|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I say talk to your players and find out what kind of game they want. Sounds like they want a game where every encounter is maxed out - like a table-top miniatures game where the "winner" is the the side where everyone died except one guy. If that's the case, give it to them.
I'd start out by upping the CR of every encounter by at least 4. See how that goes and how often you kill someone. You'll want a PC death every 2-4 encounters or so. Also make sure to throw in an encounter with CR = APL + 10-ish to make them run away every once in a while. Naturally, the monster should give chase until he gets a treat (aka PC death).
This isn't my preferred style of playing (been there, done that). But some people really enjoy it. Maybe your group does too?
I've been using Revised Action Economy in my games for about a year and will continue using it. We play once a week. I think it is a far better system than the standard action economy and would be a great fit for any game.
But (and this is one *huge* but), it requires either:
1. High amounts of GM adjudication that will greatly influence game balance (can you say "massive table variation"?)
2. Revisiting many (most?) existing PF rules (spells, feats, abilities, etc.) and "converting" them to RAE.
Sadly, I think in order for Paizo to properly implement RAE, they would have to write an entirely new edition of the game.
I think Background Skills and Loyalties (Removing Alignment) are great choices. I also like Automatic Bonus Progression, although I think it could be improved to allow more flexibility.
I start out with restricting things to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game resources (Core, APG, ARG, ACG, the Ultimates). Then I restrict it further based on the flavor of the campaign/setting, if necessary. The optional stuff (Words of Power, piecemeal armor, race builder) is restricted as are a few easily abused rules (Leadership, etc).
I'll consider other rules on a case-by-case basis. But my typical answer is "Denied. Resubmit in 30 days for final disapproval." Most of the time, the request is for something ridiculously game breaking (Ancient Red Dragon for race at 1st level). If it is a flavor-based request (I've yet to see one), I'm inclined to allow it.
My criteria is trying to strike a balance between having plenty of player options and yet keeping the rule set contained and "balanced".
Just be glad the GM was running your character. I've been in many games where being absent meant that one of the other PCs ran your character, usually as a crash test dummy. It was rare that a character survived a missed session.
I've run a number of published games with just one player and have tried several solutions (gestalt, high point buy, mythic). The only one that has worked out over time is having the PC play two characters and then have two NPC "side kicks" that the GM plays. Trying to make a party of four without four characters always has a shortcoming that is likely to become an issue - often it is action economy. Just make sure that the two NPCs are really NPCs and not GMPCs. Otherwise you end up making decisions and directing the story.
I think it strikes a nice balance as you have a full party of four and the PC only has to play two characters. More than two can be overwhelming and starts to strain roleplay. Do yourself a favor as GM and make the NPCs easy to play so you don't get overwhelmed.
If the group is for it, give it a go.
However, I'd have a few mechanical concerns if playing an AP. I'm picturing Serpent's Skull Book 1 with all 14 Str characters and those lovely DC 20+ climb and swim checks at level 1-3. Party diversity (actually being significantly different mechanically) is a big strength and generally assumed in many APs - just look at some of the skill DCs. Or some of the animated objects with hardness 10 thrown at low level parties. The writers are hoping/assuming someone in the group is exceptional in a particular area. Being exceptional gives the player a moment in the spotlight. No diversity means every member of the party will be competing with each other.
On the other hand, one upside to a flat stat array is that everyone will be super, which means no one is. Oh, wait...that's not an upside. D'oh.
I attended a local GM conference that covered this very topic. The presenter did a great job of explaining how it gets to be this way and how to prevent it. Hopefully, I can do it justice.
He read a number of passages from the original Aladdin story. Aladdin and his mom were making some pretty crazy wishes. Stuff like wanting a feast with all the best foods, with no mess to clean up, not feeling stuffed when they over ate, and not getting fat. The genie gave it to them, based on the spirit of what they said. No word-smithing or tricks. The point being, what players often ask for (or want to ask for) is in keeping with the original wish story.
The ultimate problem is that wish is likely to change the game - the game that the GM and players originally agreed upon. "I wish I am king" said in just about any game is going to change that game from "The adventures of misfit murder hobos" to "The adventures of the king and his misfit murder hobos". The "proper" way to handle this kind of thing would be to have a group discussion about the impact and decide if that is where everyone wants the game to go. If so, long live the king! If not, maybe that wish doesn't get made. And hopefully, a greater discussion about why someone wanted that in the first place takes place, with a solution that meets whatever need that wish represents.
What I just described is pretty advanced gaming. The simpler (and more destructive) way is to start restricting wish rather than say "I don't want the game to change. I like it how it is now". Which leads to word-smithing, tricks, mistrust, etc. All things that make a wish no fun to use and/or eventually ends the game.
I don't use save or die. Save or suck is fair game.
I also don't throw any of the monsters that have effects the PCs cannot reasonably get rid of by themselves at their level. Wights (CR 3) are a great example. Put one up against a 3rd level party and the party will be stuck with level drain for another 4 levels.
I do not throw thematically inappropriate monsters at the party either, no matter what kind of challenge they present. No white dragons while exploring the lava tunnels of the active volcano, etc.
As for the actual players, local laws prohibit me from throwing anything at them, no matter how much I'd love to throw a hammer at some of them.
I've played in many different types of groups and never actually had a TPK as a GM or as a player. Having said that, I've *almost* had several TPKs that I was either fighting for or fighting against, depending on the group.
One group I played with treated the game like a table-top combat simulator. This was at level 8+, where death is just an inconvenience. At one game session, one of the players asked with great surprise to another player: "Your character has a name?!?". If there wasn't a character death each session, I took it as a failure on my part as a GM (and so did the players). I did limit myself to CR = APL+3 with no dice fudging and there were several encounters where I was hoping the TPK would come, but it didn't. Sigh.
Most of my experiences, and my preferred style of gaming is the opposite of that - story driven and almost always E6, so death is real. Having a TPK is usually a nightmare as it is very difficult to insert a brand new party into the story, especially if you are somewhere in the middle. In this style of game, the main issues is not "will the PCs succeed" but rather "how will they succeed". So, I fudge dice, change monster tactics, and even make in-game suggestions to avoid a TPK or even a PC death. Luckily, I haven't had to do anything overly obvious to the players.
However, when it comes to the final battle, I treat it like the previous gaming style (dice rolled in open, no fudging, etc.) and what happens, happens. But the story is over at that point.
It all depends on the type of game.
I think when the situation calls for it, refusing to heal in combat is a terrible tactical decision and a bit of a jerk move. If the party has done their job and hasn't been stricken with horrible luck, the situation should never come up. But "Plan D" happens from time to time.
Having a party member whose primary function in combat is to heal hps is a terrible, inefficient tactic that encourages putting the game balance on even more of a razor's edge. It is similar to spamming haste. It ups the party's power level (staying power, in the case of healing), which encourages the GM to increase the challenge level. That's all great until you face one encounter too many - a likely prospect unless the GM allows the 15 min adventuring day. The game becomes a few "speed bumps" followed by a TPK.
TL;DR - Combat healing: good in emergencies, bad as a tactic.
Something that I use that has been very effective is allowing one yes-no question for every 5 they beat the DC. The PC can ask anything they want provided it is a yes-no question. This has had a two-fold benefit: It severely limits the possibility of abusing the information (yes-no is extremely limiting) and it makes having a high Knowledge skill very useful.
However, it sounds like you've gotten some great advice already.
Freehold DM wrote:
They don't have or need synchronization tech. They have storm troopers shooting. There is absolutely 0% chance they will hit anything, including the wings of their own TIE fighters./snark
I saw the movie in both 3D and 2D, and enjoyed both. I didn't see much that really showcased 3D. Personally, unless it is animated, I prefer 2D.
Having fooled with this quite a bit over the years, I can tell you that you have only two real choices:
1. Implement something that mimics the current system, like the automatic bonus progression in unchained - I use something similar that is home brewed. No big 6 items, but the PCs get the bonuses from somewhere else.
2. Rebalance everything, which means writing your own game (and every monster) from scratch. I don't recommend this.
Anything else will result in an unbalanced game that will eventually fall apart. The problem is that the power curve is rather steep and being a few +1's behind means rarely scoring a hit. The farther behind a PC falls, the worse it gets.
If your changes give the PCs the bonuses they need, you are all set. Otherwise, not so much...
<grognard>You give them levels?!? If you are going to be True Old School (TM), you give them saves vs. death and rocks (that fall and then everyone dies). What's next? Not keeping track of how often a weapon is cleaned and sharpened?
The power curve in Pathfinder is rather steep. Any size party will feel the effects of a monster that is too far away from the party's level. There are also the "break points" at certain CRs, where new abilities are introduced (flying, negative levels, etc.) If your players are too far below in levels, they will not be able to deal with the new ability.
So, your large party warrants a +2 APL in the encounter budget. However no monster should be more 2 CRs away (above or below) from the party level (not APL), especially at low levels. A tough 1st level encounter should be CR 4, probably a CR 2 monster with three CR 1/2s. A CR 3 monster is risky at first level as is a pair of CR 2s. By 3rd level, you can start to throw CR 5 monsters at them.
You could tell your players to stop metagaming. When a skeleton shows up, a non-metagaming player has to make a Knowledge (religion) skill check to *possibly* learn that the skeleton has DR/Bludgeoning. If they don't learn the information, they have to use trial and error to figure out how to overcome the DR.
If you decide to allow your players to continue metagaming, any published information is likely to be used by them to further metagame. That means custom monsters build by you (lots of work) is really the only thing they won't possibly know in advance. You can cut the work down by only changing the signature abilities of Bestiary monsters: Skeletons with DR/Slashing, etc.
Personally, I'd recommend a "no metagaming" policy.
It really comes down to the kind of game you want to have. This particular example makes it easier than the often-seen "My players worked together and did everything right, but luck was against them. Do I TPK or fudge rolls?"
In this case, they split the party (dumb-dumb-dumb, dumb-dumb). So, consequences or not? There is no "right" answer. But whatever you decide, it will set the tone for the rest of the game and mold your players' choices.
I prefer a consequences-based game. I've played in a game with very few consequences and it was not my idea of fun - others in the game loved it. So, I'd kill the ranger and have the kobolds string up his body in front of their lair as a trophy/warning to others. Maybe put his head on a pike. Kobolds in my games are little bastards that way.
Here's how I've ended up handling knowledge checks:
If you can attempt the check (have ranks), you automatically get the creature's name, type, and subtypes, including any information associated with type or subtype. At 10+CR and every 5 above that, you get some useless fluff from the bestiary entry - great for flavor.
At every 5 above, you also get one yes/no question (max 3 questions). It can be any yes/no question about the creature. "AC over 25?" "No". "SR?" "Yes". "has Combat Reflexes?" "No".
Alignment gets handled slightly different. If you ask about alignment, you get an answer for the generic creature. Ask "is it evil?" about a NG goblin, and the answer is "yes, goblins tend to be evil".
I've found it keeps the monster knowledge aspect very relevant without giving the PCs too much info. It also means I don't have to get into the business of picking what info to reveal based on the party composition. Reveal too little that's relevant and the PCs deem monster knowledge to be a wasted effort. Reveal too much and the monsters become push overs.
I've been using it for years and it works pretty good.
I agree with everyone else.
But they really didn't answer your question. So here's what you do: Go find a high level cleric or oracle (the higher level, the better). Get yourself a scythe. Have the cleric/oracle cast hold person on your "friend's" character. Then coup de gras.
Once you have that out of your system, you can find some people worth playing with where you can explore the more interesting aspects of the game besides killing each other.
David knott 242 wrote:
And if the originator of this thread is unfamiliar with the "Big Six", it is likely that his players have ACs that are too low. Note that several of these items boost AC, namely the magic armor, magic shield, ring of protection, and amulet of natural armor. A belt of dexterity could also help with AC for characters who wear light or no armor and focus on that stat ahead of strength or constitution.
I agree. There is an entire calculus to optimizing your WBL. The CR system is expecting PCs to use the calculus for the most part. Using it will cause PCs to get hit less often, fail fewer saves, hit more often, and do more damage. I'd argue the offensive side helps with healing more than the defensive side - you should still have both.
D6Veteran: The specific calculus varies from build to build, but goes something like this for AC:
Incremental cost of magic armor and shield = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9k gp
You buy the cheapest incremental costs first, maximizing your AC/gold, resulting the a sequence like this:
+1 armor, +1 shield, +1 ring, +1 amulet, +2 armor, +2 shield, +2 belt, +3 armor, +3 shield, +2 ring.
That being said, I wouldn't bring any of this up to your players. Be happy they are playing and having fun. As GM, you can make adjustments and toss in the right magic items to "make things right" (a +3 weapon for the +5 armor/shield people).
Isn't the summon eidolon spell supposed to take care of these situations? The "oops, I don't have my eidolon with me right now and this fight won't last 10 rounds..." 2nd level spell, one round casting time and you get your eidolon for 1 minute/level.
I'm surprised a method for speeding up the summoning process exists at all since it eliminates the need for the spell and one of the few balancing aspect of the class. *shrug*
The main 4 classes I want to see under this new system would be Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, and Investigator. All of them have a good amount of swift actions to use, and they would help me ultimately decide if its alright to allow more than 1 swift action per turn. I know how the new system works in my head, but I want to see it laid out in practice.
I've got an Inquisitor in my group that uses RAE. Being able to take more than one swift action per turn works just fine (seems balanced). Giving up additional attacks really hurts and often the Inquisitor (ranged) opts to keep 2 of the 3 actions for attacking. But sometimes not, and piles on the self-buffs.
Something worth noting is that I have adopted the houserule that some swift actions are now a free action once per round; specifically swift actions with a one round duration (ki for additional attack, etc.) and swift actions that are a "speed up" (action was a move then becomes swift). Without that houserule, many classes that rely heavily on swift actions take a serious beating with the nerf bat. So my "seems balanced" eval is with that houserule in place.
I've since ditched XP too. And I really didn't mind the book 6 by-pass. At that point in any adventure, it is "go time". I find it anticlimactic to wander around exploring and taking in the local flavor when the BBEG must die. But that's just me.
Sure. Putting it in a spoiler since it isn't on topic
My RAE adjustments:
Disabled: A disabled character can commit a single action (requiring up to 2 acts to perform) each turn. A disabled character moves at half speed. Taking an action with the Move subtype or no subtype doesn't risk further injury, but performing any Complex or Attack action (or any other action the GM deems strenuous, including some Simple actions such as Cast a Swift Spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act.
Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures can commit a single action (requiring up to 2 acts to perform) each turn and are unable to attack, cast spells (including swift spells), concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention (no Complex or Attack actions). The creature can only take an action with the Move subtype or no subtype.
Staggered: A staggered character can commit a single action (requiring up to 2 acts to perform) each turn. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
Some Swift Actions Are Once Per Round Free Actions: A swift action that are supposed to be faster versions of an action that is already a simple action are free actions usable once per round. Swift actions that are part of a 1 round effect (ki point for an additional attack, etc.) are free actions usable once per round.
Flurry of Blows (Unchained Monk): At 1st level, an unchained monk gains an additional act that can only be used to make a Simple Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon. At 11th level, an unchained monk gain another additional act that can only be used to make a Simple Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon. These additional Simple Attack actions do not suffer subsequent attack penalties or count towards subsequent attack penalties for other Simple Attack actions. These additional attacks stack with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects.
Flyby Attack: When flying, the creature can take the rest of its actions at any point during a Move Simple action. The creature cannot take additional Move actions during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a Charge, it can make all its natural attacks (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability) as a Simple Attack action following the Charge.
Ranged Combat: If you have the Rapid Shot feat, you can make two ranged attack rolls with a –2 penalty on your first ranged Simple Attack action during a turn. If you have the Manyshot feat, you can make two ranged attack rolls on both the first and second ranged Simple Attack actions taken during your furn; both of the attacks made on the first Attack action are made at a –2 penalty, and both of the attacks made on the second Attack action are made at a –7 penalty.
Spring Attack: Using Spring Attack is an Advanced Attack Move action requiring 2 acts.
Make All Natural Attacks: The creature can also take one Step as a free action. The Step can be taken before, between, or after the natural attacks.
I have others adjustments for Mythic, but boil down to Mythic stuff is once per round as a free action with a few restrictions.
There is nothing in the wording that requires making an attack. However, there are many aspects of RAE that are "rough around the edges" and require addition adjudication (or not).
Personally, I'd rule that you can fight defensively as a free action at the start of your turn as long as you make at least one Attack Action during your turn. That would be consistent with how fighting defensively works in Core. And it makes common sense - you have to fight to fight defensively.
Took about six to seven months, playing every week for 5-6 hours per session. Didn't miss many sessions (maybe 2 or 3 total) and there wasn't much side tracking or lengthy discussions. Book 5 was a bit of a problem as the party went straight for the info (by pure dumb luck) and had to trudge through the rest of the book to get enough xp to "move on". They by-passed much of the "filler" in book 6.
When you put a raised highway that leads straight to the BBEG, expect the PCs to drive right past and ignore any off ramps.
The final battle was pretty epic, though.
Murderhobo answer: Nuke it (from orbit). It's the only way to be sure... Then scrape the gold filigree off the walls.
Serious response: I would explode the nuke. Kill 100k to save an entire world? That's a no-brainer for me.
My group has quite a few standing house rules:
E6 - High level play got too crazy for us.
Heroic Bonuses - A level-based point system designed to eliminate big-6 magic items and the "magic mart". Similar to Unchained's Automatic Bonuses, but more flexible.
Strain-Injury - An alternate healing mechanic designed to eliminate the need for "heal sticks".
Unchained Background Skills
Unchained Revised Action Economy - with a number of additions to make the rules fully functional (address Disabled, Nauseated, Staggered, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Flyby Attack, etc.)
Unchained Poison and Disease
Modified Environmental Rules - An attempt to make the environmental effects more relevant while reducing the number of saves to a more manageable level. We're still testing this one.
No coin weight
From time to time, a few rules are modified, usually to make a character concept work. Stuff like smoothing over the whip/scorpion whip rules for the Bard and eliminating the need for Ranged Study so an Investigator with a bow doesn't entirely suck.
The divide isn't monsters/PCs but rather natural attacks/manufactured weapons. Monster tend to use natural and PCs manufactured, but there are plenty of exceptions. There doesn't need to be a change to natural attacks - I assumed there would be. But change them or not, either way there is likely to be an impact.
Leaving natural attacks "as is" gives all manufactured weapon creatures (monsters and PCs) a buff over the natural attack creatures - one can move and make multiple attacks, the other can't (assuming no feats/special abilities). Druid, Hunter, Ranger, Summoner, and natural attack based characters will all take a hit.
Changing natural attacks, depending on how it is done, gives creatures with many natural attacks a buff over those with only one attack.
It is a lot to think about.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
I'm well aware of the rules as are my players. I agree that RAE charge is useful in those circumstances. The problem is that straight line to target and more than a move away just doesn't come up at our table. Increased mobility across the board has made it easier to block the straight line aspect usually with terrain of some kind. The common tactic that disappeared was charging from within one move away to get a +2. Prior to getting iterative attacks, that's all I saw melee PCs do. Not anymore.
One thing you may not have considered is how this impacts monsters with lots of natural attacks. You'll essentially be giving everything Pounce. Some creatures will suddenly get more deadly. By the same token, some will get nerfed.
I've switched to the Unchained revised action economy and have seen a number of changes that I wouldn't have predicted. For example, charging is obsolete. Also, with more maneuverability, I saw a big change in tactics. And with that, monsters with feat choices that aren't effective any more. I think your change will have a similar effect.
I also use HeroLab, so tracking it is easy. However, until WBL hits a point where haversacks and/or bags are easily affordable, encumbrance can have a huge impact. Not tracking it at all gives most non-Strength focused characters a pretty big advantage.
I completely agree with you. Teamwork feats CAN be used by GMs to wreck parties/make encounters tougher/more interesting and when used correctly, they can be a great tool on either side of the table. My point was that GMs don't NEED teamwork feats to wreck parties (GMs have far more effective methods). And I'm pretty sure the Devs didn't invent them to give GMs a way to wreck parties.
Teamwork feats are situational. That doesn't make them bad, but it does mean they won't be overly popular.
GM's don't need tools to wreck parties - Cthulhu arrives (or rocks fall), everyone dies... Or crank the CR up to 25 and keep adding monsters until the PCs die.
Teamwork feats are awesome, IF you can get them for "cheap" or "free": Inquisitor, cavalier, or using a non-PC (eidolon, familiar, hireling, cohort, etc.)
BigNorseWolf hit it on the head. Teamwork feats generally cost double for the benefit. They sometimes cost even more since one member of the "team" is only taking the feat to benefit someone else and they could have used that feat slot for something else. Outflank really helps the rogue, but the fighter who takes it often needs more "to hit" like they need more negative levels (not at all).
Another factor is the "fun" element. Many people don't find it fun to play a character whose sole capability is to stand in X place to make someone else a rock star.
I think these are some of the reasons people don't take teamwork feats.
I generally don't care what race players pick and I like seeing a diverse group as it makes things interesting. However, overly powerful races (Drow Noble & friends) and outright monsters are not allowed as they tend to marginalize other players. I had a player that seriously wanted to play an ancient red dragon for a game starting at first level. Ummm, NO.
What I also don't allow that many players frequently ask for and get very upset when I say no, is playing the "enemy" race. BBEG is an Orc, they want Orc. Fighting goblins, they want goblin. And not a reformed member of the group - that could be interesting. They insist on being the BBEG's right hand man.
It goes beyond race, too. Playing Star Wars, they want to play Gandalf. Playing Pathfinder, they want Jedi with a light saber. Frankly, I don't get it.
1. Legacy of Fire - ran it with Mythic and fixed a few things, but great story.
I'm prepping Mummy's Mask now, which looks very promising. We'll see how it stands up to actual play.
Weapon Blanch (UE pg 105) allows a very cheap way for an archer to get silver, cold iron, and adamantine arrows (10 gp per arrow max). That leaves the archer only slashing, alignment, epic, and - to get hosed by, unless I'm forgetting a DR type. The last three are difficult for most characters to overcome. Granted, oil of align weapon allows melee types to overcome the alignment DR, but it costs the actions to draw and apply it (ouch). I think in the end DR is pretty much a wash for the different combat styles.
I agree 100% with the above.
OP - Here's a great test for whatever changes you are planning to make: Build a fighter with a bow using the changes. Then build a bard with a bow using the changes. The bard should still be viable as a scondary damage dealer.
I think the decision on how much to nerf archery really depends on your group's level of optimization. At a bare minimum, as GM you MUST enforce all of the rules, especially cover and concealment. Also, play the monsters smart - once the arrows start flying, even the dumbest of creatures will take cover.
When I was playing with some pretty heavy optimizers, I found that getting rid of Many Shot was just enough to keep things balanced. I could see adding more feats to the "ban list" if your group is more "normal".
Another consideration is getting rid of Clustered Shots, especially if the archer is NOT the sole damage dealer for the group.
Whatever you decide to do, beware of making archery a sub-par fighting style by banning too much. If you make archery too weak, nobody will select it and you might as well have said "no archery."
I recently started using Strain/injury and there is no going back for me and my group. It is a simply brilliant system. 1000 kudos to MythicEvilLincoln!
I've also been using the new poison rules from Pathfinder Unchained and treating the initial poison hit point damage as injury. It works quite nicely, but I could certainly see treating it as strain.
In my home games I let players pick, but generally require both stats to be in the range of possible values for the race. If a player came to me wanting to pick values outside the range, like the previous Asimar situation, I'd consider allowing it based on the reason. Short halfling Asimar would be fine by me.
I've had players (yes, more than one) pick 9-foot tall humans, claim the character was Large and therefore gained the size increase ability adjustments from the Bestiary (+8 Str, +4 Con, -2 Dex, +2 Nat Armor). Sorry, no. You try that and I'll force rolling in front of me using my dice, and you get whatever you roll.
I've been playing with the Revised Action Economy exclusively for several months. It will require some additional adjudication from time to time, beyond what you are planning. There are some things that just aren't covered.
Making a Step a free action without other limits (like once per round) is going to make the game crazy mobile and essentially eliminate all AoOs. As written, the Step makes AoOs a very rare sight.
Getting rid of the -5 penalty for each additional attack will make the game very deadly, even at 8th level. That means 5 attacks per turn at full BAB by a TWF, 6 with Haste. All arrows from an Archer will be at full BAB. Monsters with one big attack will get to use it three times per turn at full BAB. Better get a supply of body bags.
If you haven't played with the Revised Action Economy, I would recommend trying it "as is" (as few modifications as necessary) first. It really is a new paradigm with lots of hidden effects.
Having said all that, I think RAE is a brilliant concept and worth using.
The story screams mythic from the outset. I converted the entire AP to E6 with mythic (5 total tiers) and it was a blast - one of the best game ever. I did roughly one mythic trial per book. I'd probably stick to the same format with 1-15 levels since mythic can get out of hand with more tiers. The lesson I learned was fewer mythic tiers tends to be better than more. Five tiers was too many for an E6 game that ended at roughly APL 10, despite what Mythic Adventures says.
As for when to include mythic, I agree that mold speaker or an alternative is the right time for initial ascension. After that, key monsters should be the mythic trials. There are several that stick out, especially with some of the set pieces. I'd shoot for one or two trials per book at key moments.
I included Legendary weapons as well, which fit very nicely with the story. I say go for it and have fun with it. You'll have to boost many of the encounters, but it is worth the work. Genies require a mythic group of PCs to rise to the challenge.
I have to agree with Metal Sonic.
The feat encourages all party members to get involved (not likely) and for each one to take entirely different teamwork feats with no overlap (even less likely). The fewer party members involved and greater number of duplicate teamwork feats, the less benefit from Team Coordination. That is not a good thing.
I'd have it provide some kind of partial benefit to the PC taking the feat. An interesting side effect is that party members could directly benefit from an inquisitor's feats and their ability to switch up the most recent one.
You may not even need to show the players a basic overview of Valetta. Just the relevant portions that the players will initially interact with. Like the West Side Story example, just the Jets neighborhood and the Sharks neighborhood. Not the USA, not NY state, not NY City, not even the West Side of the city.
As for ethnic groups and races, you are on the right track. Use the classic bar scene in Star Wars as a guide. We get to see that there is a very diverse collection of races, yet we learn nothing about any of them (one doesn't like Luke - not exactly a defining racial trait). Later we learn about the Wookie (violent sore loser) and whatever Jaba the Hut is in the remastered version. Again, only the bare minimum that is necessary.
Save the rest of the info for when the players get there.
Looking at the Fighter's Fork, the switching capability costs a bit less than a +1 equivalent. I'd recommend making an always-on "true reach" ability (reach+adjacent) that costs the same as a +1 equivalent and doesn't stack with similar effects. Something like:
Extending: This ability can only be placed on melee weapons. An extending weapon is able to create a phantom extension or contraction of itself as needed. When applied to a weapon without the reach quality, the weapon gains the reach quality and retains the ability to attack adjacent opponents without penalty. When applied to a weapon with the reach quality, the weapon gains the ability to attack adjacent opponents without penalty. This ability does not stack with similar effects that extend a creature's reach with a weapon such as Lunge and long arm.
Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, long arm; Cost: +1 bonus
When it comes to weapon and armor qualities, the static prices only work with abilities that that become less relevant over time. For example energy resistance 5 is "OMGBroken" at level 1, "meh" at level 8, and a joke at level 15+. Since the extending ability is equally good across all levels, it should be priced normally, which ends up being an exponential progression.
Back when I was using the item/settlement rules (I currently play E6 with a home brew version of the Unchained inherent bonuses - bye bye magic mart), I found the system unwieldy, especially when it came to the "list" of items a settlement has available above its base value. Generating all those lists of items was a giant pain, especially if a player decided that their character must have a particular item and was willing to halt adventuring and wait.
I ended up turning that item chart into percentages and let players ask for an item and then roll to see if it was in stock that week. It made it difficult (or time consuming) to obtain rare items and I didn't have to roll up countless item lists. I also allowed the players to pay a 10% premium to "special order" an item which showed up in something like 1d4 weeks.
In the end, getting rid of the magic mart entirely and making things like potions and scrolls the only available magic items has solved a multitude of issues.
Depending on the type of game you and your players enjoy, fully defining BBEGs (or any encounters) too far in advance may cause you headaches later. If you are going to follow the Pathfinder AP approach, which is rather rigid in terms of how the adventure progresses (you must be level X by chapter Y), fully defining everything in advance is just fine.
On the other hand, if you prefer a more free form style game, allowing your players to skip areas or where a side trek can turn into a 3 level ordeal, you could have a problem. Meaning your level X boss may not be appropriate when your players finally get there.
To resolve this, you could just define the bosses as concepts. Iron Eye Lord Throvin becomes a male Chelixian human ranger (infiltrator) who prefers ranged combat with a bow and has some kind of fiendish creature as a bodyguard/companion. He may be anything from level 1 to level 20 with 10 mythic ranks depending on when the PCs get to him. You can pick out key feats and character options that help define his concept. Naturally, the closer your players get, the easier it is to figure out what level to make him. The session that they kick in the front door of Throvin's castle/hovel/dungeon, you'll know exactly what level to make him. And you'll also know what goodies he will need to have to avoid being "rocket tagged" by a level 15+ party.
Another consideration when building encounters: All of the rich complexity and interesting aspects of character classes is often entirely lost when seen by players through combat. All they see of monsters is AC, attack, damage, saves, etc. How those values get calculated is entirely hidden from players (unless you are showing them the stat blocks). So a fighter, a barbarian, a magus, and a melee inquisitor could end up looking exactly the same to the players - they hit often and hit hard. Yet the fighter is the simplest to play and the inquisitor is the most complex. For a GM, complex for no purpose is generally not good because you already have too much on your plate (you play the entire multiverse except the PCs). Consider what, if anything, your players will be able to see in exchange for the complexity of the class.
If you metagame as a player, it is pretty much impossible. However, if you are able to make a distinction between what you as a player know and what your PC knows, it is no different than any other game. If you can say "but my character doesn't know that" and then make a decision, that's what you do.