you start telling people they're wrong for saying the AP is to easy, or they feel mistakes were made. You can't have a good handle on the Mythic rules from just reading really, as the power level changes every time you get a mythic tier to such a huge degree. It's hell on a DM to balance things appropriately - because they can't rely on the AP as written to provide an engaging narrative due to there being no real credible threat as written for a large percentage of the player base (use PFS as a litmus for the types of characters going through it).
As I've said, I playtested with mythic rules for quite a long time (November of 2012 through October of 2013). I think a lack of handle on mythic as a whole is not really a problem.
Thanks for lying about what I said lol. I would appreciate you not doing that in the future.
(For reference, I understand perfectly what my character did)
I don't need to lie to show you up CWheezy. You do a pretty good job of it on your own. That said, for those that don't accept my paraphrasing of your own statements, here's a link to the original post so people can draw their own conclusions about the intent behind your statements..
For my money, you don't get to sarcastically imply that your character somehow fell within the bounds of 'average' play then claim that you were well aware that it didn't.
You may not have set the world on fire with perfect optimization, but a mammoth lord charger with almost 50 base damage before the charge bonus, vital strike (and mythic), mount attacks, buffs from a 17th level cleric cohort, challenge, and a dozen other modifiers to damage combined with big investment in initiative blowing up encounters is about as shocking to me as your weaseling on your original comments.
[Stuff
Peter,
Check out the iconic characters for Dev character assumptions. You'll notice that the majority of them, and the character I posted share a similarity. Neither have dump stats. That's the balance you're thinking of (in my opinion that is). Being average as a hero in your worst stat, unless there is a very telling story reason to have a dump stat (Lini having a 6 str, being a weak gnome who needs her Animal companion for protection). I believe that's what the Devs plan for when designing AP's, along with a 15 point buy, and 4 players. My experience is that similarly built characters, with no dump stats, trounce WotR due to Mythic being ridiculous.
What I hoped you'd notice, is that I'm finding WotR trivial as a melee hierophant. I don't have the Champion powers as a primary melee damage dealer, yet I'm still finding my character is overpowered for the AP as written. Good lord, if I had Fleet Charge it would be stupid. I'd say I'm close enough to the baseline on this character to illustrate what the others have been discussing - that Mythic is broken, and the AP is poorer for it. I'm not asserting I am the baseline, but I'm not rocking a cohort, dump stats, animal companion etc., that you've been pointing out to others.
Going further down the rabbit hole for a moment - if we assume, and I believe it's fair to do so as the Devs have stated this; the APs being designed for 4 players, 15 point buys, shouldn't it be fair to say that the AP should work for that group dynamic? I say it doesn't in WotR because Mythic makes the 4 person group dynamic explode into an unknown amount of actions. In a standard AP, the devs can know how many actions a player can take in a given round, and can plan accordingly. You can't really get around the action economy as a new player. In Mythic, that goes out the window. Your 4 person group now equals how many players due to the action economy breaking powers that keep coming? Is the AP designed for a 4 person group that can on command bust out 8 standards a round? I say no. To make things worse, how can you design hard encounters for an unknown variable of extra actions? Extra actions that can translate into x4 vital striking, power attacking great swords wielded by a 30+ str fighters. It's not the characters that are broken, it's the rules themselves that make this AP poor. I say they can't have balanced the AP for Mythic, because the Mythic rules are to loose to ever be balanced as they are written now. The more familiar you are with the rules, the more apparent this becomes.
I'm pretty rules savvy, so I know what end game characters are going to look like in Mythic WotR. Really, really OP. I really have sympathy for my GM. I will say that my GM has the short end of the stick, and has been doing a standup job tweaking the encounters to knock the group down a notch or two. (The problem is that it's to much tweaking. He has to do way to much work to make things work than he should using published material that's been designed to use the Mythic rules.)
For the OP: WotR probably is ok from a non-mythic standpoint. (I'd say fighting Mythic monsters without Mythic tiers / powers is more Mythic than what I'm going through actually.) I haven't seen anything mechanically terrible if WotR was standalone. You get a nice boost from the Iomedae quest (feat, stats etc) that set you apart from the regular heroes, plus an artifact sword, some awesome plate that gives you bonus ac/saves etc. I'd say that, plus being "the man" (or woman, the AP's are equal opportunity after all) is Mythic enough IMO.
Peter,
Check out the iconic characters for Dev character assumptions. You'll notice that the majority of them, and the character I posted share a similarity. Neither have dump stats. That's the balance you're thinking of (in my opinion that is). Being average as a hero in your worst stat, unless there is a very telling story reason to have a dump stat (Lini having a 6 str, being a weak gnome who needs her Animal companion for protection). I believe that's what the Devs plan for when designing AP's, along with a 15 point buy, and 4 players. My experience is that similarly built characters, with no dump stats, trounce WotR due to Mythic being ridiculous.
What I hoped you'd notice, is that I'm finding WotR trivial as a melee hierophant. I don't have the Champion powers as a primary melee damage dealer, yet I'm still finding my character is overpowered for the AP as written. Good lord, if I had Fleet Charge it would be stupid. I'd say I'm close enough to the baseline on this character to illustrate what the others have been discussing - that Mythic is broken, and the AP is poorer for it. I'm not asserting I am the baseline, but I'm not rocking a cohort, dump stats, animal companion etc., that you've been pointing out to others.
Going further down the rabbit hole for a moment - if we assume, and I believe it's fair to do so as the Devs have stated this; the APs being designed for 4 players, 15 point buys, shouldn't it be fair to say that the AP should work for that group dynamic? I say it doesn't in WotR because Mythic makes the 4 person group dynamic explode into an unknown amount of actions. In a standard AP, the devs can know how many actions a player can take in a given round, and can plan accordingly. You can't really get around the action economy as a new player. In Mythic, that goes out the window. Your 4 person group now equals how many players due to the action economy breaking powers that keep coming? Is the AP designed for a 4 person group that can on command bust out 8 standards a round? I say no. To make things worse, how can you design hard encounters for an unknown variable of extra actions? Extra actions that can translate into x4 vital striking, power attacking great swords wielded by a 30+ str fighters. It's not the characters that are broken, it's the rules themselves that make this AP poor. I say they can't have balanced the AP for Mythic, because the Mythic rules are to loose to ever be balanced as they are written now. The more familiar you are with the rules, the more apparent this becomes.
First, nothing about an incomplete build for a single character in a party illustrates a great deal.
Second, you've basically simply repeated my point with regard to action economy, especially in so far as the fact that it amplifies existing disparity between abilities you have and what you are expected to have (in either direction).
Third, I don't think your character models with particular accuracy Dev assumptions.
Fourth, with all due respect, if you can't even be bothered to read and respond then I don't really see a need to extent the same courtesy.
->Removed wall of text so others don't have to read the same posts over and over.<-
You are a treat aren't you? Enjoy yourself.
My first action when I snagged my copy of Mythic Adventures was to start going through and make changes to paths, innate abilities, and similar things to bring the book more in line with my expectations (and there were a great many changes!).
Back to the topic of the original thread post: I'd actually love to hear what changes you were thinking of making. Do you have a list of changes you could post?
(I sketched some preliminary ideas for how to weaken a few mythic abilities above, but I have no idea how well they'd work. And you've clearly put a lot more thought into this than I have!)
My first action when I snagged my copy of Mythic Adventures was to start going through and make changes to paths, innate abilities, and similar things to bring the book more in line with my expectations (and there were a great many changes!).Back to the topic of the original thread post: I'd actually love to hear what changes you were thinking of making. Do you have a list of changes you could post?
(I sketched some preliminary ideas for how to weaken a few mythic abilities above, but I have no idea how well they'd work. And you've clearly put a lot more thought into this than I have!)
Honestly I lost a lot of it when the last Dicefreaks version went down, but drawing from my remaining notes...
Base Mythic Abilities
Ability Score At tier 2, and at every even tier thereafter, a mythic character may increase two ability scores by 1 point each.
Mythic Power A character's uses of mythic power per day is equal to 3 + their tier + 1/2 their level (rounded down).
Surge A number of times per day equal to 1/2 their level (rounded up) a mythic character may surge as a free action, usable anytime or in response to another's action. This ability starts at 1d6 and increases every three tiers as follows (2d4, 2d6, 3d4). A character may expend a use of mythic power in place of their daily uses if they have exhausted their surges for the day.
Amazing Initiative This does not allow you to cast more than 1 standard action spell each round (in place of simply disallowing spellcasting use).
Mythic Saving Throws A tier 5 mythic character rolls twice on all saving throws against non-mythic opponents, taking the better result.
Immortal A tier 9 mythic character does not die unless reduced to negative hit points equal to his normal full hit points. If he would be slain by an ability that results in instant death (such as with a vorpal weapon or a disintegrate spell reducing him to 0 or fewer hit points) he instead is reduced to negative hit points equal to x2 his constitution score. This ability does not function with Die Hard or similar abilities that allow characters to function at negative hit points.
To these my GM has the following suggestions...
Mythic Hit Points (Rank) Mythic monsters add their rank to their con modifier
Mythic Saving Feats = Apply mythic saving throws of appropriate type to mythic threats equal to your tier or less, rerolls increase to 3/day
I also did most of the paths, but apparently several of those are lost. These remain to me.
Archmage
Base Abilities
Arcane Surge This ability reverts to a standard action.
Wild Arcana This ability reverts to a standard action.
True Archmage This ability no longer grants spell resistance. Each time a true archmage casts a spell of the highest level available to him he regains one use of mythic power.
Path Abilities
Arcane Endurance This ability is folded into resilient arcana (see below).
Bloodline Intensity You may expend a use of mythic power to force creatures affected by your bloodline powers to roll twice, taking the worse result.
Elemental Bond This ability increases your caster level by 1/2 your tier rather than your tier.
Greater Familiar Link This ability works both ways, allowing your familiar to take damage in your steed.
Mythic Bloodline This ability increases your functional sorcerer level for the purpose of determining what powers you have access to by 4. It does not stack with similar effects such as a robe of arcane heritage. You may expend a use of mythic power to use a limited use per day bloodline ability an additional time. If you have bloodline powers that can be used multiple times per day you may use them an additional number of times per day equal to 1/2 your tier.
Mythic Hexes When using your hexes against non-mythic beings they must roll twice on any saving throw, taking the worse result. By expending a use mythic power you may cause a mythic creature to roll twice, taking the lower result. You may select this hex a second time in order to have it apply to your major hexes.
Mythic School This ability increases your functional wizard level by 4 for the purpose of determining the powers you have access to.
Perfect Preparation You must still learn spells before you may prepare them, as normal for your class. This does not consume the scroll you learn from however or require expensive materials.
Resilient Arcana This ability also increases your caster level for the purpose of calculating the duration of your spells by 1/2 your tier.
Speedy Summons This ability no longer has a tier requirement.
Telekinetic Master Increase your caster level by 1/2 your tier when casting levitate, telekinesis, and similar spells.
Arcane Metamastery This ability is removed.
Arcane Potency This ability grants you one extra spell slot of each level you can cast each time it is taken, up to three times.
Component Freedom This ability reduces the cost of components you must provide by 100gp x your tier (rather than only functioning if it removes the component). It otherwise functions as normal.
Mythic Spellpower This ability now grants 4 extra uses of mythic power per day that can only be used to cast mythic spells. It can be taken up to three times, providing a maximum pool of 12.
Divine Knowledge Choose a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level divine spell from the cleric or druid list. These spells are added to your spellbook, familiar, or spells known list. If you choose this ability a second time you may add a 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level cleric or druid spell.
New
Divine Inspiration Choose a cleric domain. You may add the spells from that domain to your list of spells known, spellbook, or familiar when you become capable of casting spells of the proper level. You must be at least tier 3 to take this ability.
Mythic Spell Celerity As a free action you may expend a use of mythic power to spontaneously apply the quicken spell feat to any spell you have prepared or know (if you are a sorcerer) without increasing the spell's level. You must be at least tier 3 to take this ability.
Mythic Spell Strength As a free action you may expend a use of mythic power to spontaneously apply the empower spell feat to any spell you have prepared or know (if you are a sorcerer) without increasing the spell's level or casting time.
Sorcerous Spell Knowledge You may add one additional spell per level you can cast from the wizard/sorcerer list to your spells known. Each time you gain access to a new level of spells you may add an extra spell of that level to your spells known. You may only take this ability if you are a sorcerer.
Peter, because you continue to lie about what I say, ignore key points, and show that you have no practical knowledge of WoTR while assuming you know what you are talking about, I will have to put you on ignore.
I had hoped you would stop lying, oh well :(
EDIT: lol no ignore function? This is one low tech forum
1. People that make a public show if ignoring people are almost always stroking their own ego. Congratulations.
2. If sharing your post directly and offering my perspective on it constitutes a lie, then I suspect you do not know what that word you keep using means. Please though, continue to call me a liar. No doubt it makes your case more convincing by the moment.
3. The forum intentionally does not offer an ignore feature, as several highly placed Paizo web guys have mentioned on a, number of occasions. Thanks for insulting the web guys though.
EDIT: lol no ignore function? This is one low tech forum
Here's the thread where you can get an ignore script. Follow the instructions and you'll be good. It helps immensely with filtering out the most annoying egomaniacs on the board.
So lets see, Magnus admits (give him credit) that he thinks APs as a whole are too easy.
Which they are.
Seannoss admits that this is the first AP he's played, and thus that he has no basis for comparison.
But, oh noes, doesn't that disprove your assertion that these AP's are built for beginners and they should be fine?
Here's the reality. All APs are going to be too easy if your party is relatively (not even highly) optimized and you run them out of the box.
We are not running them out of the box. I for one am constantly adjusting and combining encounters as soon as the high levels hit and those encounters still get ROFL-stomped to a degree which can't be easily explained with "experience" and "non-standard group size". Something is off about assumed high-level balance and "expected encounter design".
Mythic only further contributes to what is an existing problem in the same way that higher levels contribute, because the more options you have available the further you can separate from what is considered by designers to be baseline.
The problem with mythic is that it takes what is already an unbalanced system (high-level gaming) and then applies several multipliers to the whole deal. At the same time, mythic monsters do not get abilities which appear up to par with what mythic PC's get. One of the problems with this AP is that the designers again insisted on placing single opponent encounters everywhere, of which should be clear after so many years of writing and feedback that they do. not. work! Unless you apply some tricks to diminish the importance of action economy, that is.
Take a look at the NPC Guide which published characters that designers were playing or have played in the back section. Actually, let me go ahead and do it for you, since every time this is brought up you people seem to ignore it.
<snip>
So, your examples cite three 4th level characters and a 12th level multi-class character, with classes which do not synergize very well. How exactly does that have anything to do with high-level gaming or mythic?
So lets see, Magnus admits (give him credit) that he thinks APs as a whole are too easy.Which they are.
Seannoss admits that this is the first AP he's played, and thus that he has no basis for comparison.But, oh noes, doesn't that disprove your assertion that these AP's are built for beginners and they should be fine?
There's a difference between evidence and proof. This is neither, but even if it were a more solid example, it would fall on the 'evidence' side of the line.
Here's the reality. All APs are going to be too easy if your party is relatively (not even highly) optimized and you run them out of the box.We are not running them out of the box. I for one am constantly adjusting and combining encounters as soon as the high levels hit and those encounters still get ROFL-stomped to a degree which can't be easily explained with "experience" and "non-standard group size". Something is off about assumed high-level balance and "expected encounter design".
You redesign and adjust encounters, and they still get rofl-stomped? You must not be very good at it then. At a bare minimum, you ought to be able to provide a mirror encounter that has an equal chance of rofl-stomping their dopplegangers. On the other hand, I don't like encounters that either side just blows through, so I design them against that parameter.
The problem with mythic is that it takes what is already an unbalanced system (high-level gaming) and then applies several multipliers to the whole deal. At the same time, mythic monsters do not get abilities which appear up to par with what mythic PC's get. One of the problems with this AP is that the designers again insisted on placing single opponent encounters everywhere, of which should be clear after so many years of writing and feedback that they do. not. work! Unless you apply some tricks to diminish the importance of action economy, that is.
You actually make sense here. I don't agree with your further conclusions, but single foe encounters is a weakpoint of the system, mythic or no. If the foe cannot damage all of the PCs in a given round, it invariably proves invincible or a pushover. I ran a high level non-mythic fighter against the mostly mythic party at 15th level, and he needed every trick he had running to keep things tense.
Take a look at the NPC Guide which published characters that designers were playing or have played in the back section. Actually, let me go ahead and do it for you, since every time this is brought up you people seem to ignore it.
What do the NPC guide characters have to do with high level gaming?
They have to do with baseline expectations, as was pointed out, fairly clearly by Peter. If the designers' characters look horrifically unoptimized at 4th level, that divergence will grow greater in high level. The bottom line is that the APs aren't written for even moderately optimized parties. And your idea of 'optimization' is not the same as that of the designers.
Kain did a pretty good job dismantling this, but let me go a little further.
Seannoss admits that this is the first AP he's played, and thus that he has no basis for comparison.But, oh noes, doesn't that disprove your assertion that these AP's are built for beginners and they should be fine?
Lets look at the original statement by Seannoss.
What magnus said. Although this is my first AP, until now I have designed my own adventures for...ummm... 30 years or so. This has helped me decide what I would change for other high level or mythic campaigns. But my experience, so far, with mythic is nothing I want to go through again.
So we have a thirty year player who has designed his own adventures for 30 years or so. Sounds like a beginner to me.
Honestly, are you even trying to form a coherent argument or are you just so eager to put it to the evil American that you are trying to jump on any point that might prop up your faltering case?
You redesign and adjust encounters, and they still get rofl-stomped? You must not be very good at it then. At a bare minimum, you ought to be able to provide a mirror encounter that has an equal chance of rofl-stomping their dopplegangers. On the other hand, I don't like encounters that either side just blows through, so I design them against that parameter.
What can I say, I still have some of that naive belief in me that the encounters, as designed by the writers, are actually supposed to represent an actual challenge. So, when I, as I did in the past, simply combine four of them into one, it should make for an epic fight. And it very often still doesn't. I've gotten better at divesting myself of the illusion that high-level AP encounters are actually challenging and have often gotten better at putting them together in a challenging way, but I also still get caught on the wrong foot.
My (admitted) inadequacies as an encounter designer aside, I still seem to able judge them better than the people who professionally write modules. Which makes me sad. In my defense, I am trying to working with the baseline we were given by them via the CR system and APL.
They have to do with baseline expectations, as was pointed out, fairly clearly by Peter. If the designers' characters look horrifically unoptimized at 4th level, that divergence will grow greater in high level. The bottom line is that the APs aren't written for even moderately optimized parties. And your idea of 'optimization' is not the same as that of the designers.
I think that is a wrong-headed assumption. Low-level characters often can and do look horribly unoptimized, because money is scarce and late-game abilities haven't kicked in. If we'd see 14th level versions of those characters (which were not built to combine classes which don't synergize well... after all I thought making single class characters attractive was one of the main goals of Pathfinder design?), most of those bad statistics will have disappeared.
Kain did a pretty good job dismantling this, but let me go a little further.
Seannoss admits that this is the first AP he's played, and thus that he has no basis for comparison.But, oh noes, doesn't that disprove your assertion that these AP's are built for beginners and they should be fine?Lets look at the original statement by Seannoss.
What magnus said. Although this is my first AP, until now I have designed my own adventures for...ummm... 30 years or so. This has helped me decide what I would change for other high level or mythic campaigns. But my experience, so far, with mythic is nothing I want to go through again.So we have a thirty year player who has designed his own adventures for 30 years or so. Sounds like a beginner to me.
Honestly, are you even trying to form a coherent argument or are you just so eager to put it to the evil American that you are trying to jump on any point that might prop up your faltering case?
Hm, yeah, I made a mistake here in not checking back to Seannoss original argument. However, you are invalidating your own argument at the same time here, Petey. If Sean has 30 years of experience, you calling him out on his lack of AP knowledge sounds kinda stupid, especially since he mainly is taking the Mythic system to task. Also, you being a self-avowed "evil American" has nothing to do with my argument, either, so I have no idea why you are bringing this up.
Hm, yeah, I made a mistake here in not checking back to Seannoss original argument. However, you are invalidating your own argument at the same time here, Petey. If Sean has 30 years of experience, you calling him out on his lack of AP knowledge sounds kinda stupid, especially since he mainly is taking the Mythic system to task.
Not really, given my argument is contingent on the idea that experienced or highly optimizing players will regularly stomp their way through APs which are designed for new players.
That he did so in this AP really says almost nothing, given that he is apparently a highly experienced player who usually plays custom campaigns and adventures, except that a highly experienced player can stomp their way through an AP (which we already knew).
What can I say, I still have some of that naive belief in me that the encounters, as designed by the writers, are actually supposed to represent an actual challenge. So, when I, as I did in the past, simply combine four of them into one, it should make for an epic fight. And it very often still doesn't. I've gotten better at divesting myself of the illusion that high-level AP encounters are actually challenging and have often gotten better at putting them together in a challenging way, but I also still get caught on the wrong foot.
They do represent an actual challenge, just not to your players. As I noted earlier, designers are faced with a conundrum in design because the player base is exceedingly fractured in terms of not only experience and tactical skill, but also optimization and focus in character building (RP vs. Tactical).
They cannot produce a single product that presents a challenge to novice or unoptimized parties while also doing so for highly optimized parties - not without printing every encounter twice. Given that the assumption is that more optimized parties likely have more experienced GMs and can thus adjust to meet their party's needs, the choice in where to set the bar (high or low) is very easy.
I for one agree with the choice, because it is much easier to scale up encounters or monsters than it is to scale them down.
My (admitted) inadequacies as an encounter designer aside, I still seem to able judge them better than the people who professionally write modules. Which makes me sad. In my defense, I am trying to working with the baseline we were given by them via the CR system and APL.
Of course you are able to judge encounter design for your players better than designers. By the same token my regular GMs are much better able to judge the strength of our parties than designers - which is why one has to rebuild pretty much every single encounter or challenge regardless of which adventure he is running for us and another will likely have to do so before long as well. It goes with the territory. If you want to run things out of the book or with marginal adjustments then you and your parties need to collectively agree to demilitarize as it were on the optimization front.
I think that is a wrong-headed assumption. Low-level characters often can and do look horribly unoptimized, because money is scarce and late-game abilities haven't kicked in. If we'd see 14th level versions of those characters (which were not built to combine classes which don't synergize well... after all I thought making single class characters attractive was one of the main goals of Pathfinder design?), most of those bad statistics will have disappeared.
Right, you see weak low level characters and assume they are building towards a specific mechanical goal that has simply yet to be actualized. The thing is, that isn't the case. This is not a circumstance in which their builds have simply yet to 'come online' as it were. This is how they build across the board, and how many casual or novice players build.
I know it's hard to believe, but many people don't plan their builds out five, ten, or fifteen levels in advance. Some build as they go. The Bard / Fighter is not an exception.
And just to make it again crystal-clear, I love Wrath of the Righteous storyline (aside from book three, half of which is kind of a disjointed mess). The problem is that the mythic rules are making the already difficult-to-balance high-level gaming even more unstable and difficult to get right. I seriously think that mythic has the potential to ruin this AP for a lot of groups, when it should, in terms of storyline, be in the top tier of AP's.
And just to make it again crystal-clear, I love Wrath of the Righteous storyline (aside from book three, half of which is kind of a disjointed mess). The problem is that the mythic rules are making the already difficult-to-balance high-level gaming even more unstable and difficult to get right. I seriously think that mythic has the potential to ruin this AP for a lot of groups, when it should, in terms of storyline, be in the top tier of AP's.
Which is a fine opinion to hold, but one I simply don't agree with - at least with regard to the root of the problem. As I said further up in the thread, different rational people can draw different conclusions on the same subject when the subject is inherently subjective and their experiences vary widely.
My opinion is that the problems start with character optimization and are exasperated by mythic which has a greater influence on optimized characters than it does on nominal characters in much the same way that high levels exasperate problems more than low level.
I suspect there are groups that have run through with few problems, and I suspect that in the absence of optimization many issues with combat difficulty start to fall away.
This isn't to say that the problems you faced aren't real or meaningful, but it is to say that they are not universal, and that the solutions that work for you may not work for others (or may be distasteful to others). I, for one, would rather rebuild every encounter than remove mythic, or play with 1d4 uses of mythic per day, or adopt many of the changes you have put forth. I suspect many others would feel the same way.
Whew...I get brought up often, I feel that I should answer.
I am the GM of this campaign, not a player. I would like to think that my years of experience help me roll with my players and what they can do, which I suppose it does to a point. I can challenge my players, they do fail at some of the quests. They have failed in one mythic trial.
What I dislike is the sensation of rocket tag and the exponential factors that mythic brings in. Mythic pretty much removes every other resource in the game and replaces it with mythic points.
I believe what we all have to adjust for is that APL and CR is not a linear scale as presented in the book. 4 above at level four is not the same as 4 above at level 10/3...as scorpion's blocks suggest. Now the game designer's need to go with that concept too.
The NPCs that you listed we all know are weaker than the average party (although +11 to hit at lvl 4 is very good...maybe you shouldn't have listed him) I have been playing for a long time and very, very few people will create random characters like that. Even completely new people will group their feats together to choose a theme; ex: archers take archer feats, high str characters take power attack. If that counts as an optimized character then things need to change.
... drawing from my remaining notes...
Lots of nice suggestions here, like the change to Mythic Saving Throws (which, as is, has been a real kill-joy in my sessions) and Mythic Hexes. And I like several of the "New Ability" suggestions too.
Did you (or your DM) have any thoughts about what to do with things like Mythic Rapid Shot, Mythic Multishot and Mythic Improved Critical? As a GM, these have been a real headache...
(Also curious on your take, if any, on things like Fleet Charge, Precision and Flexible Counterspell...)
As I mentioned above (when contemplating creating a new Mythic AP), here's a couple things to consider:
* Solo encounters need to have a huge influx of hit points, but a reduction in damage. The reason: you need a Mythic Solo Encounter to actually last long enough to seem epic, but the damage scale for Pathfinder (and D&D 3) is such that most monsters appropriate to a CR are too lethal if they last more than two rounds. Thus you want foes that last... and are able to hurt the party without killing them in one or two blows (unless those specific attacks are limited and have a recharge time).
* Other encounters need to be combined so to eliminate the advantage of action economy. One problem in the AP seems to be various mini-encounters that the party just steamrollers over. Having minions for sub-bosses helps reduce the chance of the sub-boss just dying quickly - unless of course the sub-boss has multiple actions that it spreads against everyone it fights.
One other thing to consider is how Criticals are handled. I've shifted to a different format: criticals are auto-confirmed but have reduced damage. A x2 critical does full damage. A x3 critical does full 1.5 times damage. A x4 critical does full double damage. And a x5 critical would thus do full 2.5 times damage.
The benefit is this speeds things along and also reduces the effect of a critical so while it's still potentially deadly, it doesn't result in 1,000 damage for one hit.