Alan_Beven's page

Another consideration to the "best vs worst" angle is that it is in the rules for a DM (DMG p 239) to award automatic success. When you figure that into the equation I suspect the 16% chance drops right away.

Also PHB p 174 suggests a roll only when the outcome is uncertain. This is not explained in detail, but there is certainly room to interpret that a 20 strength character has a "certain" outcome in an arm wrestle against a 3 strength character.

My problem with this venture was the I enjoy Golarion and the creative team at Paizos work greatly. But somehow the MMO mistranslated that great work into a generic, bland, frankly boring game. Which was a huge shame.

I like many others cannot help but feel that licensing the world and IP to a maker of single player isometric view games would be very successful.

For what it is worth I give out tons of background like abilities to my players. The key is to avoid combat pluses and generally any other stacking things, and it stays pretty balanced.

Some of the things I have given out:

A barbarians reputation grew so fierce that she got double proficiency on intimidate.
Someone learned to cook really well.
Someone got so good with a particular weapon that they increased their crit range to 19-20 with just that weapon.
Someone got so good with a shield that they can block 3d10 worth of damage per long rest as a reaction.
Someone got medals and a uniform that gives them advantage in social situations in a particular city.
Someone got given a house and food for life in a given village.
The whole party got given mechanical griffons that can fly at 60 feet per round but cannot meaningfully participate in combat.
I gave out the spell sharpshooter feat for free.

None of these things have caused me an issues as a GM. The worst thing for balance so far was a ring that gave the wearer 19 constitution. The party wizard ended up with more hp than anyone else in the party!!!

I am playing in the Realms now, and I agree that one great benefit of bounded accuracy is precisely that even a 20th level wizard is not an invulnerable death machine. Given sufficient mundane soldiers such a wizard would do best to turn tail and run.

I justify the lack of high level interference quite easily as a result. They don't want to die. A 12th level NPC could fairly quickly be taken down by a largish number of orcs, and they know it. Best to use "agents" to take some risks.

I am going to be a counter view here. I think it is a good decision. The forums were perhaps 10% quality posts to arguments and filler at best. I really feel like wizards has made huge strides with being accessible through Twitter and Facebook, in fact I find them more accessible than the Paizo staff, with a few exceptions. Many companies maintain a social media presence and have no forums, and do just fine.

I actually find that these forums, which granted I take some pleasure in reading, often portray paizo customers, if not Paizo themselves in a negative light. I have taken away more than one negative experience from them, and that experience has coloured the way I feel about Paizo as a brand.

So martials that get a third and fourth iterative in the system basically miss out? Not complaining just checking that I am not missing something.

Some of the feats in the stamina section begin with wording like:

"You can select this feat even if you don't meet the ability score prerequisite (XXXX). You gain the benefit of this feat only as long as you have at least 1 stamina point in your stamina pool."

I am not clear on what this is intending. Does it mean that you can spend stamina to use (as an example) combat expertise even though you don't have combat expertise as a regular feat?

I will just also echo the fact that it is a very well written book and incredibly easy to read. Even given the difficulties that Vic has presented I would urge Paizo to consider coming up with some form of core book written in a similar fashion.

Breaking the thread rules a touch by just throwing my positive vibes in about Mythic as well. I really love mythic I think you guys did a great job. Not perfect, but very very good, and importantly created a new niche in the game for those of us who enjoy that sort of stuff. I also really enjoyed WotR for what it is worth, awesome storyline.

So I hope you can take some encouragement from those folks like me and my group who just quietly enjoy your work immensely. My current campaign has me "mythicing" up Horranth!!

I don't agree with all eight, but the system has ground me down with 1000 cuts so I no longer have any desire to play. The meta game of character optimisation combined with the weight of rules sapped the fun out of my gaming sessions. Too many campaigns sank for me due to game rule issues.

I like Paizo and can appreciate Pathfinder for what it is.

David Bowles wrote:

Alan_Beven wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.

And in my homebrew a +5 item would be an epic thing, rare as hens teeth, with an extensive backstory and deep ties to the campaign world. Not a parlour trick to challenge PCs.

To each their own. A 25K item is not really epic at all, though.

I too have found something I agree with Dave on.

in PF a +5 cloak isn't epic, its a right/essential of all 10th or so level pcs, and is but one of many shiny baubles on any Christmas tree

You are of course by the rules correct. But I hate the Christmas tree with a passion and my home brew insists that magic items are wondrous things rather than stat boosters. Which is one of the things that 5e does better for me!!!

In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.

And in my homebrew a +5 item would be an epic thing, rare as hens teeth, with an extensive backstory and deep ties to the campaign world. Not a parlour trick to challenge PCs.

I purchased Rise of Tiamat and have completed a read through. I recall some folks not being happy with how Tiamat's stats were presented, I believe that they thought that her combat abilities were boring. Personally I was pleased with the way that she was presented, and I believe that her stats bring in some of the sensibilities of both 1e and 4e. Monster creation in 1e as some have mentioned is not structured with the same subsystem as PC character building, and I always found that to be a feature and not a bug. Why would a giant centipede or wyvern use the same rules as a small humanoid creature? Just like in nature species are different and not evenly distributed. I also think the 4e sensibilities that a monster is only "on screen" for a short while so it only needs to do what it can do is a good thing. I know as a GM I have been pretty intimidated by high level spell casting monsters with 20-25 spells in their spell lists, but also is that monster really going to cast magic missile or faerie fire?

So, yeah, colour me pleased by how the 5e monsters are turning out so far.

I really don't understand the campaigns the posters are playing in. My combats rarely end in two rounds and I have seen many many blown SR rolls in my time. I'm beginning to think we don't even have a common frame of reference on pathfinder.

Well here is a link to me asking the Paizo creative director about the very thing a couple years back: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=318?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#15876

Seems that it has happened for a few of us.

I agree that 3.5 is the only one that went so far as to be DM neutral, but most non D&D systems acknowledge that while the DM is the final arbitrator, there are significant things, especially when it comes to character progression and development and access to new equipment, that are firmly largely, if not entirely, within the control of the player. D&D has never achieved that kind of balance. Officially, it's always either "DM controls everything" or "DM is just another player that happens to run the monsters and NPCs." And the gaming community surrounding the brand does little to soften that all or nothing approach. To me, it's one of the biggest reasons that I'm starting to get weary of new D&D editions, and even to a certain extent, getting weary of PF.

I like the idea of a system where the DM has final say, but I just don't think that the overall community or company support is there to keep it from going off the deep end into DM controls everything, including a great many things they shouldn't.

I would disagree from my observation that "most" non D&D systems offer progression, development and access to equipment solely in players hands. Vampire? Nope, special equipment is earned via roleplay (aka no unilateral crafting), disciplines out of the standard clan 3 are Storyteller permission. Shadowrun, equipment availability is GM realm, I do not recall a crafting system. Tunnels and Trolls? Same as 1st ed DND for loot and advancement. Pendragon is a strange beast where some "advancement" was even out of the players hands via random winter events. No crafting that I can recall. Numenera, GM literally hands out the cyphers and artifacts as a core part of the game. 13th age has no crafting that I can recall, multiclassing is GM permission. I could go on.

I totally get that a bad GM makes a bad game. Some people should not GM. Vote with your feet. I just personally feel that a system that trys to "even the paying field" ends up hurting the game in ways that I do not enjoy. The symptoms in PF of this that bother me are:

- Expectation of magic items in your stats
- Players have the "right" to exchange gold and time for their choice of magic item
- The CR and wealth by level making just utterly unrealistic scenarios where the solution is to "loosen your blade" because you never face an unbalanced fight

I don't hate the above things about PF, but frankly they stop me telling the types of stories that I enjoy telling. I fell that 5e better allows me to tell stories that are close to my interest, complex roleplay, dangerous, dark, horror laden stories.

in my experience 3.5 is the only system that moved seriously towards a "gm as neutral body" stance. Every other role playing game I have played (somewhere in the 20 region) recognises and embraces the fact that the GM is the ultimate arbitrator of the game. Personally I think 3.5 and PF gives a great illusion of player control that just does not exist.

"Ok you enter the first room of the dungeon and there is an ancient red dragon" "But we are second level" "Roll initative.."

I am pretty sure the idea of skill challenges originated with an idea that an out of combat mini game could be fun (and why not!) and then an attempt was made to codify a certain amount of difficulty into a certain amount of xp reward. Which at its core is a pretty good idea. The issue however is that the implementation is just nearly impossible to nail in game, requires preparation, and at its worst it stifles player creativity.

I tried to use a version of the SC which amounts to players saying what they are doing and making skill checks. When roughly enough checks succeed to equal the difficulty that I am going for them you get the xp reward. But to be honest it is fairly arbitrary and not particularly engaging. Because at its heart it's about getting lucky with skill rolls to earn xp. Out of combat (or freeform as I described it above) is at its best when it is the players wits and imagination against the obstacle. And this is kinda the opposite of a skill challenge. I know you can bolt on auto successes etc, but in the end you just end up with a fairly unsatisfying experience in my opinion.

I ended up using the encounter building rules for an average skill challenge, at the players level generally, and awarded that amount of xp every half hour of solid roleplay/skill checks. Not scientific at all, but probably the most satisfying solution to me.

I agree with your points 1 and 2 but not necessarily with 3 and 4.

I'll start with point #4 because its the easiest. If Skill Challenges don't work for you well then don't use them. If they do well then go right ahead. Game works either way so just go with your preference.

All that said I have found that its pretty easy to get a crappy Skill Challenge and I've found that making good ones often require quite a bit of work as well as some idea as to why it is you want a skill challenge in this spot for them to be good...most of the time. They do work quite well for major trap disarms and the like as well. In this case they are just being used simply as a kind of compromise. Yes the characters can use their skills to say shut down the mechanical monster...which is more variable then simply saying it has to be killed through HP damage but they need to do more then just make a single skill roll (because that would be too easy).

Point #3 is were I'm not all that clear on whether I agree with you or not. I mean I have no idea what you mean by 'Mythic'. OK I would not really want a basic Blacksmith that took up adventuring most of the time mainly because one can do better in the Drama Department. A Blacksmith with 'something' in her background that can be used for character development is fine however. Maybe her Father had some dark secret that will become relevant later in the campaign or maybe she is actually related to the Fey or who knows...but something is better then nothing in this regards for the same reason TV show characters work better if they have interesting elements in their history...its just better drama and story telling.

On the other hand I have found that 4E works best for me when it is essentially 'grounded'. When the PCs are pretty much mortals with some cool combat moves as opposed to fledgling Gods. 4E does a very good job in this department as well. The Dm sets the vast majority of the DCs so one can pretty much chase PCs with target numbers appropriate for their level for a lot...

My "mythic" comment was probably a little off centre, what I was getting at was that the characters in 4e are pretty full on in their power, they have some pretty crazy powers. Being able to push people around with arrows, fire 9 arrows in 6 seconds etc, kind of makes "gritty" harder to pull off. I think what I meant was the you need to embrace the PCs "cool moves" and that PCs are generally portrayed as "superior" to the remainder of the world.

The game also seems to imply that PCs shouldn't suffer too badly from diseases or general hardships. It hints that the NPCs suffering should be what shows the PCs superiority.

Agreed that combat is one of its strengths.

I also really liked what it did with the "mythology" of the game, the feywild, shadowfell etc. I do realise that many people did not like this, but I felt it "cleaned up" things and makes it less fiddly to run. I like to think of it as a "reimagined" version of the DnD mythos.

I will start out by saying that I love 4th edition. However I will also note that the rule system does not suit all campaign types, and thats OK by me. What I would like from this thread is to distill some campaign types or themes that play to 4th editions strengths. The things that come to mind for me are:

1. Combat. The 4e combat system is great. Campaigns need to embrace this.
2. Low/No "Throwaway" Combats. The 4th edition combats can be lengthy. Combats should have some form of weight behind them, minimal "random" combats.
3. Strong story, but aimed at "Mythic" level of PC involvement. PCs should not be dirt farmers or blacksmiths in 4th edition.
4. Out of combat is freeform. Skill Challenges never worked for me.

I would love more input from you all given that we have had 6 years to get to know what the rules can do.

I am fine with less choices, because most of the choices you're given in Pathfinder are pretty much just trap options anyway. Then there's all the "must have" feats. If you're building a character that wields a 2-handed weapon, you're going to take Power Attack and Furious Focus. Every single time. If you're building an archer, there goes most of your feats. These feats aren't really options; they're not diversifying your character; they're mandatory for your build to work. I mean, you could take Alertness or such with your archer, but you're going to want to wait 'till you've gotten all the essential feats. Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. When you look at the shear number of choices, and realize you're only ever going to be availing yourself of 10% of them, the illusion evaporates. I'd rather have less, but more meaningful, options. I'm not saying 5th presents a perfect solution, but I appreciate the attempt at simplifying the game. I'm not really a fan of an ever-growing mass of rules text, in the form of feats; they really slow down gameplay.

Extremely well explained. The interesting thing that I found was that my players were amazed that they could just do what they wanted without permission from the rules (feats).

Well I am going to jump to another conclusion and assume you just want to keep pressing your point rather than engaging in a conversation. Enjoy.

The choices available during advancement.

1. They can be rare
2. Options are very limited
3. The impact of some opportunities for choices is minimal

Essentially, it feels like all the options for a character are made at level 1 (or creation). Once you make those decisions, things change, but you don't get to decide how or what changes. The few opportunities do not seem satisfying IMO.

While that is an oversimplification, compared to Pathfinder you are quite right. I have said it before, 5e is a game that plays almost completely "at the table". The "away from table game" is very light on and frankly, I love that. YMMV.

Alan_Beven wrote:

So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!

One of the reasons I like it is that I'm hoping it makes it more valuable to acquire miscellaneous magic items, rather than focussing on boosting your main schtick.

A magic item allowing you to fly become that much better in a world where the magicuser cant just effortlessly make the entire party flit around.

Admittedly, I dont think of it as a change but rather as a difference. I'm not particularly wedded to any ruleset, so I dont really have a "default" understanding of how magic should work.

Agreed. In my 5e campaign magic items are actually treated as precious things, as they should be.

Alan_Beven wrote:

So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!

"Heavy spell casting combo", like casting fly on the fighter. "Heavy spell casting combo", which doesn't really exist because you only get one concentration spell.

And since neither wizards nor clerics have proficiency with Constitution saving throws, even the base 10 will fail pretty often.

Not sure how much PF you have played or DMed? I stand by my combo statement, at least in all the PF games I am involved in.

So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!

From my playtime with the game so far casters have not been nerfed as much as they have been shifted away from their 3rd edition playstyle. Your mileage may vary here. I find the concentration spells are a different way to create the playstyle from 1st ed. Casters had very few hitpoints and stayed way out of melee. In 5e casters are more survivable, but getting hit penalises them differently but quite harshly.

For me, more game at the table. I have about 95% less discussions with my players about edge cases, weird rules, complex build options between sessions. We play the game now, and between sessions my players read up on lore and recount cool moments. It is actually incredibly awesome.

The other thing so far is complex, large fights that are fluid and rapidly resolved.

The above are the "outcomes" of 5e for me (over 4e and PF) rather than a dissection of rules differences.

I can run the adventures I want in a world I like. I can use all of my 1E and 2E stuff easily again. I can also easily convert DCC RPG and LotFP RPG adventures and other OGL D20 fantasy. Heck, I even used 4E's Gloomwrought boxed set. D&D Next is a blast to play (we're up to 13th level so far) and when we convert I expect the enjoyment to continue.

Basically, running D&D Next feels like running AD&D 1E to me without the arcane and strange rules. In other words, for me, it is perfect. Lots of action, weird monsters, a world to build, and with much of the character options from later editions for the players to enjoy.

Here's an example. The PCs were 11th level and using a faulty teleport circle. They teleported to a sky island (floating rock in the sky) and the circle went dead. They were surrounded by 100 zombies who attacked in waves.

That combat was intense. Especially as the zombies were actually coffer corpses and about half of them stood back up after getting knocked down.

I can't see me DMing a combat like that in 3E or 4E. But it would have worked in 1E and now it works again in 5E.

The big boss fights that worked somewhat well in 3E and 4E now also work in 5E. For example a lich or dragon has special powers if attacked in its lair. The crypt or cave itself may rise up against intruders to protect the boss monster.

I like the flavor also. All my years of D&D knowledge work again. 4E could be frustrating because so much of that knowledge didn't work. 5E brings back the usefulness of that knowledge while still keeping the best innovations made in 4E that don't completely change the basics of D&D.

I find comfort in 20 levels, many races and classes to choose from, fireball being 3rd level, hex crawls, dungeon crawls, dragons being deadly. and clerics and wizards having different magic. I also like the warlock being added in, adapted from 3E and 4E. I like the dragonborn (from 3E and 4E) and the tiefling (2E but with 4E origin).

D&D 5E is fun. It is traditional. It is also modern with...

Great post and exactly my feelings.

5e for me is a game that is played at the table, not on internet forums or with character building software. Trying to analyse its components misses it magic at the table.

Alan_Beven wrote:

Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.

Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

The fact that varied selection of spells exist so they can re-write their powers every day is enough. Cantrips should follow the rest of the spell casting model, X times a day.

For me that is - keep in mind that this is supposed to be a modular system that has an appeal to older edition players and DMs. That's what I'm looking to recreate.

Agreed you should be the world builder. And that's why 5e is great, low number of moving parts you can make that change and play the storytelling style you like.

It will not surprise me to see limited cantrips in the DMG as a "system hack".

thejeff wrote:

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)

No you are right, it would be off the casting stat, not Dex.

That just makes feel more justified in the houserule of limiting use of cantrips.

I don't have a problem with using the casting stat to hit - makes sense and it isn't going to add to damage. I do have a problem of adding casting stat to hit, 1d10 damage at range, and can do it all day every day.

The bolded part is where the casters need to take a hard hit in the shorts. If the system prevents me from delivering that solid, well placed boot stomp then I need to walk away from the system.

The sword thing is a non-issue. Bounded accuracy means that even a weakling wizard with no DEX or STR still has a chance to hit with that sword for 1d8 - the issues start to pop up of what happens when he gets hit back because he is standing where the hitters stand. Bounded accuracy doesn't help if the Wizard has the worst AC in the game. Nor does the wizard have built in class abilities that will help him get through the encounter (2nd wind), it's all prepped and cast spells at that point.

From 4 sessions of actual play with this exact same scenario, it makes next to no difference to the game. The wizard still needs to make a hit roll, with around similar chance that the Martials have, and 1d10 without any modifiers is not exceptional. It's less damage than most longbow wielders do since most have a decent dex.

Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.

Well I just played the game last weekend with a party of 4 level 8 characters, 3 out of the four being Martials. I put them up against a group of 20 wererats in a tunnel complex. The wererats were using hit and run tactics with shortbows and I can tell you that even against the very high AC of some of my characters (18 is average) they got some decent licks in. They managed to whittle the characters down to about 1/2 their hit points. The wizard/fighter unleashed a Thunderblast(?) spell that nuked 7 in one go. Fun battle with CR 1 (I think?) foes providing a meaningful challenge to level 8 characters and the entire combat played out in under an hour.

Needless to say I am pleased with 5e at this point.

Lots of good stuff.

I feel similarly to you. Disclaimer: this is not edition warring. I personally found the 4e smoothed out some of the problems you mentioned. You could take a look at some of it's ideas. 4e was a little heavy handed.

One of my house rules comes from it however. Teleport only allows you to arrive at a teleport circle.

Ok after reading this I HAVE to get my hands on this game!!

Some more:

I want to be able to run a multi transport type long range journey involving horseback, wagons, ships etc. 4000 miles or more. Requiring hirelings, and other NPCs. Would like to have details on costs of setting up this type of thing. Wages, weights of items, how much provisions, types of trade goods, etc. also the types of encounters that would occur, broken wheels, impassible terrain etc. Basically how to establish and maintain profitable trade routes, as well as just general interesting long range travel.

In a similar vein, a sandbox type of game system for generic overland exploration. Food, water, weather considerations. Interesting events that are not combat events. Hex style exploration. Reasons to carry fresh good over trail mix. Why sleeping in a tent matters. The works. There is plenty of the elements of this stuff out there, but I know of nothing bringing it all together into its own "mini-game".

Some others:

Details on how a medieval village works and grows. How much population before a mill is needed. How many hectares get farmed per capita. Throw in magic on top of it all, magic fountains, cauldrons that multiply food.
Hedge magic, hard to repeat pseudo magic that is passed along from generation to generation. Hexes, charms etc.
Ways to amp up simple creatures to be terrorising. Spriggans that inhabit the rafters of buildings and whose presence curdles milk. Creatures who take to the wing at night by tr full moon and whose passing shadow strikes livestock dead.

A few things:

Robust mass combat system that scales to squad level, minor skirmish and major battle. The Paizo one is fine but very shallow.
A bolt on to the magic system that allows for much more epic casting. Kinda like get 20 casters together and they can cast an uber fireball that wipes out a town.
A book full of intrigue storylines that can be threaded into your campaign.
More Artifacts. Way more artifacts. And minor artifacts like +1 swords that have a really great backstory.
Really deep support of the Paizo planes. City of Brass is awesome. Let's see a book of 20 planar locations or waypoints.

These are the first things that come to mind anyways.

I had a look at the document and was very disappointed. Like Zaister, I liked the idea of ToB, but hated the implementation.

It's the same system with its dissociated mechanics again, complete with the pseudo-vancian spellcasting system. There can be no in-game reason for the Warlord not to have all his tricks available at any time. (Within reason, of course; a system like for spontaneous spellcasters might work better in that respect, even if it's another spellcasting system.)

And before anyone answers with something like "You are the reason why we can't have nice things" (happened to me to often while discussing this issue): new toys for martial characters would be nice (if not necessary), but please not a spellcasting rip-off that makes no sense when it comes to non-magical characters.

I am genuinely interested in the reasoning here. Pathfinder already does this!! Why are barbarian rage rounds limited per day? Why can the bard perform only so many times? Why can a monk only flurry so many times per day? Why can a rogue once per day possibly avoid going below 1 hp? Why can a cavalier do heaps of extra damage only a couple of times per day, and even more weirdly, if someone else kills your target you can't repeat it? Why can the gunslinger only do a couple of "grit" tricks per day?

There are plenty of classes in Pathfinder that have precedent for this type of limited tricks. Why does this mechanic strike such a nerve?

Yep I agree the music missed the mark for me. I actually liked the track itself, but it totally missed the mark of evoking a sense of Golarion for me.

I would be all over boxed sets like this. I also vote for Absalom for what it's worth!!

Implemented in 4e. I liked it. Lots of people didn't.

In my view this book demonstrates to me that Paizo is willing to tackle subjects beyond raw combat and exploration in the hardcover line. And I heartily approve of this direction and would very much like to see further rules books that explore the non-combat side of the game further!

Wowo. Amazing stuff.

Question about Absalom. When I was "getting into" Pathfinder it initially seemed to me that Absalom would be the hub of the setting. However that certainly is not the case in terms of focus of the support material. What level of interest is there in Absalom going forward? It certainly seems like it could support an entire hardback of its own.

For how to do this right (IMHO of course) take a look at Exalted by White Wolf. It's my go to game for Epic. I don't love the system, but they nailed the feel.

Again, as a result of the "Paizo needs to get its house in order," thread, I'm not going to be answering the wall-of-text complex rules questions. What qualifies as a complex rules question (or its commonly spotted variant—the "please render a ruling on a confusing bit of rules text") is not something I'm willing to post guidelines on. If it qualifies to me as something that's better served being posted in the rules forums, I'll make that decision based on my own gut feeling.

This question's one such example. Please repost to the appropriate rules discussion forum.

Not a question but a statement. Speaking for myself I find myself paying the MOST heed to your previous rule clarifications due to your respect for the games aesthetic and history, your common sense and your continuous respect for the GM. I am personally offended by the fact that some over zealous pedants with clearly far too much time on their hands to overthink things have ended up removing your ability to share your wisdom with the public. And I would be extremely pleased as a Paizo customer to point that out to both Lisa and Jason.

Thank you for your passion and all you do.

I agree with the OP. Paizo is great at creating fun "fluff" and this is sorely missing from this document. I hope that the full rulebook will fill the gap.

This is a modern roleplaying mindset. PCs never have to retreat and should be challenged enough that it feels like they had to work for it. Huh? Seriously? A monster will throw everything they have at the party to survive. End of story. PCs may die, they can be resurrected!! If players are frustrated by their lack of defense against something they should learn from that and patch that hole!! My players 15th level barbarian had a will save of +6 when raging. My intelligent monsters were very well aware of it and attacked that weakness. Am I a jerk GM? Perhaps. When a PC rolls a good knowledge check against the monster and then uses appropriate offensive spells they are smart players?

- Foes the size of a town that you can enter and climb on. Cannot be defeated by regular combat
- Spells that require rare components and longer casting times that affect large areas. Baba Yaga cold kinda stuff. PCs have to reverse it.
- Fairly simple spells that are for mythic reasons not trivial. Snow White falling asleep, and requiring a specific trigger to wake kinda stuff. Could be Geas, body swapping, curse, but not undoable with a simple standard action.
- Generally spell casting that is harder to pull off but much more persistent, or larger in range, etc. NOT talking about damaging/combat spells here.
- Ways to scale opponents up in logical ways to allow fighting scores of them. Like swarm rules for non tiny creatures. Wanna fight 5000 orcs?
- Somewhat already covered by ways to make specific opponents invulnerable, or much harder to defeat via regular combat. Need to find their weaknesses, or generally be smart to defeat them.
- An area of Golarion where you can go nuts with this stuff and not break the world!!
- Abilities that are learned from grand masters that are out of the scope of the normal characters.
- Direct connection with Dieties who grant boons specific to the particular character.
- Ways to make spell casting more customised to your character without necessarily boosting its power.
- Ways to give powerful abilities that also have downsides when used too much or at all. Eg you can cast at +3CL but your spells are less reliable due to your immense power.

I'll have some more later......

And my personal favourite from BECMI days, an elven fortress hidden behind a waterfall :-) OK mayby not mythic but who wouldn't want one of those!!!

Ultimate campaign and Mythic Adventure looks to be my favourite new releases!! Do all in your power to make sure levels 10-20 get some attention oh mighty dinosaur!!