AlexTheQueen's page

Charisma really does the same. Players really don't need to be able to sit there and act out a 15 to 20 minute scene of gathering information, making a request, or deceiving someone for the GM to generally be able to ask for a roll and the player and the GM both having a relatively good sense of what that means.

..."Does my character know this" is not hard to arbitrate mechanically, but "how should my character best process this raw information"

They still need to understand what and who they are asking for and where/what information they are gathering. Basic prerequisite of understanding is still there.

Also, no, "how my character best proceed raw information" is still hard arbitrate mechanically, because someone still need to proceed it after dice rolled. Someone is GM in this case. Again. If we expect our GMs to create consecutive logical stories, which includes processing lots of information on the fly, why shouldn't players use their brains to? TTRPGs are mind games for a reason

AlexTheQueen wrote:

Physical abilities could be represented purely by mechanical effects and social/mental abilities do not

I understand how it might feel this way, but measuring and representing physical abilities with a total of 3 attributes really isn’t any more realistic than trying to do the same with mental attributes. It is really no more difficult to represent “how persuasive can my character be?” With mechanics, than it is to represent “how well will my character’s physical health hold up under a constant barrage of life threatening circumstances?”

All of it requires imagination, suspension of disbelief, and a willingness to accept a lot of abstraction.

The question here is not realism, but the representation of what High or Low attribute score means. If you have High ST, you are strong, If you have high Con you are tough, If you have high Dex you are dexterous and so on. This things purely mechanical and could be represented only by system itsefl. Because you do not need to be olympic level athlete in real life, to be olympic level athlete in TTRPG. This is not the case for purely mental stats, having high wis, int and char definitely gives you mechanical benefits, but you can't get full use of this stats without being able to represent them in real life, of course you would need to do that with much lesser degree but still. This is the same thing with gming, GM must have appropriate level of creativity, intelligence and multitasking to be GM. If we expect GM to create consistent plot, remember all twists, play different characters(at the same time) and came up with new interesting encounters(sometimes on fly), we should expect from players some similarities with their character. You can't roleplay genius tactician without at least base understanding of tactic, of course high stats and modifiers will help you with this, you'll get much more information about enemy and the situation, but you should be able to use that information in real life by yourself. Same with genius inventor and other genius type of characters, of course you don't need to be engineer, investigator or scientist by yourself, but you still need to come up with creative ideas for your inventions, connect dots using information you have for investigator, or use scientific knowledge of you character(Of course you can say, that this is dice rolls existing for, but then all same things should be done not by you, but by the gm). Same idea applicable to social skills. You can't get right answer without having right question (recall knowledge saying hi!), as you can't get right result without trying to do right actions in the first place. So yes, even if representing all physique of character represented by three stats is not realistic, it could be represented purely by mechanics, so locking new abilities and actions under purely mechanical lock such as feats is viable, because it is first of all player-and-system interaction. Locking new abilities and actions for things that first of all depends on roleplay and direct interaction with GM is not viable, because it couldn't be represented by mechanics only, this is not computer game, where all choices, words and reaction are programmed in advance. This feats should give bonuses to this actions for purpose of connecting mechanics with narrative(You are better at something, so you doing something better when dice rolls are involved) not locking narrative under mechanic(You couldn't speak to several people at once because you don't have feat, you can't come up with false story, because you don't have feat). Social interactions are outside of the system, system only helps to digitalise them, physical interactions are within the system only.

pauljathome wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Make the roll first and then come up with the narrative.

if the player rolls and then immediately starts giving narrative my attention as a GM is split. Part of me is deciding whether the roll is a success (and how much of a success if that matters), part of me is listening to the narrative.

And why does that not happen with physical skill rolls?

I'm not understanding this. Why does the player not need to get the results of their roll from you as the GM before they launch into their narrative?

pauljathome wrote:

The reason that I prefer to do the narrative first and then roll the dice is because I DO give bonuses (and very, very occasionally penalties) for good roleplaying, for the argument made, for data points they explicitly bring up, etc.

Just understand that this is a houserule. It is fine to houserule the game to work the way that you want - as long as everyone at the table agrees to it.

And be aware that it is a houserule that is going to be exclusionary to certain types of people. April is Autism Awareness Month, so try to be aware that Autistic people exist and would like to play too. Why shouldn't an Autistic person be able to play a Bard effectively just like a person in a wheelchair should be able to play a Monk effectively?

Physical abilities could be represented purely by mechanical effects and social/mental abilities do not

There really is no perfect (or even universally good) solution to this general problem.

If you let roleplay dominate everything then the PLAYER who is good at making speeches will have a massive advantage over the PLAYER who is very quiet, shy, etc. Many of us have been in games where the diplomacy score on the character sheet is all but irrelevant because the GM will just let roleplay win.

If you come up with some set of rules then
1) It is all but guaranteed that those rules will NOT cover all cases. Your examples are cases which the rules just don't cover
2) It is all but guaranteed that those rules will lead to silly results in some edge cases
3) you run the serious risk of turning free form diplomacy/social interactions into "I roll a 31 diplomacy. Did I convince him?"

My personal solution is (in general) to have the player talk in character or at the least (especially for shy players) tell me the basic argument they're making (ie, I make them roleplay but only to the level the player is comfortable with). What they say may give them bonuses but only in the most egregious cases will it give them penalties. I take feats etc into account but will often allow things without feats (usually at a penalty) or stretch feats far beyond the way they're written. So, for example, Group Coercion WOULD work on an entire army in the right circumstances.

And then I just totally and utterly ignore the rules when the situation calls for it. You Meteor Swarm (sorry, I'm an old fart :-)) an army and kill most of them, in a great many circumstances (but NOT all) the army will break and run away. But sometimes it won't. And I decide that by GM fiat, by the circumstances and sometimes I let a dice roll decide when I can't decide for myself.

That works for me and the groups I GM for. I imagine some others would hate part or all of the above. It DOES require a reasonable level of trust between the GM and players.

But the key is to find a solution that works for your group. That may be to wing nearly...

This bunch of good advices, thank you

Finoan wrote:

AlexTheQueen wrote:

I don't understand why feats like this even exist. Why locking things that depend only on roleplay decisions with mechanical blocks?

I have stopped being astonished at how prevalent this attitude is. Not just for this role-playing game, but general in society.

Some people aren't fast or even good at social interactions such as roleplay.

So if participating in the game at your table requires good, fast roleplay, then you are excluding people who don't have that ability. These feats aren't a glass ceiling for typical players, they are a wheelchair for disabled ones.

By taking the feat, I (as the player) can invoke the feat and make the roll and then ask the rest of the people at the table for assistance with the narrative.

Rather than having to on-the-spot quickly come up with a narrative that will convince the GM to let my character do the thing.

AlexTheQueen wrote:

This is some hypothetical roleplay situations that just doesn't work by raw rules because of this feats:

The first time I read about skill feats, I also found them strange because they seemed like they were strange limits to what the character could do. It was only after a while that I understood that they are specializations that make you more skilled in some actions/activities that the skills can do.

A good example that I like to use is jumping.

Any character can Leap. However, to make longer and higher jumps, the character needs some training in athletics and may fail. However, just like an Olympic diver, your character needs to gain momentum by running some distance to be able to make these longer/higher jumps, otherwise the maximum distance he can jump will be that of the Leap. However, in any case, he will never be unable to jump, he just needs proficiency and distance to jump better.

However, a character can train how to jump without running and more quickly, which is represented by the Quick Jump feat.

Later, you can jump even further with the...

You are making good points. But the difference with the Jump feats, which are purely mechanical benefits, so they aren't raise any questions and feats like groupe something, that the latter from my point of view trying to lock possibilities that are purely narrative with mechanics. This is why I don't like them.

About quick coercion. After reading your opinion. This where I'm agree with you now

You're asking for things that have nothing to do with the way the game is played and is purely DM optional rules.

Skill feats are generally for encounter mode which is why they have encounter mode action costs. Skill feats for downtime or exploration mode will list those tags.

Skill feats in no way change how role-playing works. The game doesn't provide rules for what you're stating above as there are no benefits at all for Make an Impression to make anyone get some kind of bonus for loyalty or give a bonus to a 1000 soldiers.

Make an impression is there for RP social encounters against hostiles or indifferent people who you have to do some interaction with for a game goal, not there for you to give a speech to already loyal soldiers in your service.

Run Quick Coercion sensibly and stop getting too much into the weeds on exact rules. People who want perfectly precise, explained rules is not what designers can build for.

Coercion doesn't even work in Encounter mode unless you're using encounter mode for a social situation. So you'll have to decide how that works on an encounter by encounter basis depending on how far along you perceive the encounter to have gone towards combat.

Man, again, question was about reason of existing things that in some degree conflict with role-playing so cresting narrative dissonance. I don't need to know how they work, I know that already. I'm asking how to fix this narrative dissonance and what benefit I should then give to the player, who spent his limited amount of feats on group coercion, if technically everyone can coerce multiple people at time, because it's more roleplay thing, then mechanics

Quick coercion is a feat that gives a player a time shortcut for the standard coercion rule. the shortcut is automatic for those with the feat.
Standard coercion just like quick coercion is not applicable in a combat encounter.
Here is what that means for me.
A player cannot end an encounter with a coercion roll just because they want to roll for it, even if they roll a 20, its not standard, what is standard is using demoralize to apply a stat penalty. This does not mean a GM cannot decide a coercion attempt makes sense in the circumstance and does in fact end combat while the enemies flee.
But it isnt standard use of coercion because combat in this game is meant to normally be a balanced battle experience. As GM though that might not be what you want in every combat, and may want narrative situations to take precedence.
I would say clever use of terrain could end a fight, saying something learned in game that triggers an NPC that you meant to just be a social encounter could change it to a combat encounter. Some fluidity is needed to make an engaging game IMO.

Yeah, this is what I am talking about. And now I need ideas, how to change quick coercion so it would connect with roleplay better. Because, again. Player who's narratively setting knife to someone throat is already pretty quick way to coerce someone in social "encounter"

NPCs don't need to wait for a PC's skill check to acknowledge their situation. PCs need to roll when they want to get a specific outcome. You'll find a lot of encounters where they note "tries to run away if reduced to X hp" etc. The GM is empowered to use logic here in how they would behave.

That is different than actually applying a debuff or status change.

Again, this is hypotetical situation which was created for the purpose of showing how rules RAW could create narrative dissonance. Of course I can think for every npc in particular. This is was not the question. Question is I want to decide using existing game mechanics if soldiers are brave enough to face walking nuclear launcher. Or is my hypotetical warlord is inspirational enough for his soldiers. If I can make every assumption using my oppinion, why even use the system and skills in the first place? Rolls are exist for being a judge in situation with different outcomes. I absolutely can say "all of soldiers just flee" or "All your forces are inspired by your speech so much, that they will fight for you no matter the cost". But there is a chance that this wouldn't happen at all, or happen for almost all of them, but not for each one. This is pretty important to decide. And there is chance that some of this outcomes would happen. If there only was a way built into a system to decide what outcome happened randomly based on circumstation and player's action -_-

Group impression says you can make an impression on more npcs with no penalty.

I treat group coercion the same even though they didnt write it with that phrase.

My second question to you was about quick coercion, not group coercion. But thanks

For some reason people in my thread don't understand that I'm asking this, because some of mechanics RAW creat big dissonance with narrative, and how It could be fixed. Not that i want to turn my hypotetical situations in 1 wizard vs 6000 soldiers encounter, because mechanically they wouldn't flee or that this feats is essential for people who just want to "I make an impression on x people, because feat allow me to do that, and then roll"

For your wizard example, that's not how things work. You teleport, then have one action. Enemy army does its turn. You cast a two action spell then have one action. The enemy army then reacts to having a wizard wipe a large percentage of them out. Then you could cast two action bullhorn to try and talk to them, but it won't have any mechanical effect because you can't intimidate groups because you don't have that training, you could give them an ultimatum and they would have to deal with that.

Intimidation is just giving them a status penalty to everything, without Terrified Retreat and a crit you couldn't make even a single soldier flee no matter what you do. Coercion is taking a while to make sure someone does the activity you want for an extended period of time even if your gone, so doesn't fit this situation at all.

None of that has anything to do with being able to role play an overbearing force to break an army and send them packing. The rules are there to make sure that you have a way to do X and get Y result depending on the dice.

Also using make an impression, lie to me, etc is all about changing an NPCs relation with you, generally improving it by one category. If that is not the effect you want then you don't want to do that action.

So for some reason you are one more guy who:

Let me turn it around on you: why do you want Bob the Plumber to have the same ability to get an entire army to jump into danger that, say, Winston Churchill would have?

You put me in front of an army, I'm Bob. I'm gonna stutter. Mumble. Make the wrong cues. Pitch my voice wrong. Nobody's going to listen. Getting them to listen takes training, and in PF2E "training" is represented by both Proficiencies and Feats.

I get the idea that for a game, you want the protagonists to be able to try a lot of remarkable things with a reasonable chance of success. Not necessarily because that's realistic, but because they are the main characters of the story. But still, part of me wants to lay 'look, if this is something a player in your game is going to want to try and do a lot, tell them to buy the feat and stop trying to argue they should get it for free.' Same thing for Diplomacy vs. Deceive; if they really want to get NPCs to like them, tell them to buy Diplomacy instead of asking for a free skill substitution.

Bob would have low charisma and no diplomacy proficiency. Churchill, would have high charisma and proficiency. Bonuses to their roll already difine if they could overcome dc 40 check, to convince ordinary people to go and fight demon lord, you don't need feat for that. So they should get this opportunity for free. Because feats, are techanical part of the game, not roleplay part. I could partialy, PARTIALY agree with skill substituion being locked under feat. But not with fact, that a player roleplayed and come up with fake stories to impress someone and GM saying "Nah, you can't roleplay like this, because you do not open mechanical oppotunity to roleplay". Do you undestand that it is absolute nonsense? So it absolutely couldn't be turned around

AlexTheQueen wrote:

My brother in cringe, what chain of neural links lead you to this thoughts?

Sad experience.

Also, posts like this one and its follow-up here.

AlexTheQueen wrote:

I sayed nothing about fast roleplay and other things you mention.

You kinda did. You mention that these feats are redundant with good roleplay and therefore you feel that they shouldn't exist. It was literally the first sentence that you posted.

The assumption inherent in that attitude is that everyone who plays the game is good at roleplay.

Nah man, you are making assumptions on my behalf. I said only that this feats by raw are blocking things, that should be made by sole roleplay decisions. "GM, i want to intimidate this grope of thugs, players, please help me to come with good words or description" is roleplay decision to.

I dont run the skill feats talked about so far as hard locks on in game options. I tried it that way at first and didnt like it.

There are two things that happen when you do that.
First is doing so requires game knowledge of all the skill feats in the game to know whats locked. Kind of a ln absurd barrier for GMs learning the system.
Second it doesnt work out well in play to tell players theres a feat for that and since you dont have it you cant even try.

So I just consider the circumstances with what is being attempted and set an appropriate difficulty like with anything else. If they have the feat the thing comes easier or can be automatic.

No charming liar vs having it?
The feat adds a rider effect to crit success. It happens when your not even attempting to use deception to improve NPC opinions of you. (This would get a dc based on gullibility and how hard to believe the lie is for the npc, it may also be temporary because the lie could be exposed)
If your attempt is to improve their opinion of you then its not something else like convincing the npc the item you are selling them is an antique from old Taldor instead of a pot you found lying around the market. With charming lier a crit success on convincing the npc for selling the pot also increases their opinion of you. They dont just believe the pot is an antique they also think your a great guy for giving them first crack at a deal to buy it.

Finally, thank you

AlexTheQueen wrote:

I don't understand why feats like this even exist. Why locking things that depend only on roleplay decisions with mechanical blocks?

I have stopped being astonished at how prevalent this attitude is. Not just for this role-playing game, but general in society.

Some people aren't fast or even good at social interactions such as roleplay.

So if participating in the game at your table requires good, fast roleplay, then you are excluding people who don't have that ability. These feats aren't a glass ceiling for typical players, they are a wheelchair for disabled ones.

By taking the feat, I (as the player) can invoke the feat and make the roll and then ask the rest of the people at the table for assistance with the narrative.

Rather than having to on-the-spot quickly come up with a narrative that will convince the GM to let my character do the thing.

My brother in cringe, what chain of neural links lead you to this thoughts?

I sayed nothing about fast roleplay and other things you mention. If you bad with social interactions, just ask your fellow players and gm to help you with the speech. You don't need this feat to make a request to afflict number of people in the first place. So indeed it is a glass ceiling. Because nothing stops you from saying "I want to do X, but I don't know how to do it as character, please help me with my course of action". You don't need this feat to ask for help in real life. This feat has nothing to do with being bad or good with words in real life. It's only Influencing how much people you can talk to in game simultaneously. It has nothing to do with wheelchairs.

AlexTheQueen wrote:

Charming liar is even more problematic. Why I can't make in impression on someone with Deceive in the first play, if I roleplay it with telling false stories about me, or pretending that I am more...

I would consider your first two examples to be better addressed through a mass combat system that contains leadership actions. Small party tactical & social system rules aren't designed for that.

For the third one, for any fixed attribute+ fixed skill ttrpg system it makes sense to put some useful skill substitutions behind character advancement walls. Because that's the sort of thing players are going to find really useful as their characters advance. If however your table thinks the venn diagram of 'what Diplomacy does' and 'what Deceive does' should overlap for making an impression, then yeah you can give that substitution for free. That's just not the default.

Actually, using leadership subsystem sounds as good solution for situations like that, thanks

Whether they believe you is another story

If there only was a mechanical way to define how much of them believed wizard and this wasn't up gm...

This is precisely the problem that confuses me in the first place with some design decisions and there purpose. I don't say that it's impossible to come with solution. I'm saying that this is why I should come up with up-to-gm solutions. Of course I'll set DC and say my player to roll intimidation to see how much of them run or succumb, based on his result. But by raw this is coercion action, and technically by RAW it's impossible.

If you think it's 'homebrew' you don't understand pf2. What I described are basically 1) normal GM's storytelling 2) improvised skillchecks if checks are even required (yes, they are allowed, described as possible in the rulebooks several times and are even recommended if needed). And I'm becoming confused. Do you want more rules or less? You are displeased with feats which give specific and a bit narrow abilities and when I give you very much RAW way of solving situations not having specific mechanics

Okay, I think you understand me wrong in some way, I want nor more rules, nor less. I'm just confused with existing one, because from my point of view they are sometimes conflict with narrative. I call this homebrewing only because what happens is "I have feat, that's allow player to afflict more people with his words. But I allow everyone to do this, so I need to change how this feat work within my table". If to be exact then nothing is homebrew, because first rule says, that I can change rules how me and my players want for the sake of having fun

AlexTheQueen wrote:

But I am still confuse for example what I should do with feats like quick coercion (Coercion done in a round and not in minute) because, well grapple someone and set a knife to his throat and mabe hit him with your fist is international method of intimidating someone. So this feat confuses me.

Isn't it obvious? Quick coercion doesn't demand real violence (to the point it can't be used in battle) at all, including making checks, and allows reliably get results of Coerce action very quickly.

AlexTheQueen wrote:

Same with leverage connection feat, isn't having friends in town where you already was is pure narrative thing?

And same here. Reliability. No, it's not pure narrative thing if you haven't actually explicitly made NPC friends in the game beforehand. You can't just say "I suddenly have friends in this random visited town and am coming to them for help just because I want to". It's extremely likely I, for example, will say "no, you have not". With this feat you just can (even though some prerequisites and demands from GM are still possible as described in the feat).

Okay, at first. Quick coercion doesn't tell anything about violence. That's true. But what if I try to intimidate someone with more straightforward methods? Hitting him in the face and the promising to do something horrible with him if he doesn't submit. Or just, as I mentioned already, set a knife to his throat? Technically I can't do this by raw, because it's clearly stated that I need to spend a minute conversation before attempting.

Second, okay, I'm agree that mechanical representation of "I have friends in every town even if I visit it for the first time" without prior narrative justification required feat, so it's the good feat.

If you're mid-battle, you typically don't have time for Coerce, nor do you need it. Such a demonstration of terrific violence will likely be enough to make the survivors flee of their own volition.

Agree me to disagree, my friend. As I already said mechanics should support narrative. So maybe some of them are stupidly brave or delusional enough, that's even my demonstration is only almost enough for them and they need last reason to run. So I still need some mechanical way to decide how much of them would run or not. So this is where this wizard should roll his intimidation to show his degree of persuasiveness. And this is where mechanics by RAW doesn't very helpful with narrative.

Wrong.

Yes, your troops are more loyal. (Maybe). It just doesn't have any mechanical impact. Only fictional. Which is more than enough.
Same with wizard. GM just roleplays army as terrified. Or not. Yes, that's enough.
You can make an impression. You just must roll Diplomacy and can't roll Deception for that (but you can or should roll Deception for them to not discover you b*!!~%#&ting them). Yes, that's enough. No, it doesn't prevent any roleplaying, roleplaying is not about which skill you roll.

The mentioned feats exist to extend your mechanical capabilities and make them guaranteed and mostly independent from GM's judgement.

My man mechanics should support narrative and vice versa. Lots of homebrew up to gm assumptions isn't very good

AlexTheQueen wrote:

I don't understand why feats like this even exist. Why locking things that depend only on roleplay decisions with mechanical blocks?

This is some hypothetical roleplay situations that just doesn't work by raw rules because of this feats:

Let's say I'm a charismatic war leader, I'm planning the attack on enemies keep and decided to give my troops an inspirational speech, so they would be more willing to fight and die for me. Let's say my forces consist of 1000 soldier's. I want them to be more loyal during the battle. So I give a speech, and to be more loyal they should like me more, sounds like Make an Impression action to me.

But bad luck for me, I didn't take this feat. Sadly now, only one soldier is more loyal, others just missed all my words entirely.

Second situation. I'm great wizard(20 lvl wizard). Ruler of the kingdom ask me for help, because enemy army is attacking the city right now. I'm teleporting right before the enemy army. And cast falling stars on them(and 4 40-foot bursts are humongous territory). Let's say army consisits of 6000 ordinary soldiers of different ranks(so different lvl). This spell would absolutely annihilate most of enemy army, if it placed right.So now my wizard says to them using amplifying voice cantrip(Don't remember it's name)"Drop your weapon and flee, or survivors would die to!".

Sounds like coercion check to me, but bad luck again, I don't have feat that allows me to coerce with less then minute of conversation(And this happend definitely on less time then minute) and even of I had, only one soldier would flee from this greate demonstration of power, because I can coerce only one creature, and even if I had Group Coercion and legendary proficiency in intimidation, I could coerce only pathetic 50 people at time, after annihilation of almost all enemy forces.

Charming liar is even more problematic. Why I can't make in impression on someone with Deceive in the first play, if I roleplay it with telling false stories about me,

...

Ok, I'm actually agree with your point. Actually this is exactly how I home ruled it in my games. Players with this feats get circumstance bonuses/lower difficulties and players without them don't. What confuses me, the initial purpose of this design. I think paizo tried to give social interaction precise and it was the pan sample. But I am still confuse for example what I should do with feats like quick coercion (Coercion done in a round and not in minute) because, well grapple someone and set a knife to his throat and mabe hit him with your fist is international method of intimidating someone. So this feat confuses me. Same with leverage connection feat, isn't having friends in town where you already was is pure narrative thing?

I don't understand why feats like this even exist. Why locking things that depend only on roleplay decisions with mechanical blocks?

This is some hypothetical roleplay situations that just doesn't work by raw rules because of this feats:

Let's say I'm a charismatic war leader, I'm planning the attack on enemies keep and decided to give my troops an inspirational speech, so they would be more willing to fight and die for me. Let's say my forces consist of 1000 soldier's. I want them to be more loyal during the battle. So I give a speech, and to be more loyal they should like me more, sounds like Make an Impression action to me.

But bad luck for me, I didn't take this feat. Sadly now, only one soldier is more loyal, others just missed all my words entirely.

Second situation. I'm great wizard(20 lvl wizard). Ruler of the kingdom ask me for help, because enemy army is attacking the city right now. I'm teleporting right before the enemy army. And cast falling stars on them(and 4 40-foot bursts are humongous territory). Let's say army consisits of 6000 ordinary soldiers of different ranks(so different lvl). This spell would absolutely annihilate most of enemy army, if it placed right.So now my wizard says to them using amplifying voice cantrip(Don't remember it's name)"Drop your weapon and flee, or survivors would die to!".

Sounds like coercion check to me, but bad luck again, I don't have feat that allows me to coerce with less then minute of conversation(And this happend definitely on less time then minute) and even of I had, only one soldier would flee from this greate demonstration of power, because I can coerce only one creature, and even if I had Group Coercien and legendary proficiency in intimidation, I could coerce only pathetic 50 people at time, after annihilation of almost all enemy forces.

Charming liar is even more problematic. Why I can't make in impression on someone with Deceive in the first play, if I roleplay it with telling false stories about me, or pretending that I am more then I am?

cheezeofjustice wrote:

Oh thank god maybe people will actually read the mythic rules now instead of just listening to kneejerk reactions on Reddit that critique Mythic Resilience outside the context of the rules to the point of pointing at a monster that a caster could easily solo and crying out "Look, this example in the book is an exception to the rules so I'm right that the mythic rules screw casters!"

2nd Edition's mythic rules are SO much more tied into and interwoven into the narrative part of the game than 1st edition's, which were very deep into the rules side of things without a lot of intentional integration into the narrative. It's one of the larger ways we've adjusted mythic rules in this edition, after hearing so much feedback about how 1E's mythic rules meshed with the 1st edition "Wrath of the Righteous" tabletop experience, and then how much more satisfying an experience folks had with the computer game version where the mythic stuff was more deeply integrated into the lore and story and world.

Hopefully once folks start playing adventures (and once we start publishing them as examples, beginning later this year with the Myth-Speaker Adventure Path) this potential disconnect with how they work will smooth over a bit?

The answer is definitely no. New mythic rules have narrative issues and mechanical. Narratively they are not working, because narrative should connect with things it really do. For example Fiend getting his own domain doesn't correspond with the fact, that it's just small area of diff terrain which you should suspend with heavy tax on your actions. Even later it doesn't get better. Beast master isn't actually a master, and even his ONLY companion isn't mythic, so useless vs mythic enemies. Wildspell that should be ultimate spellcaster mythic literally doing nothing with making you mythic master of magic. Narratively mythic enemies like Oliphant and Kaiju also not work, because the are no stronger or more epic then corresponding high level monsters, if forgot about over the top legendary-resistance style defense.

Mechanically also every thing is bad. Abstract collings that gives you nothing and also some of them are actually similar like bookkeeper and sage. Locking core things like mythic attack and mythic spell casting with feat tax, meaning there will be zero creativity and diversity, because you MUST take it, so you can still catch up with game mathematics. And poor alchemist, Kineticist and future classes that uses things like class DC or other things for calculations, meaning that they can't get their proficiencies. And biggest elephant in the room. Mythic proficiency it self. Why it getting worth with level? Why mythic powers start to be weaker near level twenty? Why it isn't just boost your current proficiency level for doing stuff by one level initialy(Like making you Expert, when you are trained, Master when expert, legendary when master and mythic when legendary)

And much more problems then what I mentioned. Mythic not working narratively and not working mechanically either, all system looks like it was unplaytested and very raw. And this makes me sad. I hope some day you and paizo will rebalance/redisign all this. Because absence of initially bad designed rules that needs heavy homebrew so they worked as something that they say they are, but actually not are the main reason why I loved PF2e in the first place.