Mythic Playtest Sneak Peek

Odraude wrote:

Wolfthulhu wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

Interesting and all but it would be nice to see some previews for products that are coming out this month or next month.

Since the Mythic Playtest document will be released this month or next... that's exactly what this is.

This tentacle dog is correct.

Indeed.

::tentacle bump::
** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Do we even have butts?

I for one would love to be in this playtest

I for one would love to be in this playtest

And you will get a chance. Our playtests are open to all.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'm still trying to figure out the 20 xtra hp source. Maybe prime creature stat (STR 21 = +5) times CR in bonus hp???

Or not - just making guesses based on the presented stats.

I doubt it is something as complex as this. If the prime ability score bonus is involved then it would probably also involve MR. Unless it is simple prime ability bonus (or highest ability bonus) x 4.

Nice avatar Drejk

Thank you. I have to note that your Avatar is quite handsome too. It's nice to meet someone with such good taste.

It was mentioned in a seminar that hit points still go up with Mythic tier.

Patman wrote:

I for one would love to be in this playtest

And you will get a chance. Our playtests are open to all.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Unless you happen to not have party that you could convince to try it out.

Looks at calendar

Well, if the platest will be available in late September I could consider introducing first MR to my party. On the last session they had a premature combat with weak vestige of long dead deity of Earth, worms and decay which they survived. It certainly could constitute their first mythic deed.

A playtest in not a product so my statement is still valid.

I think I missed something here... but what is mythic actually supposed to be, this is the first post I've seen with it.. so I'm slightly confused as to this.

Is this supposed to be like epic level stuff?

I think I missed something here... but what is mythic actually supposed to be, this is the first post I've seen with it.. so I'm slightly confused as to this.

Is this supposed to be like epic level stuff?

Grollub,

This post should clear it up for you.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

In terms of camparative power, it would be good to see the stats alongside the standard minotaur - I realise I could go and get these, but it would be so much nicer to just see the differences right there in front of you; even if the changes are just bolded for ease.
I love the idea, and the fact that it adds a little something, in additon, to levels. Looking forward to the playtest

A playtest in not a product so my statement is still valid.

You're Wrong

prod·uct
   [prod-uhkt, -uhkt]
noun
1.
a thing produced by labor: products of farm and factory; the product of his thought.
2.
a person or thing produced by or resulting from a process, as a natural, social, or historical one; result: He is a product of his time.

It doesn't have to be a finished thing. A playtest is produced via labor, regardless of if it's an Alpha playtest, Beta, etc.

I'm still not convinced that this is a good idea. This sounds good on paper until someone tries to determine if the challenge is appropriate to a Level X party.

The minotaur has a CR 4 rating, which means it is an "average" difficulty to a Level 4 party. Yet it has the XP of a CR 6, which means it should be a "hard" difficulty. Why not just say Mythic is a template and increase the CR appropriately?

I get the idea that mythic should be a level-independent way of gaining new abilities, but there is already a system in place called "templates". If I want a tougher minotaur with cool abilities, I can add a template and be done with it.

-Perry

Just because I'm a trouble maker, I'm going to declare my minotaur's domain to be a hectogon with 100' sides. Might want to change it to say "designated one area (no greater than 100' x 100') as its personal domain"

Just because I'm a trouble maker, I'm going to declare my minotaur's domain to be a hectogon with 100' sides. Might want to change it to say "designated one area (no greater than 100' x 100') as its personal domain"

You don't even need that. Just make sure the outside walls of a structure are no longer than 100 ft and you're good. As long as the structure is built in such a fashion, it could be of any size.

Who knows, maybe with Mythic stuff, fighter might be able to have nice things! :D

One thing I noticed is that it has Spell Resistance. I personally think Spell Resistance should be kind of special. If every (mythic) creature has Spell Resistance, it is no longer special--and will make spell casting an even longer process.

But the oubliete and desmene mastery abilities are really sweet!

Since somebody asked to see the Mythic Minotaur and Standard Minotaur next to each other, I've done so, bolding where the Mythic Minotaur has changed.

MINOTAUR CR 4

XP 1,200
CE Large monstrous humanoid
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +10
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 9, flat-footed 14 (+5 natural, –1 size)
hp 45 (6d10+12)
Fort +6, Ref +5, Will +5
Defensive Abilities natural cunning
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee greataxe +9/+4 (3d6+6/×3) and gore +4 (1d6+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks powerful charge (gore +11, 2d6+6)
STATISTICS
Str 19, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +6; CMB +11; CMD 21
Feats Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack
Skills Intimidate +5, Perception +10, Stealth +2, Survival +10; Racial Modifiers +4 Perception, +4 Survival
Languages Giant
ECOLOGY
Environment temperate ruins or underground
Organization solitary, pair, or gang (3–4)
Treasure standard (greataxe, other treasure)
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Natural Cunning (Ex) Although minotaurs are not especially intelligent, they possess innate cunning and logical ability. This gives them immunity to maze spells and prevents them from ever becoming lost. Further, they are never caught flat-footed.

Mythic Minotaur CR 4/MR 2

XP 2,400
CE Large monstrous humanoid (mythic)
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +10

Defense

AC 16, touch 9, flat-footed 16 (+7 natural, –1 size)
hp 65 (6d10+32)
Fort +6, Ref +5, Will +5
Defensive Abilities natural cunning; DR 5/epic; SR 17

Offense

Speed 30 ft.
Melee greataxe +10/+5 (3d6+7/x3), gore +5 (1d6+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks mythic power (2/day, 1d6), oubliette, powerful charge (gore +15, 2d6+7), push (gore, 10 ft.)

Statistics

Str 21, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +6; CMB +12 (+14 bull rush); CMD 22
Feats Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack (mythic)
Skills Intimidate +5, Perception +10, Stealth +2, Survival +10; Racial Modifiers +4 Perception, +4 Survival
Languages Giant
SQ domain mastery

Environment

Environment temperate ruins or underground
Organization solitary
Treasure double (greataxe, other treasure)

Special Abilities

Domain Mastery (Su) A minotaur may designated one area (no greater than 100 feet on a side) as its personal domain (typically a maze or other confusing structure). As a move action, the minotaur can teleport from one point in its domain to any other point in its domain, as if using greater teleport. In addition, whenever the minotaur must make a saving throw while inside its domain, it can roll twice and take the better result. A minotaur can change its domain once per week.

Natural Cunning (Ex) Although minotaurs are not especially intelligent, they have innate cunning and logical ability. This gives them immunity to maze spells and prevents them from ever becoming lost. Further, they are never caught flat-footed.

Oubliette (Su) Whenever the minotaur hits a creature with its gore attack as part of a powerful charge, the target must succeed at a DC 15 Will save or be sent into an extradimensional prison, as per the maze spell but lasting for no more than 1d4+1 rounds. The saving throw is Wisdom-based and includes a +2 racial modifier.

giving even low-ish lvl monsters some epic ability.
Awesome.

I love it, it feels more like the monsters out of myths, where some greenhorn has to slay a monster that has godlike powers except for that one weakness.
This last part would be a good addition in my opinion. Build-in weaknesses to certain attacks, for example vorpal weapons could cut off a minotaurs head on a 19-20. As it's low lvl, noone cares, but once you see that lvl 20 wizard minotaur throwing meteors in your face, you might want remember this.

Hmm, I thought all Mythic creatures are supposed to have a Weakness. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but what is the Minotaurs Weakness?

I REALLY like the idea of mythic creatures having weaknesses! It doesn't have to be a big one - but just something you can exploit for that little advantage! :)

So, if it is "equivalent CR 6" I would really like it to say "CR 6 MR 2" instead.

I understand that Mythic rating is different than hit die or level, but not having CR be on the same scale as everything else seems bad.

Right now, the only use of CR in this game for me is as a general comparison of monster strength. I don't use it to create encounters (other than that general yardstick) and I don't use it to award XP. Diluting its use as a yardstick makes it kind of useless to me.

Of course, it could be that I just don't understand how it works yet. I look forward to finding out.

giving even low-ish lvl monsters some epic ability.

Awesome.

I love it, it feels more like the monsters out of myths, where some greenhorn has to slay a monster that has godlike powers except for that one weakness.
This last part would be a good addition in my opinion. Build-in weaknesses to certain attacks, for example vorpal weapons could cut off a minotaurs head on a 19-20. As it's low lvl, noone cares, but once you see that lvl 20 wizard minotaur throwing meteors in your face, you might want remember this.

But NOTHING cuts through minotaur horn...

of course it's got a weakness: right there in the defense part of the stat block where it says DR 5/epic

Epic weapons are its weakness.

Can I translate this blog post on an italian forum legally? Or is the blog covered by copyright..? Don't know.

Agreed on the "CR" usage -- from the line "CR 4/MR 2", and without the context of the base creature, looking at CR alone or adding CR to MR to determine the adjusted CR both look reasonable, so it's not obvious which one to use. I'd recommend something like "CR 6 (MR 2)", which shows the total CR, and the contribution from mythic, or perhaps "CR 6 (CR 4 + MR 2)", which spells it out explicitly. Since CR occupies its own line, this probably won't increase page counts with added words.
But, I could be misinterpreting the line altogether, and this suggestion may not make sense. In that case, that's another indicator a little built-in clarification (self-documentation?) would be useful.

I must disagree with Evil President and Stazamos. I prefer seeing CR of base creature and MR noted separately like it is now.

I would suggest that the domain ability be a radius rather than its current wording. Setting a radius is a well established method of defining an area in the game already.

I must disagree with Evil President and Stazamos. I prefer seeing CR of base creature and MR noted separately like it is now.

I don't really care how it's presented, as long as it's clear what's meant. If CR and MR add linearly, then make that clear. If not, then there needs to be some guideline for how they stack, if people want to use mythic monsters without mythic characters or vice versa.

I would suggest that the domain ability be a radius rather than its current wording. Setting a radius is a well established method of defining an area in the game already.

Minotaurs prefer squares. It is known.

I find it interesting that Paizo is sticking with DR/epic even though they doesn't seem to intend to create official support for epic rules in Pathfinder. I guess they're just sticking with that DR name since it is already used on a few monsters.

I wonder if there will be something in the mythic rules that allows the attacks of mythic characters to bypass epic DR without a +6 weapon enhancement?

Drejk wrote:

I must disagree with Evil President and Stazamos. I prefer seeing CR of base creature and MR noted separately like it is now.

I don't really care how it's presented, as long as it's clear what's meant. If CR and MR add linearly, then make that clear. If not, then there needs to be some guideline for how they stack, if people want to use mythic monsters without mythic characters or vice versa.

The way it's given now, all I can really say is that the Minotaur is probably an APL challenge for a Level 4, Tier 2 party.

I don't really like the distinction of CR and MR, I would just like the straight CR rating. Because one of the things I really like Mythic tiers is the ability to have 'normal' characters fight Mythic creatures. This minotaur a perfect example.

If my group is an APL of 6, is that going to be ok to fight this minotaur of CR 4/MR 2? Or should the party have 2 MR as well?

Please just make it clear the CR rating for the party is. And not a "more times than not, you can add the CR and MR together and get the CR for the creature" Please tell us straight out "this Mythic monster is a CR ___."

I don't really like the distinction of CR and MR, I would just like the straight CR rating. Because one of the things I really like Mythic tiers is the ability to have 'normal' characters fight Mythic creatures. This minotaur a perfect example.

If my group is an APL of 6, is that going to be ok to fight this minotaur of CR 4/MR 2? Or should the party have 2 MR as well?

Please just make it clear the CR rating for the party is. And not a "more times than not, you can add the CR and MR together and get the CR for the creature" Please tell us straight out "this Mythic monster is a CR ___."

This kind of question is likely impossible to answer, and most certainly subject to change, until after at least the playtest rules are finalized.

The developers may decide MR 1 is worth +2 CR and all further MR increases are worth +1 CR. Alternatively, all MR might work out to be +2 CR. Alternatively, the CR increase might be 150% of the creatures MR. Until the rules are finalized, or at least stable, the balance of MR vs. CR and balance in general can not be estimated.

I believe it has stated each +1 MR is intended to be +1 CR, but I doubt you will get a definitive answer until the developers have a solid and stable set of rules complete (i.e. the playtest).

EDIT: had to grammar nazi myself...

And that's fine with me. It would be convenient if we had the information for the playtest, but I know it's a work in progress. I was more referring to the final product.

One thing I noticed is that it has Spell Resistance. I personally think Spell Resistance should be kind of special. If every (mythic) creature has Spell Resistance, it is no longer special--and will make spell casting an even longer process.

And if mythic monsters DON'T have SR, then it's easier for spellcasters to defeat a mythic monster than it is for a melee character to defeat a mythic monster.

I don't really like the distinction of CR and MR, I would just like the straight CR rating. Because one of the things I really like Mythic tiers is the ability to have 'normal' characters fight Mythic creatures. This minotaur a perfect example.

If my group is an APL of 6, is that going to be ok to fight this minotaur of CR 4/MR 2? Or should the party have 2 MR as well?

Please just make it clear the CR rating for the party is. And not a "more times than not, you can add the CR and MR together and get the CR for the creature" Please tell us straight out "this Mythic monster is a CR ___."

Yes, that's what I wanted to say too.

Like I said, I barely use CR, but it is presently a great tool for when I first read a book and I want to see where the monsters "fit" in terms of power.

When you add a template, you don't say "CR 4 TR 2" when you mean CR 6.

What I'm seeing here would confuse that, at least... But I confess I don't really understand it yet, nor why they chose to do it this way. That would be a great thing to clarify in a future teaser blog, please.

Hey there folks,

In our current line of thinking, your Mythic Rating (MR) adds directly to your CR to determine the creature's overall challenge. We are keeping them split for the moment just so that it is clear in our documents where they stand, but they might very well be presented differently in the final book. My current thoughts lean quite toward the CR 6 (MR 2) methodology, but we will see how it goes.

Understand that you will be seeing these rules at a much earlier point in their process than you ever have before with any of our other playtests. As a result, there are going to be a lot of changes in the process, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, assuming everyone goes into it with this knowledge.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Understood! Thank you very much for answering.

Everything else looks really cool, that was only one thing potentially problematic.

At the end of the day, I need one number to compare strengths, even if it is only approximate (and we all know HD won't do it anymore).

giving even low-ish lvl monsters some epic ability.

Awesome.

I love it, it feels more like the monsters out of myths, where some greenhorn has to slay a monster that has godlike powers except for that one weakness.
This last part would be a good addition in my opinion. Build-in weaknesses to certain attacks, for example vorpal weapons could cut off a minotaurs head on a 19-20. As it's low lvl, noone cares, but once you see that lvl 20 wizard minotaur throwing meteors in your face, you might want remember this.

I also like the built in weakness mechanism, however I think the MR value should add a bonus to the weakness to signify the tougher aspects of the Mythic creature.

For example for every MR tier the (weakness) lessens or gains a +1 to one base defensive ability.

Using the Minotaur example above the MR 2 would add +2 either to the DR 5 / epic or the SR 17.

Building in progressive weaknesses, to my thinking at least, just fits right!

Not sure if we really need to build weaknesses against mythic monsters. At least, even if they have weaknesses, these weaknesses shouldn't make them easier to kill than their non-mythic counterparts.

SmiloDan wrote:

One thing I noticed is that it has Spell Resistance. I personally think Spell Resistance should be kind of special. If every (mythic) creature has Spell Resistance, it is no longer special--and will make spell casting an even longer process.

And if mythic monsters DON'T have SR, then it's easier for spellcasters to defeat a mythic monster than it is for a melee character to defeat a mythic monster.

The question I guess is are we extrapolating too much from a single entry, will all Mythic Creatures have SR, or is SR one of the attributes that a mythic creature might have to increase its toughness for spell casters. Another way to raise the challenge for spell casters is with better saves, resistance to certain kinds of effects, or even secondary saving throws to remove an effect.

What I like the most are the unique abilities, the Domain Mastery and Oubliette. Is DR/ Epic gonna be standard for mythic monsters? Also, I don't mind Mythic Monsters having resistance to magic, but can it be something more unique than SR? Like (to take the most powerful example) the Tarrasque's carapace ability? I'm just afraid that SR becoming a gauging point for players on whether or not a monster is mythic. ("That pugwampi has Spell Resistance! He must be Mythic!") I'm just worried about Mythic feeling too much like a template and not enough like a "unique amongst its kind" type of monster.

I'm digging what im seeing!

Question: how many options will there be for mythic monsters? Like, could you build other, substantially different mythic minotaurs? Or are there just a few abilities that really fit them? Also, some monsters I'd like to see variants for: vampires, hydras, lion (Nemean!), medusa, nightshades, Dopplegangers, genies, and liches. Just to name a few. ;)

Can I translate this blog post on an italian forum legally? Or is the blog covered by copyright..? Don't know.

Our Community Use Policy tells you how you can reuse our blog content.

Also, I don't mind Mythic Monsters having resistance to magic, but can it be something more unique than SR? Like (to take the most powerful example) the Tarrasque's carapace ability? I'm just afraid that SR becoming a gauging point for players on whether or not a monster is mythic.

One point of doing mythic rules this way is to avoid adding more complexity. SR is a familiar ability and doesn't require additional rules to explain it.

In the same way that this minotaur has DR: a familiar ability that doesn't require additional rules to explain it.

That's fair. You're probably already introducing a host of new abilities in this, so I can understand about trying not to do too many. Now, I'm really curious to see what other new abilities will be present on other Mythic monsters...

Not sure if we really need to build weaknesses against mythic monsters. At least, even if they have weaknesses, these weaknesses shouldn't make them easier to kill than their non-mythic counterparts.

I just had a thought - what if the mythic weaknesses only did something like turn off a creature's mythic abilities? So for example the minotaur above might be weak to cold so if it took damage from a cold attack it would lose the use if its Oubliette and Domain Mastery abilities for 1d4 rounds.

Pretty much every creature of CR 13 or higher (excluding animals) has SR or magic immunity. It's not much of a change to assume that everything you meet will have SR, after a certain point.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. It's just not new.

Not sure if we really need to build weaknesses against mythic monsters. At least, even if they have weaknesses, these weaknesses shouldn't make them easier to kill than their non-mythic counterparts.

Bolded for emphasis, Agree with this sentiment!

Think clash of the titans, original version not the remake, Perseus required Medusa's head to defeat the Kraken.

What was Medusa's weakness? Her own petrification gaze! A mirror! Vanity?

Just because it's a weakness doesn't mean it's an easily overcome weakness!

I like what I see so far, looking forward to the playtest.

Think Clash of the Titans, original version not the remake, Perseus required Medusa's head to defeat the Kraken.

I'm guessing that an epic weapon will require a similarly dangerous quest, Curse of the Crimson Throne had one, so damage resistance shouldn't detract from mythicness.

Unless it does, but that's to determine in the playtest. Which I want now. So I can stat Sorshen.