There's MASSIVE profit in adamantite plate.
My point exactly. Let's say some high level fighter type wants a suit of adamantine plate. So...he begins to ask around about where to get one and for the best price. Due to the large amounts of potential profit involved before long he receives a dozen sendings from across Golarian offering to teleport him his armor within the day. Now with multiple wizards bidding for his business that fighter can sit back and wait for the lowest bid which is mostly likely going to be far below the 16,000 asking price.
Basically, what I am saying is that if it was that easy for a single wizard to earn massive profits then all of them would be doing it and the profits would vanish. Seriously, this is kind of a pointless argument anyway since any GM with half a brain would not let this fly.
The problem with the grand scheme of a wizard becoming fabulously wealthy by mass producing adamantium full plate (or any expensive item) is that it makes the following assumptions:
1. There is infinite demand at any price level. Just how many people in a given setting have both the wealth and the need for items costing a 1000+gp at a given point in time? My guess for most campaigns is very few. That suit of adamantium plate might take months or years to sell at full price.
2. The prices in a given setting for a given item are fixed regardless of supply. The price of item is mostly based on the cost it takes to produce it in terms of materials (raw materials, time, skill, etc.) and relative scarcity. If some wizard starts churning out suits of armor why wouldn't the price crash to the cost of materials plus a modest fee for the 6 seconds it costs to cast the spell?
3. No other 9th level wizard in the entire history campaign world has figured this out yet. Because if one has suits of full plate would be so common that people would be selling them for scrap just to keep them from cluttering up the place.
I think the key is to remember that Pathfinder is a game about dungeons & dragons and not papers & paychecks. The economic system is easy to break simply because it is based around getting PCs phat loot to kill monsters rather than trying to model an actual functioning economy.
You also lose a point of BAB which hurts a 3/4 class. IMO, sacrificing your spell and BAB progression is not worth it for 3 points of ki.
I recently finished my RotR campaign, and the anniversary edition does a great job of fixing some the flaws of the original. You already have everything you need, and all of the other stuff you listed is optional. However, if you really want to go all out the RotR plastic miniature line has some great figures in it!
Looks good. If you are investing heavily into critical feats I would make sure I either had the Improved Critical feat or Keen enchanted on the weapon. Personally, I would not want to rely on Divine Bond for reasons stated above.
Edit: Also, I think you need Staggering Critical as a pre-req for Stunning Critical.
never take improved critical EVER
Also, with the relatively short duration and limited number of uses per day Paladins can't walk around all day with Divine Bond on. Often they get caught in a fight and burning a standard action just to activate keen is not a great choice. I still recommend Improved Crit for melee pallies for this reason.
Also, the Rise of the Runelords is not exactly "family-friendly" as written. There are sections that are positively mature in a very a dark way. The GM can easily tone some of it down, but RotRL would not be my first choice to run with kids. If you wanted to rotate GMs, I think the Shattered Star would work well. Each module is er...fairly modular (basically each module you are finding another piece of an artifact) with not a lot of overlap between each section in terms of plot that could be spoiled. Also, it is much more PG-13 in nature as well.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Alright, how is that different from a glamer then if you can just put an image on top of something so you can't tell the difference? I don't want to get in an argument though. Illusions are not particularly well defined in Pathfinder. Depending on the interpretation of the GM they can be the strongest spells in the game or just plain useless.
I applaud your creativity but figments (like all the image spells) cannot make something look like something else. So you can't make an open door look like a closed door or hallway with the group in it look empty. A lot of the applications you stated require a glamer instead.
Abraham spalding wrote:
History is also useful in a dungeon in such ways too, what culture set up their traps like that and what type of traps did they prefer? Are they likely to have guardian type x or guardian type y (with very different limitations and vulnerabilities)? These are things that you could easily not know before you find the clues in the dungeon/ruins/whatever.
I hear you. Right now I am running a Shattered Star campaign, and there are plenty of opportunities for my group to make Knowledge History rolls with all of the ancient ruins they are going into. It does adds some flavor to the game. Plus they are extra bonuses built in when they recognize certain historical artifacts and turn them into the Pathfinder Society.
That said, if there was no one in the group with that skill trained in the group it wouldn't be a problem. They may not recognize which Runelord is which on statures and murals and miss out on Sidhedron backstory, but they would still be able to complete the adventure.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I've found the opposite to be the case Hanged Man -- in high pressure situations you generally don't have time to consult a sage or have the proper divination magic prepared -- you need to know the answer now and the only way to do that is with the knowledge skill.
Sure, but how often do you immediately need to know someone's family history? Outside of contrived situations not very often. Usually, you can do your research before meeting the noble in question.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Fail your Knowledge (Nobility) check, insult the high muckity muck and he has you executed... So yeah it could end in death.
I'm having a hard time seeing why Diplomacy wouldn't be the key skill to avoid insulting someone. Also, why wouldn't gather information, going to a sage, or divination magic get you the info you need? If a particular noble lops off the heads of anyone who mentions his father how hard could it be to find that out? The problem with knowledge history and nobility is that they almost never are useful in pressured situations. If you don't know just leisurely ask around to find someone who does.
As a side note, it really annoys me when a gm arbitrarily imposes a skill tax on an otherwise useless skill by making it necessary. For example, one gm I had made appraise necessary by having the merchants rip us off if we did not make the roll. Realistic maybe, fun no.
I agree that set looks great, and is the first of the Pathfinder minis I am seriously investing in.
Also, I'd like to thank you for including some great and flavorful female miniatures. I regularly game with female players and finding miniatures for their PCs (and for NPCs) that aren't hackneyed stereotypes or pin-up models is tough. This set alone has a number of awesome ladies that can cover most archetypes, have dynamic poses, and are well painted. Heck, even Sorshen looks unique with a lot of personality and doesn't look the typical bimbo evil sorceress.
Keep up the good work!
Yeah, it is confusing. One of my players jokingly suggested having the Guardian being carted around in a locked safe thereby making both the group and Guardian immune to ranged attacks. Silly but feasible given how the ability is stated.
One of my players picked up the Guardian ability Call Arrows, and we had some head scratching when trying to figure out exactly how this works.
Call Arrows (Su): As an immediate action you can cause
all ranged attacks targeted at allies within 30 feet to
redirect to you (even if you’re out of the attack’s range).
This causes the attack rolls to be made against your
Armor Class. This effect persists until the end of your
next turn, automatically retargeting any ranged attacks
away from allies and onto you.
I've believed all along this one would make it but the downtick in backers yesterday (only 44k on Kicktraq) has me nervous. I hope I am wrong, but I am worried that GW too narrowly focused their campaign on people who are fans of both Pathfinder and sandbox MMOs. While there is a lot of value in the $100 level, many of the extras (pdfs, minis, PFS sheet) would hold little interest for gamers not into Pathfinder. Once that is out of the equation $100 is a a lot of money to ask for a game that is a few years down the road. The extras from the tech demo (messenger bag, t-shirts, etc) had a lot more general appeal in my opinion.
While I am no expert, if it was me I would have stuck with one nice extra for the table top players (Just the Emerald Spire for example), and then just have focused on the MMO. Right now the kickstarter page is too complicated for someone who doesn't have an hour to read through all of the blogs and wade through all of the clutter.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Interesting point. This sort of thing is always GM call but I think it would depend on what they mean by "the source of his devotion". Do they mean like domains or sphere of influence? Not sure here. For example, if the source of ones devotion is freedom then going lawful evil would be tough to pull off in a valid roleplaying sense. However, since there is no god involved I'm not sure if they could lose their abilities or if they would just redefine the nature of their source of devotion.
I stand corrected. Personally, I would consider natural weapons be their own category of weapons separate from 1h or light unless someone could show me otherwise.
Peter Stewart wrote:
I've long held that any extension of the d20 system beyond 20 levels (and specifically beyond the existing ability score increases) should be universal. Make it +1 to all ability scores every two tiers or something.
I agree that increases to all would be more interesting and provide better balance. Maybe a good compromise would that at every even level you would select a different attribute to increase by +2 and previously selected attributes increase by +1. So the bonus would go: +2 at tier 2, +3/+2, +4/+3/+2, +5/+4/+3/+2, and finally +6/+5/+4/+3/+2 at tier 10. This would still allow you to select an area of relative strength, is more fair for MAD classes, and results in with less lopsided builds. However, I'm not sure if only having the +6 in your primary attribute is sufficient in terms of CR balance.
I get what you guys are saying. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For the record, the 2:1 ratio is not my idea but one I heard from one of the developers (at Gencon maybe?). Whichever way the mythic point formula is set it is a part of the mythic system that will be easily adjusted by houserule at least.
Peter Stewart wrote:
If the goal is for mythic to be equal at any level for any character - e.g. the equivalent of adding a level - then the fact that higher level characters are often expected to have greater staying power needs to be addressed.
I keep bringing it up because you have to yet address my key point which is design philosophy not the specific mechanics of determining mythic points which is secondary. We are in agreement that as your PC grows in power you need more mythic points.
However, mythic points do increase as you level if stick roughly to the 2:1 ratio of levels to tiers. Would you agree that 17 mythic points would be enough at 14th level? Since that falls in between the 3+level+tier and 3+1/2level+tier systems you suggested the answer is probably yes. You get those 17 points if you use 3+2*tier for a 14L/7T character. Again, this is just mechanics and not our main difference.
What we have here is a difference in philosophy. You argue that you have too few mythic points at 14L/1T and I feel you have too few mythic tiers for your level. Our difference is what to balance the system around. I feel that tying levels to tiers in such a direct fashion creates more of a traditional epic system. Based on your arguments, you seem to prefer to start getting your tiers at high level and want to see your character become noticeably stronger after just taking one tier.
There's nothing wrong with that and it represents a completely valid approach to the game. However, I personally prefer a system where you are mythic for the life of your campaign and not just at the very end. The designers are actively trying to avoid re-creating another epic system as well. I was at the Mythic session at Gencon where JB stated they are avoiding an epic system since they just stack bad math on top of bad math. If levels are tied to mythic abilities that is exactly what will happen. Higher levels will just get exponentially more powerful which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I'm still leaning towards 3+2xtier. At 20L/10T that still gets you the 23 points. Plus, a 2L/1T would start with 5 points which is reasonable. Many are considering cases where you only get your first tier at high levels (making it something of an epic system). Not saying it shouldn't be used that way but I don't think it should be balanced around that necessarily instead of the 2:1 ratio.
Games today are made for consoles. PC versions are only considered if the console games become or are expected to be absolutely huge. The games that remain are MMORPGs, games from certain companies (Blizzard et al), and some very few games that aim for very high graphics prestanda. The rest is indie games that reach general distribution.
Actually consoles are the ones that are really on the ropes. They are really narrowly defined machines that are having a hard time competing with the smartphone and tablet apps. As long as people are using PCs for productivity purposes there will be a gaming market running parallel to that.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Interesting. Can you give me a link? Fixing the wealth would solve most of the gap you are talking about.
Yeah, I thought it made no sense for such a big gap in wealth.
Peter Stewart wrote:
You are cherry picking just when PCs get 9th level spells (Bump the level on both wizards up or down one and it would be a closer comparison) but it still would be closer than you think. I've already said I agree with 3+2*tier so that would be 9 mythic power not 6. I agree that 6 is too low.
The wealth problem is easily solved. Just give mythic Wizard the wealth of a 17th level character. Problem solved. Since tiers are supposed to be equivalent to levels I don't see any reason not to since WBL is always a GM call anyway.
The higher DCs are partially mitigated by the +2 boost to intelligence vs. the non-mythic's +1 at 16. With Arcane surge the spells would require two saves (and be better at piercing SR) which more than closes the gap in terms of DCs.
Admittedly the selection of mythic feats, spells, and abilities is a bit paltry right now, but those could make a big difference as well once there is a proper selection. So I am not saying the balance is spot on right now but I don't think the solution is to link levels to mythic abilities.
I hear what you are saying though. I think the mythic rules were designed to 2:1 level to tier ratio in mind and the farther you get you away from that the wonkier things get. I think the intent is that tiers aren't supposed to be an epic system where you only start getting them at max level. A level 20 with 10 tiers should have plenty of points to play with especially if you go with the 3+2*tier formula.
Sure, capstones are great but that doesn't change my point that one level doesn't radically change your character at higher levels. Some capstones seem pretty similar to path abilities or mythic feats when you think about it too. I get the feeling that some want to go to straight to demigod with just one tier and I feel differently.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Let's go back to my wizard example. What does a wizard get from going from level 19 to 20? One 8th and one 9th levels spell slot, a feat, and an increment to CL, Will, and BAB.
What does 1 mythic tier of archmage get you instead of that level? As things currently stand now, the equivalent of four ninth level spells slots, a mythic feat, and a path ability.
Sure some tweaking can be done but that sounds roughly equal to me. Suggesting that character should get 20+ (or 10+ even) extra castings for what is supposed to be the equivalent of one level is far too much.
Remember, mythic is not epic. One mythic tier shouldn't make a massive difference at higher levels. It should be roughly the same as gaining one level which at the higher levels only makes a marginal difference. For example, going from level 1 to 3 significantly improves a character. They roughly double their hit points and spell slots, and gain most of their core class abilities. Going from level 17 to 19 or 18 to 20 provides a much more marginal improvement. Pathfinder already struggles with balance issues at the higher levels. Conflating the mythic and level systems would cause it to collapse under its own weight.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Like the McDLTs of yore I prefer to keep my mythic side mythic and the level side uh...level-y. Conflating them makes mythic more like an epic system which is not the design intent.
I'm not seeing the reason why a level 20 should have vastly more mythic points than a level 1 with just one mythic tier. Whether you are level 1 or 20 Pathfinder is balanced around 4 encounters before resting. Why should a level 20 wizard/archmage get to cast an extra 3+20+1 spells during those four fights when the level 1 only gets 3+1+1? The power of the spells scale as you level so I don't see the need to give higher level characters an even greater advantage.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Agreed. I'd rather not have a rather unexciting ability like Extra Mythic Power become seen as a required pick.
Ok, finally an update. The group has now started the first dungeon in the Shattered Star and has ascended to be mythic. Right now the group is at 1st level/1st tier.
The Group picked the following options
For the mythic flaws I gave them a dependency based on the curses of the pieces of the Shattered Star. When they were creating their characters I asked them to identify a sin they indulged in as a personality flaw so there was a good roleplaying hook. So far, my players have indicated they liked them and said they added a lot of flavor despite the disadvantage.
1) As a GM I was really worried that they would be overpowered as compared to regular 2nd level PCs. However, I was really happy to see this was not really the case. I ran the encounters as written in the AP and so far I have found the challenge level was appropriate. The constraint of having limited mythic power points kept their mythic abilities from being unbalanced. Note, however, that my players chose their abilities based on more roleplaying and thematic reasons and I could see a min-maxer creating problems if the GM let them get away with it.
2) I *loved* (and so did my players) the flexibility it grants the PCs. Normally, playing 2nd levels PCs can be a bit stale, but the mythic tier added a whole other layer of options. The oracle is now an excellent tank in addition to his spell casting, the ninja can now actually get sneak attack off regularly after combat has started and with ranged weapons, the witch can cast any spell needed for the situation, and the alchemist can attempt any skill and rally buff the team. Based on what I have seen so far it seems like mythic gives PCs a great way to "multiclass" without sacrificing their core abilities. Also, the limits of the action economy and mythic power poor kept things from getting out of hand. Fun!
3) The mythic templates also are a great tool for GMs. One of my frustrations as a GM in Pathfinder is the challenge of designing a boss that is numerically appropriate but still represents a challenge. GMs could always do this through fiat but it is great to see a codified system in place.
4) As noted in the other posts on the forums there are some balance issues. For example,the oracle wanted to be an effective tank and was thinking about taking Champion just for the To the Death ability alone. As a GM I felt that ability was too strong for a 2nd level character and also felt it was thematically inappropriate for a Champion ability to make someone a better guardian than Guardians. As a houserule, I added on a 3rd mythic tier requirement and the player decided to go with Guardian instead. Not a big deal though and this is what the playtest is for.
5) The Alchemist felt there wasn't a lot of good options for him and I am inclined to agree. Hopefully, the final product will flesh things out for the non-core classes a bit more.
6) It isn't a problem yet but once the players get more class abilities requiring swift actions I can see this coming into conflict with the mythic abilities. There is a big post already on this on the forums but maybe this could be addressed by making mythic abilities be free actions but constrain the number of mythic points you can spend in a round.
Sadly, we are taking a month off for the holidays due to travel but we are really looking forward to playing with these rules some more!
Well...since you are already looking at 3pp sources why not just houserule an archetype that does what you want?
Btw, I've played a sacred shield pally before (actually dual classed with a tower shield specialist fighter) and I was everyone's best friend in the group. Combined with antagonize I was one heck of a tank.
Risen Demon wrote:
The only reason I see this person for playing is if your GM really emphasizes role playing and combat only plays a relatively minor role. Otherwise what does this person do for the hours that combat take during a session? Are they actually there for the game or are they are just tagging along with a friend/boyfriend?
Since it seems your GM is really tolerant I'd just pick something I thought would be cool/fun and go with it.
The modifier is not the problem here, it is the fact that once you hit 5th level flying is a really easy condition to get on the party. Even the fighter can chug a fly potion when needed. The extra damage on grappling and charging is interesting though.
Also, this ability involves way too much calculation (very annoying to calculate the exact number of feet when the game is played in 5' squares). Why not just say the mythic character can jump 10' per mythic tier and skip the roll and calculations.
There is a pretty good chance that Mr. Epic would have various immunities/resistances/shield spell too that a first level wizard could do nothing about. First level Paladins have an easier time getting around that sort of thing than high level Evokers do.