Mythic Playtest Sneak Peek

Will there be rules to temporarily grant epicness to a weapon? Like dipping it in a sacred pool, the blood of a special monster, light of a special candle, etc?

Is it too late in the design process to request that "warden" be renamed "guardian" (or maybe "vanguard")?

"Warden" implies a person who polices or supervises in a lawful manner.

"Guardian" is more generic, and can apply to any unyielding defender.

(And a "vanguard" stakes out territory, holds the line at the front of the battle, and fends off ambushes that would otherwise move in to attack vulnerable allies. All very stalwart stuff.)

Does a mythic creature get +10hp for every mythic level it has?!

Is it too late in the design process to request that "warden" be renamed "guardian" (or maybe "vanguard")?

"Warden" implies a person who polices or supervises in a lawful manner.

"Guardian" is more generic, and can apply to any unyielding defender.

(And a "vanguard" stakes out territory, holds the line at the front of the battle, and fends off ambushes that would otherwise move in to attack vulnerable allies. All very stalwart stuff.)

Good suggestion, "Archmage" and "Trickster" are much stornger names than "Warden". "Guardian" sounds fine if he actually gets some powers to protect others (like the bodyguard feat) "Vanguard" sounds tough, I like it.

idk, I think warden has a very good ring to it. Guardian is too... generic sounding. Vanguard sounds better than Guardian, but I really do like Warden. It reminds me of the Gray Warden from Dragon Age.

I wonder just how many people will panic "PAIZO IS TURNING PATHFINDER INTO 4E!!!!!" when a "tier" called "Warden" will appear in a Pathfinder book.

Good idea Meepo. I would prefer Warden being left for base class and Guardian being the mythic path.

I am assuming that the methodology for determining CR (CR4/MR2 equals CR6) holds true for determining APL. As in a party of level 3/MR2 characters would have an APL 5 for the purposes of determining level appropriate CR and treasure.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Of course we all know what happens when you make an assumption, it makes an ass out of you and umption.

I am assuming that the methodology for determining CR (CR4/MR2 equals CR6) holds true for determining APL. As in a party of level 3/MR2 characters would have an APL 5 for the purposes of determining level appropriate CR and treasure.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Of course we all know what happens when you make an assumption, it makes an ass out of you and umption.

Probably not, since CR does not equal level for these calculations, even in the core rules. It's level -1 for CR, so by this math calculating APL would be level -1 + Mythic Rating.

EATERoftheDEAD wrote:

I am assuming that the methodology for determining CR (CR4/MR2 equals CR6) holds true for determining APL. As in a party of level 3/MR2 characters would have an APL 5 for the purposes of determining level appropriate CR and treasure.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Of course we all know what happens when you make an assumption, it makes an ass out of you and umption.

Probably not, since CR does not equal level for these calculations, even in the core rules. It's level -1 for CR, so by this math calculating APL would be level -1 + Mythic Rating.

Actually, based on what is said in the back of the NPC Guide, and from what I've heard about the iconics in the NPC Codex, PC's, due to the amount of wealth they have, are CR=Character Level.

Fair enough, I haven't read those.

EATERoftheDEAD wrote:

I am assuming that the methodology for determining CR (CR4/MR2 equals CR6) holds true for determining APL. As in a party of level 3/MR2 characters would have an APL 5 for the purposes of determining level appropriate CR and treasure.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Of course we all know what happens when you make an assumption, it makes an ass out of you and umption.

Probably not, since CR does not equal level for these calculations, even in the core rules. It's level -1 for CR, so by this math calculating APL would be level -1 + Mythic Rating.

You're mixing things there, EL. CR and APL are not the same thing.

APL is Average Party Level.. 4 6th level characters have an APL of 6. If there are 6 or more PCs, add 1 to the effective calculation.

In the Core, determining CR for an enemy/challenge NPC with class levels was PC class levels -1. If they have NPC class levels, there's an additional -1 in the formula.

Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short). You should round this value to the nearest whole number (this is one of the few exceptions to the round down rule). Note that these encounter creation guidelines assume a group of four or five PCs. If your group contains six or more players, add one to their average level. If your group contains three or fewer players, subtract one from their average level. For example, if your group consists of six players, two of which are 4th level and four of which are 5th level, their APL is 6th (28 total levels, divided by six players, rounding up, and adding one to the final result).

and later in the same section:

Adding NPCS: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Races, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.

Fair enough, I haven't read those.

I don't remember seeing anything like that in the GMG.. I'll have to look when I get home.

As for the NPC Codex.. it is not out yet.

Guardian is too... generic sounding.

"Champion" is also generic sounding.

[Warden] reminds me of the Gray Warden from Dragon Age.

There's also a warden class in The Lord of the Rings Online... and Dark Age of Camelot... and Everquest 2. Should a mythic path be evocative of a base class from another game system, or should it be evocative of characters from myth?

Beowulf wasn't acting as a "warden" of Heorot when he defeated Grendel.
Cu Chulainn didn't serve as the "warden" of Ulster's borders.
Gilgamesh didn't build the walls of Uruk to "ward" the city.
Hector and Paris weren't the "wardens" of Troy.

All of the above characters were defending and guarding things; it only makes sense that they be called "defenders" or "guardians" or some variation thereof. (While warden can be used as a synonym for guardian, that is not warden's primary definition in any dictionary I've checked.)

"Vanguard," for example, would be a particularly apt description of Cu Chulainn at the start of the Táin Bó Cúailnge, where he arrived in advance of Ulster's other forces and stood his ground against the entire army of Queen Medb, taking any punishment their champions (and at least one spurned goddess) could dish out.

I challenge fellow posters to find any incident in mythology where the hero would be best described as a warden. Even in instances in myth where individuals are charged with taking custody of an infant god or hero, those individuals would be best described as the "guardians" of their ward, not the "wardens" of their ward.

The name "marshal" has similar shortcomings, but I can't really think of a good alternative. The best I can come up with is "muse," and that's too narrowly defined to be of any use.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Fair enough, I haven't read those.

I don't remember seeing anything like that in the GMG.. I'll have to look when I get home.

As for the NPC Codex.. it is not out yet.

Not the GMG or the NPC Codex. The NPC Guide is a Pathfinder Campaign Setting book, with some playtest PC's in the back. It says that since they are equipped at the same level as a PC, that their CR is equal to their character level. I don't remember where it was stated in the forums, but it was said that the CR for the iconics in the NPC Codex will be the same, as they will be outfitted with PC-equivalent gear.

Urath DM wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Fair enough, I haven't read those.

I don't remember seeing anything like that in the GMG.. I'll have to look when I get home.

As for the NPC Codex.. it is not out yet.

Not the GMG or the NPC Codex. The NPC Guide is a Pathfinder Campaign Setting book, with some playtest PC's in the back. It says that since they are equipped at the same level as a PC, that their CR is equal to their character level. I don't remember where it was stated in the forums, but it was said that the CR for the iconics in the NPC Codex will be the same, as they will be outfitted with PC-equivalent gear.

Ok, thanks, that was my confusion on the NPC Guide.

That's basically what I was saying to Evil Lincoln, though. CR is NOT a measure of a PC, usually, as they have a higher expected gear than even a NPC of the same level. The measure of the PC party is generally the APL. What the NPC Guide is saying is that, if you equip NPCs with the same WBL as PCs, their effective CR becomes equal to the NPC group's APL (more or less).

Hmm... I'm not sold.

It sounds, to me, like the goal of this creature is to pose a challenge to a PC that's been amped up to the point that they are as much out of the league of a normal PC as a normal PC is to an NPC-class character.

I generally get this, but it has several problems:

* It divides the organized play world into mythic and non-mythic, which dilutes the player base in areas where there are limited numbers of games.

* It's only one additional tier, so now you have NPC, PC and MPC. Why not have PC[0] (NPC), PC[1] (traditional PC), PC[2] ("mythic") and so on, in a modular way?

* It's not clear to me that this interacts well to alternate systems of "character development currencies" such as gold (and thus gear), PA and feat-based add-ons such as Leadership.

* It brings the status and benefit of Adventure Paths into question. Do people who want to play Mythic have to avoid APs? Do people who don't want Mythic have to avoid APs? Are APs padded out with lots of "to apply Mythic to this encounter..." rules?

* Similar question to above with respect to Bestiaries

* It feels as if every well-known NPC in Golarion would need to be written up as Mythic in order to make sense. No one source book has ever been a requisite for EVERY major NPC except for the Core Rulebook (though, granted APG is certainly common).

All of these points could be addressed, but I'd still be uneasy about the impact on the community.

I'll wait and see and hope to be pleasantly surprised...

Worried about the old Forgotten Realms problem of 'all NPCs are epic'?

Hmm... I'm not sold.

It sounds, to me, like the goal of this creature is to pose a challenge to a PC that's been amped up to the point that they are as much out of the league of a normal PC as a normal PC is to an NPC-class character.

Hmm. The creature is CR 6. It's a tougher challenge to APL 4 nonmythic PCs than a CR 4 standard minotaur... just like any other CR 6 encounter.

* It divides the organized play world into mythic and non-mythic, which dilutes the player base in areas where there are limited numbers of games.

I suspect PFSOP is going to use mythic in limited ways—either as special mythic enemies in certain scenarios, or special scenario arcs where the PCs temporarily gain mythic power, then lose it when the arc is completed. So this isn't going to divide the OP world any more than one town having mostly low-level games and one town having mostly mid- or high-level play.

Note that if this were epic (level 20+) rules instead of mythic rules, PFS OP wouldn't use it at all, because it stops at PC level 12.

* It's only one additional tier, so now you have NPC, PC and MPC. Why not have PC[0] (NPC), PC[1] (traditional PC), PC[2] ("mythic") and so on, in a modular way?

Well, ignoring that it's not all-or-nothing, why can't one level 6 scenario involve a MR 3 foe, and a level 10 scenario involve a MR 5 foe?

* It's not clear to me that this interacts well to alternate systems of "character development currencies" such as gold (and thus gear), PA and feat-based add-ons such as Leadership.

I am not surprised that a single monster stat block does not clarify how the mythic rules interact with gp and PA. :)

* It brings the status and benefit of Adventure Paths into question. Do people who want to play Mythic have to avoid APs? Do people who don't want Mythic have to avoid APs? Are APs padded out with lots of "to apply Mythic to this encounter..." rules?

I don't know if you mean dealing with existing APs, or with future APs that may have mythic material. However, I'll point out that the same could be said of APs that use summoners, ninjas, gunslingers, or nagaji, all of which are from other Paizo hardcover books ... and it's worked out just fine.

* Similar question to above with respect to Bestiaries

Likewise, working out just fine with three Bestiaries, as it did with just the one, plus all of the third-party material that's referenced and reprinted in the APs.

* It feels as if every well-known NPC in Golarion would need to be written up as Mythic in order to make sense.

I don't get that impression at all. Mythic isn't just "oh, you're high-level, therefore you are mythic." Mythic is about power beyond the norm for a character of level X. As I described it in a reply to the previous mythic announcement blog: In the same way that Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, and Aquaman are all "superheroes" compared to normal people, there's clearly a difference between what Superman and Wonder Woman can do than what Batman and Aquaman can do... and it has nothing to do with their character level.

Worried about the old Forgotten Realms problem of 'all NPCs are epic'?

In the Podcast, it was suspected that Mythic NPCs will be from 'a time long past' like the Runelords or Azlant. People like Nex and Geb would be Mythic, but not every high-powered NPC in Golarion will be Mythic.

Razmir is a 19th level Wizard, but that doesn't mean he's Mythic. People you see listed as 20+ are likely to be Mythic characters.

@Sean
Were you the one who made that same comment in the Podcast? Except Aquaman can't even talk to Dolphins.

I don't remember if it was me and I haven't listened to the podcast to check, but it probably was me.

* It brings the status and benefit of Adventure Paths into question. Do people who want to play Mythic have to avoid APs? Do people who don't want Mythic have to avoid APs? Are APs padded out with lots of "to apply Mythic to this encounter..." rules?

We obviously can't tell how it's going to work out yet, but as I understand things - one of the design goals is for one or two mythic PCs to be able to run through a "standard" AP, so if that's the case I think there's just more utility for APs, not less.

FWIW, this is the biggest draw card for me by a significant margin. We don't play a lot of pathfinder but I have a suspicion that, if this goal can be achieved, mythic rules will change that.

The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of the Baldur's Gate video game series. Of course your own character's biggest Mythic ability in that game was that he could respawn at his last save point. That aside, I think this is a lot of what they were trying to get across in that game, or would have loved to if they'd had the chance.

I might just have to do something along those lines for my test run of this, Golarion style though.

I'd also strongly prefer ”Guardian“ to “Warden”, yeah. And “Marshal” is subpar, too … the rest is fine. :)

For those who don't know, I posted a list of things revealed in the Mythic Adventures Podcast. The actual Podcast can be found in the Paizo Blog. I highly suggest listening to it for yourself.

I'd also strongly prefer ”Guardian“ to “Warden”, yeah. And “Marshal” is subpar, too … the rest is fine. :)

For some reason "Marshal" jumped out at me as odd as well. "Warden too to some degree."

It would be fantastic to reach back into game lore and pull out better names for these.

The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of the Baldur's Gate video game series. Of course your own character's biggest Mythic ability in that game was that he could respawn at his last save point. That aside, I think this is a lot of what they were trying to get across in that game, or would have loved to if they'd had the chance.

I might just have to do something along those lines for my test run of this, Golarion style though.

Totally agree. I thought of this immediately when I read an outline of what mythic rules were.

ajs wrote:

* It brings the status and benefit of Adventure Paths into question. Do people who want to play Mythic have to avoid APs? Do people who don't want Mythic have to avoid APs? Are APs padded out with lots of "to apply Mythic to this encounter..." rules?

We obviously can't tell how it's going to work out yet, but as I understand things - one of the design goals is for one or two mythic PCs to be able to run through a "standard" AP, so if that's the case I think there's just more utility for APs, not less.

FWIW, this is the biggest draw card for me by a significant margin. We don't play a lot of pathfinder but I have a suspicion that, if this goal can be achieved, mythic rules will change that.

I asked JJ about this and his response was that it is increasing in importance as a design goal. I'm intending to playtest Mythic from this angle.

Lukas Klausner wrote:

I'd also strongly prefer ”Guardian“ to “Warden”, yeah. And “Marshal” is subpar, too … the rest is fine. :)

For some reason "Marshal" jumped out at me as odd as well. "Warden too to some degree."

It would be fantastic to reach back into game lore and pull out better names for these.

"Guardian" is the 4th-highest title a paladin can hold in AD&D 1e (behind chevalier, justiciar, and paladin).

"Muse" is 4th-highest title a bard can hold in AD&D 1e (behind lorist, bard, and master bard).

"Warder" (with an "-er") is the 5th-highest title a paladin can hold in AD&D 1e (behind guardian, above).

For camparison:

"Archmage" is the title of several powerful NPCs dating back to AD&D 1e.

"Champion" is the 3rd-highest title a fighter can hold in AD&D 1e (behind superhero and lord).

"Hierophant" is the highest title a druid can hold in AD&D 2e.

"Trickster" is a title a low-level illusionist holds in AD&D 1e (behind cabalist, some made-up words, spellbinder, and illusionist).

Steve Geddes wrote:

ajs wrote:

* It brings the status and benefit of Adventure Paths into question. Do people who want to play Mythic have to avoid APs? Do people who don't want Mythic have to avoid APs? Are APs padded out with lots of "to apply Mythic to this encounter..." rules?

We obviously can't tell how it's going to work out yet, but as I understand things - one of the design goals is for one or two mythic PCs to be able to run through a "standard" AP, so if that's the case I think there's just more utility for APs, not less.

FWIW, this is the biggest draw card for me by a significant margin. We don't play a lot of pathfinder but I have a suspicion that, if this goal can be achieved, mythic rules will change that.

I asked JJ about this and his response was that it is increasing in importance as a design goal. I'm intending to playtest Mythic from this angle.

Fantastic to hear. Most of my gaming is with two player campaigns. Generally we play two characters each, but a way to play with just one would be awesome. :)

Yeah Steve Geddes my group is me and my friend and that is one thing i am looking forward too.

Here is a question I was thinking about. How will Mythic Levels affect Knowledge checks for identifying Mythic Creatures? Will they be considered rare since mythic is suppose to be rarer? Or will the Mythic Tiers add to the CR for the Knowledge check? Thanks for any answers.

Knowledge checks are set at a DC of 10 + the CR of the creature. Mythic Tiers add to the CR of the creature, so the DC of the Knowledge check will increase as well.

You could easily do something like be fighting a Mythic Minotaur and make your Knowledge check to know stuff about Minotaurs, but you have absolutely no clue how the Mythic Minotaur is doing what he's doing.

Would really add suspense for the players that don't have access to the Mythic Adventures Rule Book wouldn't it? Either that, or build feelings of "GM's f&$~ing us, we're all gonna die."

Knowledge checks are set at a DC of 10 + the CR of the creature. Mythic Tiers add to the CR of the creature, so the DC of the Knowledge check will increase as well.

You could easily do something like be fighting a Mythic Minotaur and make your Knowledge check to know stuff about Minotaurs, but you have absolutely no clue how the Mythic Minotaur is doing what he's doing.

Would really add suspense for the players that don't have access to the Mythic Adventures Rule Book wouldn't it? Either that, or build feelings of "GM's f%#!ing us, we're all gonna die."

Question is, would it count as 'rare knowledge' (15 + Monster's CR) since Mythic Tiers are supposed to be fairly rare?

Well, personally, I would look at the Mythic Minotaur as an entirely different creature. Say you encounter him, the Wizard (or whomever has the Knowledge skills) will make a Knowledge check pertaining to Minotaurs.

But then he sees the Minotaur do something weird. Like head but someone into a Maze spell.

You get a response of, "But... but... Minotaurs can't do that!" So they would then need to make a separate Knowledge check to see if they know anything about the rare Mythic abilities. Creatures so unique, the come about only once in a great while. Paragons of their race, if you will.

Of course, there will be extenuating circumstances, like if a Minotaur did something weird from the get-go, it may only require the one check, because they're trying to remember unique Minotaur abilities specifically.

This is how I personally would handle it. Two separate checks at different DCs, one for the 'common' Minotaur, and a different, higher, one for the rare Mythic Minotaur.

OTOH, Mythic monsters are just that: Mythic. Legendary. Stories are told about them.

Perhaps the Knowledge DCs should be easier?

OTOH, Mythic monsters are just that: Mythic. Legendary. Stories are told about them.

Perhaps the Knowledge DCs should be easier?

Stories are told, yes, but often times, stories are exaggerated.

Althought i agree that Domain Mastery is a poor choice of wording, Demesne is too fancy for my taste, Lair Mastery is better, and dragons could have it too :)

Instead of 'Guardian' or 'Marshal', how about 'Stalwart' or 'Aegis'? This is supposed to be the Mythical 'Tough Guy' right?

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Mythic monsters are just that: Mythic. Legendary. Stories are told about them.

Perhaps the Knowledge DCs should be easier?

Stories are told, yes, but often times, stories are exaggerated.

True. I just dislike the idea that by RAW Knowledge rules, most people haven't even heard of legendary monsters.

Thinking off the cuff, you get one piece of info per 5 pts over the roll, right? So you should be able to get at least some information easily, but only a high roll will get you the whole truth. It would be nice to see what you get at each stage for Mythic creatures at least.

It's always seemed very vague to me. Pretty much up to the GM whether you get the critical piece at the base or at the last stage.

But that's another rant.

As I described it in a reply to the previous mythic announcement blog: In the same way that Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, and Aquaman are all "superheroes" compared to normal people, there's clearly a difference between what Superman and Wonder Woman can do than what Batman and Aquaman can do... and it has nothing to do with their character level.

If you are a gambler... always bet on the bat.

Tels wrote:

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Mythic monsters are just that: Mythic. Legendary. Stories are told about them.

Perhaps the Knowledge DCs should be easier?

Stories are told, yes, but often times, stories are exaggerated.

True. I just dislike the idea that by RAW Knowledge rules, most people haven't even heard of legendary monsters.

Thinking off the cuff, you get one piece of info per 5 pts over the roll, right? So you should be able to get at least some information easily, but only a high roll will get you the whole truth. It would be nice to see what you get at each stage for Mythic creatures at least.

It's always seemed very vague to me. Pretty much up to the GM whether you get the critical piece at the base or at the last stage.

But that's another rant.

The reason why I felt it was rare was because during the podcast, they mentioned that mythic monsters in Golarion would be creature in the corners of the Earth that time forgot.

Sean, are there going to be Mythic Magc Items and Mythic Spells?
I really like the concept of Mythic Levels in combination with normal levels again Paizo has hit it out of the park.

Sean, are there going to be Mythic Magc Items and Mythic Spells?

I really like the concept of Mythic Levels in combination with normal levels again Paizo has hit it out of the park.

This post I made in the Mythic Adventures thread is a breakdown of everything revealed in the Mythic Adventures Podcast which you can find in the Paizo Blog.

thejeff wrote:

Tels wrote:

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Mythic monsters are just that: Mythic. Legendary. Stories are told about them.

Perhaps the Knowledge DCs should be easier?

Stories are told, yes, but often times, stories are exaggerated.

True. I just dislike the idea that by RAW Knowledge rules, most people haven't even heard of legendary monsters.

Thinking off the cuff, you get one piece of info per 5 pts over the roll, right? So you should be able to get at least some information easily, but only a high roll will get you the whole truth. It would be nice to see what you get at each stage for Mythic creatures at least.

It's always seemed very vague to me. Pretty much up to the GM whether you get the critical piece at the base or at the last stage.

But that's another rant.

The reason why I felt it was rare was because during the podcast, they mentioned that mythic monsters in Golarion would be creature in the corners of the Earth that time forgot.

I believe that that was more to do with Mythic NPCs rather than monsters.

I'm starting to wonder if Razmir is a wizard/mythic hierophant to help fake divinity.

True. I just dislike the idea that by RAW Knowledge rules, most people haven't even heard of legendary monsters.

Knowledge local to know local myths and legends, so to have heard of "the Sandpoint Devil" or "the Mangler Minotaur".

To know that it has DR/epic and ? THAT's Knowledge (X) with a DC 10+CR+

I would say CR + 10 to know of normal monsters.... CR + 15 to remember the much rarer Mythic mobs.

Instead of 'Guardian' or 'Marshal', how about 'Stalwart' or 'Aegis'? This is supposed to be the Mythical 'Tough Guy' right?

While I'm fine with Warden, I do like Stalwart as an alternative. Good call. Though, to nitpick, it's Warden that's supposed to be the Mythical "tough guy"; Marshals are the Mythical leaders or tacticians.

I think the names should work well in pair as well.

She's an Archmage Wizard
He's an Archmage Sorcerer
She's a Champion Fighter
He's a Heirophant Druid
She's a Heirophant Cleric
He's a Trickster Rogue
She's a Trickster Bard

They work, to my ear

He's a Warden Ranger
She's a Warden Druid
He's a Marshall Paladin
She's a Marshall Inquisitor

These don't work, to my ear.

Marshall doesn't work because it is a homonym of 'martial' and just sounds like your character fights when you're talking about it.

I prefer 'Vovoide', it means "leader of the army" and sounds cool. 'He's a Vovoide Fighter'.

Polemarch (pronounced pol-uh-MARK or pol-a-MARK) work too

Warden just sounds too officious, like your ranger warns people not to litter and not to get too close to the deer.

By contrast, 'She's a Stalwart Paladin' sounds great.