Wrath of the Righteous - A Failed AP


Wrath of the Righteous

151 to 200 of 1,282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I keep forgetting that's a thing; no one in my party has taken it. I wish I'd remembered it was there, so I would have saved a lot of money and time on trying to get my UMD high enough to be useful.


I'm going to go on a limb here and say that most AP's are written for the lowest common denominator stat/build wise. Any amount of optimization or doing a decent build wrecks things. I just tell my players now to go with that they want, go pure flavor, it helps a little since a lot seem to prefer concepts and RP then power-gaming. Although they do end on top with whacky combos, it works well enough most of the time.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigCoffee wrote:
I'm going to go on a limb here and say that most AP's are written for the lowest common denominator stat/build wise. Any amount of optimization or doing a decent build wrecks things. I just tell my players now to go with that they want, go pure flavor, it helps a little since a lot seem to prefer concepts and RP then power-gaming. Although they do end on top with whacky combos, it works well enough most of the time.

They've stated before that they design APs with the assumption of a 4-PC party built with 15 points, players of average skill and no real optimization. The further you deviate from that assumption, the more the GM is going to have to modify the challenge to accommodate the players.

-Skeld

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

The problem begins when a group starts optimising. Once this begins it becomes the norm, from that point forward every build becomes " sensible", which essentially means optimised. If your character has a huge initiative and focuses only On damage that is an optimised build. We're playing at the moment and we're enjoying. 15 pt build, no stat below 10. Party is a Paladin ( has taken channelling feats), magus is finding it hard to hit consistently (many battles a day), ninja is dealing some damage, cleric of shelyn and witch, witch slumber hex causes the most problems. No great weapons, no vital strike yet. As always AC is the issue, PCs have such high ACs you can't hit them as written, this is independent of the mythic rules, and most times this is my fault for not tracking time for buffs. Some of the mythic rules are crazy so we choose to dump them when that's the case, remove the rule completely rather than play around trying to fix. Example, power attack now is the damage bonus only, no x2, no penalty negation, just the damage. Vital strike works as intended not as accidentally written - after I used it on the PCs to open the discussion. I'm also aware of other groups in my area who are running it without significant issue before people leap on me for ignoring their own experiences. I've also been DMing for a little over 26 years now so count myself as reasonable experienced in the matter. When I play I CAN build deadly "sensible" characters but nearly always make a few suboptimal choices to allow the other players and other DMs to get involved in the game. I will certainly concede we haven't reached book 5 yet but my predictions and trials using herolab to expand on their characters leave me hopeful things won't get to the levels described by others- it will get silly but if we're having fun who cares.

I think it's bad form to say the AP is a fail. I think the AP is a great adventure, it was an Experiment. I hope we see more support for mythic in the future.

I do have concerns with the sheer volume of additions to the rule set, but short of a new edition how else should they proceed?


Let me see if I can summarize your position:

1. Optimization is the problem, not the rules

2. I find the pcs to be unhittable and have to remove a lot of the mythic rules in order for the game to be reasonable

3. Its ok to sell Beta test APs to players without marking them as such for 138+ dollars


I do apologize. I think I may have posted the title in haste without really considering how people would read it.

What I mean by a "Failed AP" is that my group failed to finish it. For us, it was a total failure. The rules did not work out, and even the sub-par members of our group were easily effective enough to wreck most encounters.

The story was certainly not a failure. It was compelling and interesting, and had a fun conclusion. It was pretty epic, even if it felt a bit like the PC's were playing fetch at times. The failure came from the lack of ability for the enemies to challenge the PC's in any meaningful way with very few exceptions. Those exceptions could murder the party without much difficulty.

Aside from combat there were very few puzzle challenges or skill based challenges that the PC's couldn't just hammer through without even trying. They were all predictable and one-dimensional due to the nature of the AP and the primary enemies.

To give some insight on my group, I had 4 players and I gave them a 20 point buy with the restriction that they could only buy down a single stat below 10. I prefer 20 point buy because it allows for MAD classes to be a bit more viable. Nobody used the extra points to max out any stat. To start we had an Elf Wizard (conjurer), a Human Druid (melee build), a Half Orc Ninja and a Human Paladin (Sacred Shield).

The Wizard and the Paladin made it through til the campaign folded, though the Paladin trained out of Sacred Shield during downtime in Drezen. He was still Sword and Board but no longer fully focused on Defense.

The Ninja was killed during the Grey Garrison and was replaced by a Dwarf Cleric of Cayden Cailean who made it through until the campaign folded.

The Druid was killed by the Half Orc Sorcerer in Kenebres before the party even met with the crusaders, and was replaced by a Bard/Dragon Disciple. That character was killed by a critical hit from a Half Fiend Minotaur in Drezen (Which was easily avoidable, but the player took an insane risk. He would have died without the crit) and replaced by a Warpriest. The Warpriest was overly broken so the player quickly decided to switch to a Sorcerer who made it to the point where the campaign folded.

There were three deaths in the campaign, two of which happened before the party gained Mythic Tiers and one of which happened when the player took a stupid risk during an encounter I altered to challenge the party and charged into melee range of three dangerous combatants before the Wizard or Cleric had a chance to provide any support.

The biggest Mythic rules problems came from all of the casters being able to cast whatever spells they wanted at +2 caster level by spending a mythic point. DC's were high due to high stats from all of the stat boosts they got and all of the money thrown at them, allowing them to buy stat items. Toward the end three of the four players were able to name the exact spell available to them that would trivialize a given encounter, and all of them were able to easily bypass spell resistance and had save DC's that made it nearly impossible for the creatures to pass.

In normal play a Wizard or a Cleric has to balance his spell list, and doesn't have a casting stat high enough to make his DC's completely unreasonable. Sure with a focused build you can come up with a caster that will be good in a lot of situations, but removing the limitation of having to choose what spells you have prepared or what spells you know gets rid of the downside of playing any kind of spellcaster. You have an answer for everything, because every spell in the game is available to you.

Only one of my casters powergamed any particular stat (the Wizard with his initiative), and the other two purposely did not powergame in specific areas. The sorcerer had a high Charisma of course, so he worked out as a party face and had excellent social skills and DC's but his initiative, HP, and defensive abilities were pretty normal. There were a few instances where I ran into damage being too high, but most of the melee damage characters were replaced with casters through the course of the game, so that's why my group failed. Others may have varying mileage. Magnuskn is dealing with big melee beatsticks, and Seanoss, Lochar and Tangent have all mentioned the melee feats being a big problem. That means that both major aspects of the game have abilities that push them way over the top when it comes to power level, so for my money that means the designers failed with the Mythic Rules.

Perhaps it was wrong to call it a failed AP, but Mythic certainly didn't allow it to be successful for a number of people on these forums. I found it disappointing.


Aldarion: I do have one question for you. What mythic paths did the players choose?

I theorized long ago that the only way to really run a 'balanced' mythic campaign was for the characters to have an even spread of offense/support/defense paths. Did anyone have the Guardian or Marshal path? If not, then I'm guessing your characters were fairly offense focused and that's why the glass cannon effect was in full force.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

Aldarion: I do have one question for you. What mythic paths did the players choose?

I theorized long ago that the only way to really run a 'balanced' mythic campaign was for the characters to have an even spread of offense/support/defense paths. Did anyone have the Guardian or Marshal path? If not, then I'm guessing your characters were fairly offense focused and that's why the glass cannon effect was in full force.

The Wizard and Sorcerer went Archmage. The Cleric went Heirophant, and the Paladin was a Guardian.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Its odd that you had issues with spell DCs. From my experience the NPCs could usually make their saves on fairly low numbers, or major ones could and that was from characters with a 28 stat. Maybe that was because I advanced or added class levels to many enemies. And casting spells on the PCs was a huge waste of time

As a quick edit Matrix: my PCs were a champion, a heirophant, an archmage and a guardian/heirophant dual class. Major melee foes could still knock the guardian down after a full round attack.


Seannoss wrote:
@Fanatic Rat: The 'display of abilities' make skill DCs pointless as printed in the game. Its nice to promote growth outside of combat but I had a player hit a 37 DC in a skill they had no ranks in by rolling a 2.

While there some situation where this would be great using it a lot burns through the mythic power points.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

True, it does burn through mythic points. But it is the rare skill challenge that leads you to a major fight after succeeding.


Seannoss wrote:

Its odd that you had issues with spell DCs. From my experience the NPCs could usually make their saves on fairly low numbers, or major ones could and that was from characters with a 28 stat. Maybe that was because I advanced or added class levels to many enemies. And casting spells on the PCs was a huge waste of time

As a quick edit Matrix: my PCs were a champion, a heirophant, an archmage and a guardian/heirophant dual class. Major melee foes could still knock the guardian down after a full round attack.

28 is a little low.

My player was an Elf Wizard. He started with a 16, +2 from race, +2 from the bonus at the Grey Garrison, +3 from attaining level 12, +6 from Mythic tier 6, +6 from stat item, +2 from Arushalae's Anarchic Gift. Thats 37 right there without even dumping stats. Even with a 15 point buy using a 15 in Int that's a 36. That's an extra +4 to the DC's over what you listed, plus Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus for an additional +2. And they weren't doing anything outside the ordinary.

It doesn't take a genius or an advanced player to know that adding to your primary casting stat makes it harder for enemies to resist your spells, and gives you more spells to cast. That's spellcasting 101.


The oracle player in my party averaged around a 50 for diplomacy checks


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My PCs didn't get the stat bump from the garrison and I limited mythic stat gains to +4. Only one PC received her Gift as she wasn't good by the time they parted and he wasn't a caster and didn't add it to his prime stat. But the wizard did have spell focus though to add to it.


The story of the AP is a classic and solid. However, Mythic rules simply exacerbates the issues that already exist in high level Pathfinder play. Pile this with additional boons granted by the story, the power is dialed up to 11 and the challenge is not. This gap is further widened by the number of players, optimization and point buy/stat generation of the party.

If you want to game master this AP, use the modified stat blocks presented on the boards or take the action to rework at least the key encounters.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm reposting this here as I think it could have some relevance:

My comments were in response to this post:

Quote:
True, true. Any time you get to use the environment against the PCs it becomes a much more difficult fight. A straight up melee is almost always already tilted in the PC's favor.

Actually, when you think of it... this is also true of Reign of Winter - the start of it, at least. Think of it: being unable to charge or five-foot step seriously diminished the ability of the party to effectively fight in many of those first situations. Add in rules for hypothermia, and you've a group both fighting the environment and fighting in an unfavorable environment.

I have to wonder how many GMs used this for Book 6 of Runelords. Having heavy snow conditions would significant diminish the ability of even high level players to just mow over opposition.

Now let's consider the Worldwound. There are environmental factors that are mentioned briefly in the game. Play them up. Mix them up. Have areas where the gravity suddenly increases so it takes two movement points to move, and you can no longer five-foot step... and have it NOT be difficult terrain so that most spells won't overcome the effect. Have vines snake out and entangle the party when they're attacked by demons - the land itself corrupted and acting against them. Have them hit by acid rain just before they reach a major battle... and need to have weapons and armor make saving throws or take on the Broken condition - and the PCs would have to burn Mythic Points to get the Make Whole spell since I doubt they memorized it.

Even better, by having the environment itself as a threat and an ongoing threat that gets nastier and nastier the further into the Worldwound they go... you further enhance the Mythic aspect of the heroes. They CAN continue on when non-Mythic allies are forced to retreat. (And strip them of their non-Mythic cohorts in this situation! Have those allies physically unable to continue, with significant morale problems.)

Turn the Worldwound against the players. Not just the monsters.

Grand Lodge

I actually really like that idea, that seems to be one of those things that just doesn't get used against the PCs all that much. If people are talking about broken Mythic feats that make melee classes over powered then this is a good way to slow them down, also making saves q30 minutes and having to use spell slots for resists and endure elements uses up lots of low level slots.


I resubbed for this AP but wish I hadn't. As others have said the mythic rules were overpowered and unnecessary clunk in a very clunky system. I know that others like the mythic rules but I hope that they see little or no use and certainly if another mythic ap came along I would sit that one out.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Wyrd you could leave the adventure largely unchanged and try simply halving the mythic tiers gained. 1 by end of book 1, 2 at end of book 2 etc so they'd start book 6 with 5 and gain no more. They don't have to get 10. That would also mean they be level 25 by end if we now Assume 1 tier =1 level

CWheezy wrote:

Let me see if I can summarize your position:

1. Optimization is the problem, not the rules

2. I find the pcs to be unhittable and have to remove a lot of the mythic rules in order for the game to be reasonable

3. Its ok to sell Beta test APs to players without marking them as such for 138+ dollars

Well yes and no.

1. Optimisation is the problem. Characters don't diversify they focus on one thing. My wizard isn't optimised he's just made sensible choices that send his DCs through the roof, my fighter isn't optimised he's just focused on dealing damage with his 1 weapon and little else. This is optimisation. It makes a DM and other players need to compete to keep up. It becomes a race of who makes the "best" sensible choices. My sensible witch can just about put everything to sleep since the DCs can get quite high. The other players hate it. The first few times they thought it great, it wears off when they get to watch the witch and clean up. So she put stat points elsewhere. Now enemies make the DCs sometimes and everyone's involved, but the etch stil eels she gets semi league out f that hex.

People even cry foul when they're caught out. It's no fair you killed my wizard with that damage! Well put the stat points in CON, take the lower DCs and get the hp. More rounded, less optimised. Sure it might end up only 40hp but that can be the difference.

2. What I actually said was the AC issues we have are independent of the mythic rules, AC is easy to Boost even without mythic. Not using mythic we've had the problem, with mythic; no worse or better. After discussion it goes away because players make other choices with feats and items so AC stays reasonable.

Like every rules heavy game we house rule, this includes mythic. If I couldn't house rule there would be a lot of stuff I wouldn't use, mythic and non. So what I'm saying is my changes for mythic are the same as every other book. Look, see what I like, and adjust.

As for mythic unbalance there are people saying saves are broken, DCs too high, too low. This would indicate problems vary from group to group. Look back and you'll see posts prior to mythic that complaint vigorously that vital strike is a waste, it's not good enough. But mythic is too good? Some elements of mythic don't work ( power attack went OTT) but then Some elements of the ultimate series don't work, some elements of the core rules don't work. Adjust to it, it's the nature of the game and only becomes more convoluted as rules multiply.

3. It's not a beta AP. It was a new idea that some people didn't like. Like reign of winter, second darkness, council of thieves or iron gods. I can't wait to see the threads on how ill thought out technology is, how unwanted it is etc.


how many people dump money into stat boosting items and such, maybe part of the problem is that people play it the same as when they weren't using MA. so while a headband of uppity intelligence or whatever might make perfect sense in a non mythic game, in MA with the stat increases and such it only leads to stat bloat and high AC/DC problems (god i hate AC/DC!)

in the post above dude(or dudette) said he got a stat boost of +6 to abilities from an item how is that not contributing to his/her issues?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Errr, Cap, stat boosters are part of the big six (Weapons, Armor, Stat Enhancers, Natural Armor Amulets, Rings of Deflection, Cloaks of Resistance). They are standard loot and standard items which about everyone gets. You can't blame players for investing resources into getting those items which are the standard for adventurers.


Which is why high-magic systems are inherently broken, but that's a belief of mine many disagree with. ;)


i still think it contributes to the problem and is a fairly easy fix:)


Seannoss wrote:
As a quick edit Matrix: my PCs were a champion, a heirophant, an archmage and a guardian/heirophant dual class. Major melee foes could still knock the guardian down after a full round attack.

Only one full attack? I'll be honest, that seems to scream "I did not focus enough on defense" to me. I am running a paladin/sorcerer/dragon disciple with the guardian and archmage paths. He hasn't even taken anything from the guardian path aside from one of the base powers and the bonus hit points campaign trait so far, and the only time he ever even went unconsious in our campaign it was because three different enemies (one of which was mythic) full attacked him at the same time when he wasn't at full health. If my heavily multiclassed 'tanky melee spellcaster' could do it, this sort of thing should be easy for a real guardian.


Which sounds like optimization to me.

So if an unoptimized character doesn't have much problems with this AP, then the AP is either underpowered for a Mythic campaign, or Mythic is broken.

Or both.

I wonder if anyone considered the following variant: No Magic Crafting, and for sales, they can only purchase available items rolled randomly (ie, no 75% chance of finding anything they want so long as it's within a certain price range).

You could also in this case allow players to commission specific magic items, but that would take however many days that the rules dictate (plus two weeks for gathering components), and cash in advance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I modified almost all of the enemies so they could hit and do damage. If I ran it as printed, then no, my PCs would have been fine. But when you're taking 50-70hp per hit, then it doesn't take much to drop someone.


Seannoss wrote:
I modified almost all of the enemies so they could hit and do damage. If I ran it as printed, then no, my PCs would have been fine. But when you're taking 50-70hp per hit, then it doesn't take much to drop someone.

Ahhh, that makes sense then. ;)

My gm has been modifying enemies as well, but kind of inconsistantly I think.

Scarab Sages

Matrix Dragon wrote:


My gm has been modifying enemies as well, but kind of inconsistantly I think.

It's not so much as inconsistent as it is trying not to out and out kill your PCs by over modifying. There's a very small sweet spot, even more so in Mythic, between 'curb stomp by PCs' and 'curb stomp by NPCs' and it's hard to hit.

Unless your table likes TPKs, a GM will usually swing closer to the curb stomp by PCs level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

I wonder if anyone considered the following variant: No Magic Crafting, and for sales, they can only purchase available items rolled randomly (ie, no 75% chance of finding anything they want so long as it's within a certain price range).

You could also in this case allow players to commission specific magic items, but that would take however many days that the rules dictate (plus two weeks for gathering components), and cash in advance.

I've been doing something like this in my campaign (no crafting magic items allowed, and players can only buy items up to the Base Value of the largest settlement they have access to). In order to obtain a magic item of greater value, I've required them use a Wish (costing an additional 25k, or 28k if cast by an NPC) to find someone who will sell it to them.

This, combined with the other constraints I've imposed (slow XP track; 10 pt buy, with on bonus points for ability scores under 10; mandatory donations to the crusaders) has helped to slow down the party a bit.

That said, this wasn't enough to keep the AP challenging for very long. I started grouping 2-3 encounters at a time in the second half of book 2, and grouping about a half-dozen encounters together in the dungeon parts of books 3 and 4. In the second half of book 4 even this was getting too easy.

Fortunately, I discovered Scorpion's updated stat blocks, and used those (with doubled HPs) in book 5. That, combined with the above constraints, worked very well for us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:

Well yes and no.

1. Optimisation is the problem. Characters don't diversify they focus on one thing. My wizard isn't optimised he's just made sensible choices that send his DCs through the roof, my fighter isn't optimised he's just focused on dealing damage with his 1 weapon and little else. This is optimisation. It makes a DM and other players need to compete to keep up. It becomes a race of who makes the "best" sensible choices. My sensible witch can just about put everything to sleep since the DCs can get quite high. The other players hate it. The first few times they thought it great, it wears off when they get to watch the witch and clean up. So she put stat points elsewhere. Now enemies make the DCs sometimes and everyone's involved, but the etch stil eels she gets semi league out f that hex.

People even cry foul when they're caught out. It's no fair you killed my wizard with that damage! Well put the stat points in CON, take the lower DCs and get the hp. More rounded, less optimised. Sure it might end up only 40hp but that can be the difference.

I tend to agree here, however it's very hard to make players follow this school of thought unless you design pre-made characters for them (which they don't like at all!). It's also really hard to get everyone at the table to play this way. Even when they do, good players can come up with well rounded characters that will do well in many areas but you would consider them "optimized".

Let me give some examples of the problems I run into:

A few of the people I play with are experienced players, and by your definition optimizers, and a few are somewhat new to the game or are just not good at learning sets of rules.

The first type of player will create a character and without thinking about it they will include a feat tree in their build that gives them a combat advantage, and they will include other choices that synergize with their character concept. They will create a character that doesn't appear to be broken in any one area, but has a complementary set of stats and abilities that give them good offense and good defense and a variety of tools to overcome challenges. This is not that hard to do once you know how each class works, and what feats work well to compliment their abilities. These players will also know generally what their enemy is capable of based on type. They won't necessarily know every monsters stats by heart, but they will know that the humanoid guy with the big sword and bulging muscles probably isn't too fast, so using his slow reflexes against him is a good idea. They know that the Black Dragon is going to have Acid based attacks, flight, blindsight, and fighting him indoors in a small area will put the group at an advantage. They probably know to put Knowledge skills into areas that deal with the campaign they are playing in to justify their characters acting on this knowledge.

The newer or less experienced players on the other hand may ask for assistance designing their character, and may even come up with something that is strong in some areas with help. On the other hand they will inevitably, through lack of experience or just not being able to memorize their character sheet, forget to use key abilities, add key bonuses at key times or just plain mis-interpret their stats. These kinds of players will always regardless of character design be at a disadvantage. They won't know much about what different enemies can do, they probably won't assign (or remember to continue assigning) skill points into useful areas and they will generally find anything other than the basic hack-n-slash combat overly difficult.

The first player will feel comfortable in any situation, will recognize when he is out-classed or at an advantage and will act accordingly. Even with a rounded, less optimized character he will do well. The second player will feel inferior to the first player in almost every respect even if he has a more powerful character simply because he doesn't know how to use it. He will feel tentative about asking questions because he may think he will look stupid, and when he does something wrong in combat and it's explained to him that it doesn't work that way, he will feel like he is making a bunch of mistakes, even if the rest of the group is happy to help him through it.

Mythic compounds this exponentially. The player that knows what he is doing has a whole new bucket of tools to use and learning how to use them is not difficult. The player that doesn't know what he is doing feels like he is in over his head and just had another bucket of dirt piled on top of it all.

I'm trying to work around this disparity, but the Mythic rules were not a big help. My players that knew their stuff were able to compile a set of Mythic abilities that let them pummel the enemy without much difficulty, and those that did not have much experience came up with characters that were somewhat effective, but they didn't know how to use them. Mythic enemies walked all over them because they left themselves open or forgot to use a certain ability they had. Eventually the two players who really knew how to play the game were just blowing everything up and the others were cleaning up the mess.

Going into the next AP I plan to run, I am taking measures to prevent this from being an issue. I won't use the Mythic rules in any game again because they promote rocket tag and I find that distasteful. They directly feed into what you would call optimization. They make players pick a focus stat and then shove a pile of extra bonuses onto that stat, and give them a host of over-the-top abilities to choose from. If a character is even mildly optimized taking the Mythic feats he qualifies for will push him into broken territory really fast.

Anyway, I've rambled enough about this. I know what went wrong, and why it failed in this campaign. I know that some of it is my fault, but much of the blame is the Mythic rules, and I have some ideas of how to prevent it from happening in my next non-mythic AP. For now I want to enjoy just playing the game with another DM for a while. I've been DMing two major campaigns back to back for over two years now so it's time for a break and some planning before I run my next game.


Well, I'm going to say that even though I've just started running the AP, this thread has been an awesome resource for me.

My group is definitely a "1) Roleplay. 2) Roleplay. 3) Roleplay. 4) If there's any time left, have a fight or two" group. In RotRL we've done multiple 6+-hour sessions with no combats, and we've been running session after session with the post-Karzoug political repercussions across Varisia.

So if any group was ever designed to enjoy WotR, my group is it.

And yet I'm still worried, and I'm going to keep track of how combats go for them. They're intelligent players with excellent tactics who choose effective feats and spells, so I expect that they're going to find the later fights to be cake-walks, as everyone above indicates.

At that point, I'll ask them point-blank, "Is this still fun for you, or do I need to up the monsters a bit?"

We'll know in a year or so...


Given what people are saying about this, if you don't change anything else with Mythic, just take the foes you want to be challenging, half the amount of damage they can inflict, maximize hit points and multiply it by four, and have at the group. They'll have foes that last several rounds at least but won't be killing off your PCs quickly (thus allowing for healing to be effective).


Tangent101 wrote:
Given what people are saying about this, if you don't change anything else with Mythic, just take the foes you want to be challenging, half the amount of damage they can inflict, maximize hit points and multiply it by four, and have at the group. They'll have foes that last several rounds at least but won't be killing off your PCs quickly (thus allowing for healing to be effective).

Personally, rather than just increasing hit points, I think it is better to give the enemies powerful defensive abilities or tricks. The ablity to block attacks or an increased reach + mythic combat reflexes that he uses for tripping. The ability to parry one spell per round. A cube of force that blocks magic, but not physical attacks. Anything that can't be figured out with a standard knowledge check that the players will have to find some way to work around.

Sure, things like this make the encounter a lot more complex, but makes it more interesting as well. I've had a lot of success with it in major boss fights in the past.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Given what people are saying about this, if you don't change anything else with Mythic, just take the foes you want to be challenging, half the amount of damage they can inflict, maximize hit points and multiply it by four, and have at the group. They'll have foes that last several rounds at least but won't be killing off your PCs quickly (thus allowing for healing to be effective).

Personally, rather than just increasing hit points, I think it is better to give the enemies powerful defensive abilities or tricks. The ablity to block attacks or an increased reach + mythic combat reflexes that he uses for tripping. The ability to parry one spell per round. A cube of force that blocks magic, but not physical attacks. Anything that can't be figured out with a standard knowledge check that the players will have to find some way to work around.

Sure, things like this make the encounter a lot more complex, but makes it more interesting as well. I've had a lot of success with it in major boss fights in the past.

I've done some of that, but it always feels a bit odd when DMing for experienced players. They know the rules, and they know what can and cannot be done within them so it's harder to justify coming up with mechanics that don't fall within the rules.

I don't have an issue doing this in homebrew campaigns. That's fair game. it's just odd to do it in AP's because they tend to try to make everything work within the rules and I try to follow suit.

Perhaps I will have to change this view and just stop caring.

Scarab Sages

If any AP, this is the one to throw out that consideration. Beyond needing to challenge your players, Mythic is all about the Unique. And you can have any number of effects and powers that your PCs don't get access to.


Aldarionn wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Given what people are saying about this, if you don't change anything else with Mythic, just take the foes you want to be challenging, half the amount of damage they can inflict, maximize hit points and multiply it by four, and have at the group. They'll have foes that last several rounds at least but won't be killing off your PCs quickly (thus allowing for healing to be effective).

Personally, rather than just increasing hit points, I think it is better to give the enemies powerful defensive abilities or tricks. The ablity to block attacks or an increased reach + mythic combat reflexes that he uses for tripping. The ability to parry one spell per round. A cube of force that blocks magic, but not physical attacks. Anything that can't be figured out with a standard knowledge check that the players will have to find some way to work around.

Sure, things like this make the encounter a lot more complex, but makes it more interesting as well. I've had a lot of success with it in major boss fights in the past.

I've done some of that, but it always feels a bit odd when DMing for experienced players. They know the rules, and they know what can and cannot be done within them so it's harder to justify coming up with mechanics that don't fall within the rules.

I don't have an issue doing this in homebrew campaigns. That's fair game. it's just odd to do it in AP's because they tend to try to make everything work within the rules and I try to follow suit.

Perhaps I will have to change this view and just stop caring.

Actually, every single thing I mentioned there are things that are possible to do within the rules. Some are only possible because of mythic. The mythic ruleset has done wonders for my boss battle designs.

Basically, the key is when using the mythic rules to enhance a boss focus on giving them defensive abilities and additional actions. No need to increase damage: players feel threatened enough when they start wondering how they can even kill something.


I've found the ability to possibly block one attack a round doesn't do much. Especially when the blocked attack fails to block.

For one thing - which attack do you block? Or which spell?

No, I think increasing hitpoints but reducing damage outputs works better as it lets the combat last a little bit longer and makes it seem epic when the PCs are doing hundreds of damage a round... and the monster is taking it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

I've found the ability to possibly block one attack a round doesn't do much. Especially when the blocked attack fails to block.

For one thing - which attack do you block? Or which spell?

No, I think increasing hitpoints but reducing damage outputs works better as it lets the combat last a little bit longer and makes it seem epic when the PCs are doing hundreds of damage a round... and the monster is taking it.

Increasing hit points makes the boss last longer, but does nothing to make the fight feel interesting. If the players are taking less damage, and the boss is lasting longer, all it's doing is dragging things on. I don't find that fun or interesting as a player, let alone as a DM.

I think finding a way to present a challenge that the PC'c cannot just overcome by throwing massive piles of damage at it is the key to a fun and interesting fight. There should be a puzzle to solve, that once cracked allows the players to use their massive piles of damage to kill the boss. That way players feel accomplished in having figured out the trick, and they feel powerful because once they got past the trick it didn't take long to kill the thing they are fighting.

Some examples I have thought of are:

A spellcaster boss protected by a one-way barrier. He can hurl spells at the PC's but everything they do bounces off. They have to find a way to disable the barrier, possibly via some hidden room containing the power source for the barrier, or one person has to complete a puzzle of some kind while the rest of the party protects him and distracts the boss. Maybe the barrier has a frequency that changes and lets a different sort of attack through each round at reduced power, and everything else is deflected.

A melee boss that has a magic item connecting him to several statues around the room. Every attack or spell the PC's throw is absorbed by the statues and causes a minor crack to appear. The PC's CAN decide to beat down the boss until all of the statues crumble to dust, or they can choose to try and disable the statues effect. Maybe the statues can be damaged directly, or maybe the effect can be disabled by removing something from each of the statues in a specific order that's hinted earlier in the campaign?

Regardless of the battle, mechanics like the above allow the boss to live long enough to be a threat, and with moderation they won't kill the party. When the party figures out their trick and finally deals the death blow, they will feel more accomplished than if they just smacked the guy and he dies in one round.


So in short you want to give the Boss extra hit points but not call them hit points.


just give every monster a Vorpal weapon and mythic improved critical, also dual initiative only ratchets up the fear factor:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Those are good ideas for a group that likes puzzles, not so good for groups like mine. I'd have one player trying to solve it and three others sitting on their hands getting bored.

There's another thread going on about puzzle fights. Although those are cool ideas they remove importance on character classes and thus the characters that the players made.

Liberty's Edge

Mythic, as a system, is very poorly designed. It takes a cool idea -Pathfinder Super Heroes - and just turns it into another wrinkle (a huge wrinkle) of system mastery and optimization. The fun and interesting options are drastically outweighed by the numerically powerful and optimal choices. In the end, it's just normal Pathfinder dialed up to ~Power Level 9000.

I'd planned starting my own Wrath PBP here but minus the mythic rules entirely for the PCs. I'm curious what the interest would be like.


Has anyone considered running this AP with Gestalt PCs instead of Mythic? No more ridiculous dpr and broken action economy, but the PCs are still stronger offensively, defensively, with vastly more resources than a regular PC.

Scarab Sages

Lochar wrote:

It's not so much as inconsistent as it is trying not to out and out kill your PCs by over modifying. There's a very small sweet spot, even more so in Mythic, between 'curb stomp by PCs' and 'curb stomp by NPCs' and it's hard to hit.

Unless your table likes TPKs, a GM will usually swing closer to the curb stomp by PCs level.

I would prefer to increase mob count and defenses while leaving offensive power alone. Less likely to kill the party off while encouraging additional party resource expenditure.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feral wrote:
I'd planned starting my own Wrath PBP here but minus the mythic rules entirely for the PCs. I'm curious what the interest would be like.

Story Archer is finishing up a campaign where the player characters were not mythic but rather gained an additional level every two tiers, so you might want to try to contact him about advice on that kind of campaign.


Vaellen wrote:
Has anyone considered running this AP with Gestalt PCs instead of Mythic? No more ridiculous dpr and broken action economy, but the PCs are still stronger offensively, defensively, with vastly more resources than a regular PC.

I'd be interested in seeing how this would work. My biggest concern would be the lower amount of hit points and the reduced BaB - that was one of the concerns that led to us doing it the way we did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Feral wrote:
I'd planned starting my own Wrath PBP here but minus the mythic rules entirely for the PCs. I'm curious what the interest would be like.
Story Archer is finishing up a campaign where the player characters were not mythic but rather gained an additional level every two tiers, so you might want to try to contact him about advice on that kind of campaign.

Her. :-P


Sorry, SA. There are no women on the Internets. There are no men either. We are all just artificial intelligences having fun in the virtual wastes before the final power plants fail in the wake of humanity evolving into a higher lifeform....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AFFIRMATIVE.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Story Archer wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Feral wrote:
I'd planned starting my own Wrath PBP here but minus the mythic rules entirely for the PCs. I'm curious what the interest would be like.
Story Archer is finishing up a campaign where the player characters were not mythic but rather gained an additional level every two tiers, so you might want to try to contact him about advice on that kind of campaign.
Her. :-P

Sorry. :) I've gotten a bit cynical in my older age about who really is a lady on the internet. Too many times when I assumed that a female avatar would mean that really a female person was be before the screen, only to be proven wrong. ^^

151 to 200 of 1,282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Wrath of the Righteous / Wrath of the Righteous - A Failed AP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.