Planning a playtest where I would have and advance in mythic tiers, whereas the other characters would advance in class levels. This would help test the relative power of mythic tiers and normal levels.
However, even before beginning the playtest, I can see a problem. Its name is Mythic Damage. Beyond tier eight, mythic characters are essentially immortal unless confronted by other mythic creatures. This is probably not a huge issue if all characters are mythic and they are meant to take on primarily mythic foes (which in itself is a bit of a predicament for the DM assuming he wants to keep mythic creatures rare) . In a group with a single mythic character, though, this makes it essentially impossible to endanger this character unless there is a surfeit of mythic opponents for the group to fight.
Now, mythic rules might not be created with this kind of gameplay in mind – they do seem to assume that characters are either all mythic or none are – so a mix might not be supported. That’s fine I guess (though it does obviate the possibility of a number of interesting fantasy tropes) – not all styles of gameplay can be supported. As I have mentioned, though, even if all the characters are mythic yet low level, they essentially only have to fight mythic foes to be in mortal danger.
With this in mind, I would advocate either removing or changing the concept of mythic damage. At the very least, some non-mythic creatures should be considered mythic for damage-dealing purposes. Dragons (at least of the more senior kind), Outsiders (again, at least from the higher ranks), higher-ranking undead and a bunch of other creatures/creature categories should dish out mythic damage. A less flavorful, but probably simpler solution might simply be to say that everything X% or X levels/HD/CR higher than the character deals mythic damage to the character.
One of the main problems I have with tabletop games where you have a party and individual players for each character in it is that there is some level of "sameness." Let me explain.
I dislike when an entire group, aside from what they bring to the party (skill monkey, tank, healer, etc.), are essentially the same, story-wise. They -all- saved that town, they -all- overthrew that tyrant, they -all- killed that dragon. I am fine being in a group where the rogue has some crazy shadow powers that no one else has (which was the case in the longest running campaign I've played in), while the rest of us gain other powers. If I was with the right group (and the fact of the matter is that I'm not right now - for this particularly), I would even be okay with everyone being different levels.
The worst part is if a character dies. Currently, in the campaign that my group's about to take a break from, each of our characters have been inducted by our respective parents into a group of wardens that protect a certain region. If a character dies, then it's a hassle and honestly is a bit contrived to bring in a new character and say, "Oh, yeah, he's in the Deadfall Society now and is totally as committed to doing this as you have been."
This is definitely an issue I see with Mythic. One character might happen to do all of the work to get his mythic levels while the others either can't or don't care to, and suddenly, you have a huge power gap that most players do not appreciate. Or you have a character die in a mythic group and although they are close to demigods and probably are the masters of the realm, they get to find another guy who's just as powerful but surprisingly hasn't been even heard of in all their adventuring.
Mordred, a res is so damn cheap there is no real point for a dead char to stay dead unless his player wants. When you get to Mythics levels (or just high level enaugh), just Planar shift or TP where do you know there is a powerfull friendly cleric and buy a life insurance for 30k gold. Always done, always worked.
If you are not yet Mythic (or not playing with the ruleset at all), that sounds terribly dull to me. Why play a game where combat is a main aspect if the consequence of losing said combat is removed? I understand a lot of games apply to this mentality (save points), but I play tabletops because you can break from this norm and craft a real story with a group of friends.
If you -are- Mythic, I would hope the Mythic enemies you are fighting have the ability to stop you from just going and getting resurrected - or, at least some of them.
And there is a point to a dead character staying dead: story. Mythic rules are literally bringing story into class mechanics, so I would hope a larger portion of the people interested in it are so because of that aspect, not because it gives you more ways to hit the bad guys. To each his own, I say, but I am hoping to strike a chord with a particular group in this argument.
I would agree, however, I think that the idea of a mythic character is that they stand head and shoulders above the concerns of mere mortals. If I were to suggest a contemporary analog, it would have to be the heroes from the comics. The characters are not immune to death, it is simply another aspect of their journey that can be overcome. That said, I feel as though the process of bringing a character back can often be too binary in most gaming circles. If you don't use the characters death as a way to encourage some kind of story arc, your missing an opportunity.
I can understand the distaste for the resurrection mechanic as it stands, but there is no requirement to use it if you feel that it hinders your story telling opportunities.
Just because you can't be killed doesn't mean you can't be defeated and restrained. The idea of a character that can't be killed by mortal means and instead must be sealed away is actually a very interesting possibility for a mythic character in a non-mythic world. By the tier at which this is coming into play, I'd say it's fine.
I don't think there's necessarily any problem with mythics and non-mythics co-existing, but it's definitely something that'd be tricky to fine tune and wouldn't attempt it as my first play with the rules.
Well, i'm all for the story sake ecc. but there is a matter of fact that in a group with a cleric level 9, any member who doesn't end up butchered into tiny pices is going to be ressed. And on even higer level there is really no realistic argument for the fact that a char so unique and powerfull like a PG shouldn't desire to use whatever means necessary (within the bound of his allinment) to get back on his job, expecially when is something of the utmost importance like saving the world and stuff like that. I assure you, the idea of failure is already enaugh to assure you characters will try to save theyr life in any way they can. Ress is just a second chance to right your failures. And the time lost come to a price in the story flows. So all in all it work quite nice in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, just because you're immortal doesn't always help you achieving results. Just look at Jack Harkness and the Torchwood series.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cross-posted from a similar thread:
To be honest, although I am not a proponent of immortality (or resurrection) possibilities at low and medium levels, these concepts do have their place in high-powered play, so including them as mythic abilities does make some sense. Immortality, even in Mythic play, however, should be (much) more circumscribed than it is in the current playtest document.
1) There need to be ways for signature/powerful non-mythic creatures to kill mythic characters. Legendary dragons and outsiders (and indeed heroes - say X levels higher than the character concerned), for example, could be allowed to deal mythic damage, even if they are not strictly-speaking mythic.
2) Like legendary creatures, legendary weapons should also be capable of killing mythic characters (e.g. by also dealing mythic damage), even when wielded by non-legendary hands. This should include all artifacts and some other major magic items.
3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept.
I disagree with the OP, I think it's really easy as a GM not to allow players to reach than point of gameplay. If you don't like immortality, don't let them get to it. As it stands, a more powerful creature can still stomp a Mythic character, they just won't be permanently killed by them.
Isn't that the point of mythic levels? To make characters more powerful? More durable? More special? If they reach that point, something mundane shouldn't kill them. When they die, it should be important, it should have weight. That's why only mythic characters can kill them at that level. I don't think making it easier for them to die should be done. As pointed out though, not dying doesn't equal victory.
And if you actually want to kill them, all you have to do is add a single Tier to any NPC with class levels, or add a single Tier and mythic ability to your mythic creatures. But as I said, that sorta defeats the purpose since if you're playing with Mythic levels, these characters are supposed to be special.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with the OP. There is one point I disagree however:
3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept.
I don't see why mythic characters should always have a flaw. Some like Achilles do, some others like Perseus don't. In my opinion, a flaw should be gained in exchanged for an extra mythic ability, but should not be mandatory.
Also with respect to:
And if you actually want to kill them, all you have to do is add a single Tier to any NPC with class levels, or add a single Tier and mythic ability to your mythic creatures. But as I said, that sorta defeats the purpose since if you're playing with Mythic levels, these characters are supposed to be special.
You are quite right. The only issue is that if you follow this logic, then you'll end up with dozens if not hundreds of mythic characters to maintain the coherence of your setting. And of course, as the OP noted, all the PCs in the group will necessarily have to be mythic. If not what's the point ? In my opinion, the only possibility to avoid the inflation in the number of mythic NPCs in a campaign is to reserve the mythic tiers to a few well-chosen NPC. I understand that this will frustrate many players, but what's the alternative ? Putting a mythic NPC in every town visited by the players to ensure that someone can stand up to them ?
I tend to agree with the OP. There is one point I disagree however:
3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept.I don't see why mythic characters should always have a flaw. Some like Achilles do, some others like Perseus don't. In my opinion, a flaw should be gained in exchanged for an extra mythic ability, but should not be mandatory.
Yeah, that is a reasonably approach too on the flaws issue.
Even without mythic tiers, do you really make sure every town can stand up to a high level party? If so, why do they need heroes at all?
You got a point. Let me explain further where I come from: what worries me as a GM is how to handle properly mythic characters in my setting. I can indeed deal pretty easily with epic characters and epic NPCs even though pathfinder guidelines are a bit vague about them.
But if I allow mythic characters in my campaign, what do I do about existing epic NPC exactly ? How are all these high level NPCs going to co-exist with new mythic characters and NPCs ? Shall I rewrite them entirely to follow the new mythic rules as well ? I'm saying this because an epic 23rd level wizard is not "naturally" able to deliver mythic damage while a 6th level wizard 3rd tier can. And I have a serious problem with this.
At this point I'm tempted to follow 2 completely different roads:
a) all epic level NPCs will have to be rewritten as mythic, but it's problematic because I don't want them to be half-gods either (amazing initiative ? recuperation !? mythic saves !!??) just epic characters.
b) or I can take the abilities I like the most from the mythic paths and convert them as epic feats / epic classes.
Maybe I'm wrong and both solutions will create more problem, but my deep feeling is that the power curve of mythic characters is just too steep - even well before tier 9 - to make them coexist in an established setting with numerous epic but non-mythic characters, without breaking the logic of the setting itself.
Yeah, just don't play with these rules then; they're largely optional and the amount of them you place in your world is up to you.
Paizo never did over 20 play cause; as has been pointed out by the devs on numerous occasions; the numbers skew horribly past level 15, let alone 20. Either a class's saves continue along the same progression(making it increasingly unlikely a wizard will make a fort/ref save) or they get level out(making all the classess more or less the same).
These rules were meant to supplement "epic" kind of play without stepping into that muck. Introducing them now entirely defeats the purpose of why they were made. It'd be like introducing them into a game with Hero Points; it just won't work really well. So don't add them to your game unless you wanna rebuild everything.
The simplest fix would just be to handwave that all Epic characters (and monsters?) count as Mythic, without necessarily having any other Mythic abilities.
Yes it could completely work. I should have thought about this earlier, thanks.
These rules were meant to supplement "epic" kind of play without stepping into that muck. Introducing them now entirely defeats the purpose of why they were made.
The more I read the mythic rules, the more I agree with you. But the mythic paths contain some gems I'm willing to re-use under another form such as feats or epic prestige classes.
It'd be like introducing them into a game with Hero Points; it just won't work really well. So don't add them to your game unless you wanna rebuild everything.
It's amusing that you mention Hero Points, because I use them also - in conjunction with heavily house-ruled epic levels - and I have also the feeling that Hero points and mythic rules don't mix too well.
Honestly I kind of like the idea of a character leaping into an incredibly tough battle and having a zero chance of dying, and then doing this again for 5 more battles before encountering one mythic creature that really messes up their everything and leaves them in the infirmary. It makes that mythic boss fight feel that much more important and threatening, and they know they have to fight it again and win this time.
Also, just because you're immortal doesn't always help you achieving results. Just look at Jack Harkness and the Torchwood series.
Auuugh yeah. Anyone who has seen the entire run of Jack Harkness' character across Doctor Who and Torchwood and still thinks Immortality is cool needs to get their head examined. I have a character in a GURPS game that is completely unkillable, but the thing is, if you say bind her inside a star dealing billions of damage every second? Sure, in a few million years when the star dies she'll come back to life only to be crushed by the black hole...
So, yeah having a single mythic character in a game probably isn't a good idea, and if you are putting your people up against non-mythic stuff, well... they're going to steamroll it. That's why there is "simple templates" in the back. Like if you want them to fight a fiendish cheetah? Give it the "Agile" template :P