Red Dragon

Matrix Dragon's page

1,600 posts. Alias of Matrixryu.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of archetypes that replace feats. They're basically just feats by another name. The thing that made archetypes great was that you could use them to replace abilities that weren't relevant to the character you wanted to create.


Just out of curiosity, how would a chaotic paladin even function thematically? The entire idea of a 'Paladin' is that he's a warrior who is incredibly devoted to following his 'code' and his god's ideals.

I can see Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral paladins working since they can follow codes. However, When you make the class chaotic, why would it care about following codes to such an extreme?

It feels like you need to change the entire premise of the class to make it non-lawful, and at that point you may as well just have a generic holy warrior (like the Warpriest) who can be any alignment but doesn't have as many rules to follow.

Edit: After thinking about it a bit more, I guess one way a Chaotic Good paladin could work is if the rules about behaving honorably and following local laws were removed. They'd have rules to follow, but they'd only be *their* rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like what I see for the Paladin class so far! I'm also very happy that the paladin code has been given an order of precedence, with 'good' on top and 'laws of mortals' on the bottom. I've always believed that a religious lawful good type would care far more about his god's laws than the laws of whatever city he happens to be in, though he generally would be trying to follow good local laws anyway.

I like the focus on defense and the useage of spell-points rather than weak spellcasting. The only thing I'm not a fan of is having to use a reaction for Divine Grace.

I'm neutral on the subject of 'paladins of other alignments'. I can see a desire for Lawful Evil antipaladin types, but I don't even understand how neutral or chaotic paladins are even supposed to work. Paladins are all about following their gods laws to the absolute, but that theme gets weird with chaotic types.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a part of me that was hoping that the new Pathfinder spell system would be like Spheres of Power, but I knew that this was never going to happen, lol.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have great memories of abusing the Kitsune Sorcerer FCB to get a +5 bonus to the DCs of my enchantment spells. However, I have to admit that it and a bunch of other FCBs were not well balanced. If FCBs stay in the game, they *need* to be more balanced than the PF1 bonuses were.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I like the most about this version of the alchemist is that the items he's creating are basically the same as the ones that anyone else can make, just better/faster. The way PF1 alchemists were randomly magical while 'normal' alchemists weren't bothered me a lot, lol.

The one thing I don't like is how long it takes to get Mutagen and Feral Mutagen. I made a melee focused beastmorph alchemist for PFS, and he was one of my favorite characters even at level 1 and 2. Now it seems like I would have to wait until level 5 to even get mutagen, and level 8 for claws?

Hopefully an archetype will be available to work around that, maybe something that trades out enhanced bombs for earlier mutagens and such.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

An interesting tidbit:

Another GM in my gaming group has been looking forward to Pathfinder 2.0 since he wants more balanced and streamlined rules. However, once I told him that goblins were going to be a core race his immediate reaction was essentially this: "Darn it, now it will be much harder to keep our problem player from playing a goblin and making our games into jokes. I guess we won't be doing Pathfinder 2.0."

The sad thing is I kind of found myself agreeing with him. This 'problem player' is a friend, but we have to work hard to keep him from derailing our games. If he gets his hands on a goblin character it is going to be terrible. I guess I now have a better understanding of why so many people here are dead-set against core rulebook goblins. It is basically the Chaotic Neutral alignment all over again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of playable Pathfinder goblins, but you all are taking this a bit too seriously. Out of all the changes in PF2, this is pretty much the least important one. A race can be banned if your GM doesn't like it, but dealing with issues with the core game mechanics is a much bigger deal. Can we please just focus our energy on the game mechanics instead?

(That said, I would have much rather have had a Kitsune core race ;) )


Rysky wrote:
That might make the "keep them mundane" side happy, but it wouldn't anyone else, since relying on magical items to be superhuman is the system we have already in First Edition.

I think the issue with PF1E was more about the sheer number of magical items that were needed. If PF2E fighters needed a magic sword and magic armor to use some of their upper level abilities I don't think it would be a big deal if it was done correctly.

Personally, I think having the fighters be reliant on having some sort of 'legendary weapon' like King Arthur or Inuyasha I think it could be kind of flavorful. (Yes, I just used a real world legendary figure and an anime character in the same sentence.)

Edit: I agree that this shouldn't be the only path for characters to get those sorts of abilities though.


One way to make both sides of this 'realistic fighters' debate happy might be to make many 'superhuman' feats magic item dependent. For example: there could be a legendary feat that lets you cut down buildings with a single sword slash, but it requires that you use a +5 magical weapon. That way it is less about the fighters themselves being superhuman and more about them making the best use of their magical gear.

This way, low magic games won't have fighters chopping down buildings because the gear to support that playstyle won't exist, but fighters would be able to keep up with spellcasters in a high magic game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

These discussions about human fighters suplexing dragons while totally not being superhuman has me thinking that these characters are secretly demigods. They are just trying to act like they are mortals but are failing spectacularly. "Look at me, I'm this normal human being that fell into a pit of lava and survived. That's a totally normal thing!"


TolkienBard wrote:

I guess my biggest question at that point though would be, how does one ever find their way beyond level 13-15 or so without being born to it?

Well, they live in a world where they are surrounded by magic, so there are two main possible answers. One is that over time, their body absorbs some of the magic around them and becomes superhuman, like those superheroes who got their powers from radiation exposure. The other possibility is that the existence of magic in their world has changed the laws of physics in such a way that anyone who lives there has a higher potential than anyone in a non-magical world.


Here is an idea for making martial characters seem more powerful at high levels: At level 15+, martial characters could have a "power attack" style ability that they can activate that increases their melee damage, but also creates a powerful shockwave that damages things (whether they like it or not) beyond their melee attack range.

This would allow you to roleplay the idea that your high level fighter is usually holding back, because if he used his full strength he could unintentionally collapse a building or part of a dungeon. It would be something you only use in emergencies against a truly strong opponent. Something like this would probably have to be built right into legendary level proficiency so all high level martials get this sort of flavor.

Yes, I have been watching too much Dragon Ball Super lately, but this sort of trope also applies to a lot of superheroes and legends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, limiting this to the base classes makes things a bit difficult for me, but here goes:

Ninja (Rogue): I am counting this as a very big archetype. I find the theme of ninja characters to be much more interesting than rogues.

Beastmorph (Alchemist): I had a lot of fun playing one of these. I'm a huge fan of animal shapeshifter themed characters.

Mooncursed (Barbarian): I have never gotten to play one since I often get stuck playing casters, but I have really wanted to try this archetype out.

Scaled-Fist (Monk): I love the idea of this archetype, because I love dragons and the idea of a monk powered by draconic energy rather than normal ki is amazing.

Qinggong (Monk): Another monk archetype, but I viewed this as almost required for making monks with interesting powers.

Non-core:
Synthesist (Summoner): Yes it had balance issues, but I *loved* this archetype just for the sheer flavor of it. I used this to make a character based on Naruto's nine tailed fox 'aura'.


The "cutting a mountain in half" thing shouldn't be an issue. All the GM needs to do is put someone or something that the players need to save in there.

That said, I think that level of destruction should be reserved or epic or mythic levels of play. Being able to cut a building in half might be more reasonable for a 15-20th level character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On one hand, I like that it looks like the numbers in this version of Pathfinder look more balanced. On the other hand, if this turns into a game of "You have about of 50% chance of accomplishing anything" it is going to get really boring really quickly. Someone who is "legendary" at a skill should be more than 5 points better than someone who is untrained but happens to be the same level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.
Yay!
No, not yay.

Why would this be a bad thing? One of the biggest problems with Pathfinder is that the scaling got out of whack at high levels. If you were a level 20 character (who isn't a paladin) and your bad save gets targeted with the right spell from an appropriate leveled enemy you are probably going to instantly die. Giving everyone the same scaling and making the differences stat based was pretty much the only solution.

Admittedly, I am a bit more iffy about skills auto scaling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.

Yay!


Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Does having a whole edifice of "advancing ancestry features" mean that it's harder to add new ancestry options? Like I was pretty jazzed when recent player companions gave us Cecaelias and like 8 different kinds of Changeling.

This is a good point. Maybe there should be both feats and the advancing progression. I doubt that Paizo will just automatically hand over the like 20 kitsune feats there are for free.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Admittedly, it IS strange that clerics cast with Wisdom, when they seem much more suited to giving their message out with Charisma-

I was going to answer that if you compare a cleric to say... a Catholic priest, a modern priest has to study for years before becoming a priest. But then again, I guess that would make them Intelligence based rather than Wisdom based. Hmmm.

Anyway, I think the Wisdom requirement is often based on the idea that you have to be wise in order to understand the will of the gods or something. Charisma by itself gets you followers, but doesn't get you anything from a god.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shaventalz wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Can someone explain what they think they meant with the revisiting Ancestry comment? I'm a little confused by that one!

I haven't listened to the interview itself (and won't, because length), but the bullet points linked earlier almost make it look like a separate advancement track. Almost a second "racial class" type of thing in addition to the "real" class.

I am all for auto-progression of racial abilities. Currently a lot of the most flavorful stuff for Kitsune and Aasimar are hidden behind racial feats that you have to give up actual combat ability to get.


The class feats system sounds interesting. I feel like it will actually go a long way towards making sure classes are balanced against eachother.

Plus, this means we won't have to worry about overly restrictive single playstyle classes like the Swashbucker or Gunslinger again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:

Love this:

** spoiler omitted **

While I would love to just toss alignment out of my game, a majority of my players like it. If there's a way to keep it without me also having to worry what the paladin will see when she detects evil, that's a huge improvement from my perspective.

Also, this addresses one of the concerns I had early on:

** spoiler omitted **

This alleviates some of my main concerns about PF2E, excellent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll keep my list short....

Please do:
Keep the Alignment system. I'm fine with some classes becoming less restrictive, but the idea of absolute alignments is important. I (and a lot of other people) use rpg gaming to roleplay a hero. A lot of people don't want worries about moral greys pulling them out of the fantasy world they're trying to have fun in.

Also: Please keep it so that monsters and npcs work the same way as players. It is important for immersion that players be able to feel like they're fighting enemies who follow the same rules that they do. I love how in the 3.5/Pathfinder system it feels like monsters often simply have stronger starting races than the players.


Brew Bird wrote:
The bulk system. It's clunky, and kind of immersion breaking. I much prefer PF's weight-based carrying capacities. As they exists in Starfinder, bulk limits create comically weak creatures.

I think Starfinder only uses the bulk system because weight is meaningless in a space game with 0g environments and planets of different masses. We probably don't need to worry about bulk in PF 2.0.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.

You are conflating talking to a person unkindly and talking about an idea/work unkindly.

If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.

There is a very big difference between constructive and tearing down someone's work, trust me. I know this since I used to dabble in art and story writing. Constructive criticism shows you how you can improve your work and makes you *want* to improve your work. Blunt or flat out unkind criticism makes people defensive unless they're trying *very hard* to block out their emotions on the subject.

Edit: Sure, paizo is made up of professionals and they should be trying to hold back their emotions when reading the playtest forms, but honestly they're human beings and that sort of thing can be very draining for anyone. If we all managed to give Paizo only constructive criticism instead of our usual angry criticism we would end up getting a much better product in the long run since they'd have more energy for working on it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
...calling their work trash is okay, take a moment to reflect on why that is and if you want to promote that as socially acceptable. I don't believe that an atmosphere where that is tacitly approved of is healthy for our forums and it is certainly unhealthy for the community.

If someone dislikes something enough that it doesn't have value to them, then no matter how politely they phrase that sentiment, they are calling that work trash to them.

I understand protecting people, but shielding work/ideas from insults sounds dangerously close to censorship of criticisms. Which seems to me something to be very careful about to have an effective playtest.

Now if you meant that as "the association of a particular person to shoddy work is toxic" then I completely understand and retract my concern.

I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind.

This is why we can't have nice things..... (in other words: I completely disagree)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Monsters and NPCs using completely different rules.

This so much. They way monsters and npcs use the same rules as the players in Pathfinder is one of the biggest strengths of the system. It is very important that players feel like their enemies are the same as they are rather than being a bundle of stats that don't follow the same rules that they do.

In pathfinder, monsters effectively just have a stronger starting race than the players. They can even take class levels. Turning monsters into meaningless stat blocks would mean we lose all of this.

That being said, I am not opposed to monster and npc creation being simplified in some way as long they're still generally interchangeable with players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Endzeitgeist
Thanks for the detailed answer! Yea, the more I've read the book the more comfortable I've been getting with using it in a mixed race campaign. I'll just have to take each game slowly and make sure that the party balance seems right.

I'm not sure that the idea of "dragons aging via worshipers" works with my campaign, but I may take a look at those rules anyway.


I have been building a new homebrew Pathfinder campaign, and I'm currently nailing down what the allowed races will be. So far all of my allowed races have been humanoid. However, I'm toying with the idea of allowing a playable dragon race in the campaign. These would be actual dragons, not half dragons, but of course would have to be weak enough to be on par with the rest of the party. Has anyone had any success with this, or is it a bad idea?

Admittedly, I was inspired a bit by the Dragonkin in Starfinder, though I am aware that this could be harder to balance in Pathfinder.

I'm currently toying with the idea of simply using the "Taninim" from "In The Company of Dragons Expanded". However, even though these dragons are designed to be around the same power level as standard humanoids they still look like they would play *very* differently. Does anyone have any experience with using the Taninim in a mixed party?


I just purchased this since I decided that I'd rather have *actual dragons* as a playable race in my campaign than yet another half-dragon race. Still evaluating the rules however. My one concern so far is that the playable dragon race is much more complicated than the standard races, but I guess this is what you have to do in order to make dragons playable and balanced.

Just curious, does anyone have any experience running a campaign with a mix of dragon and humanoid characters using these rules? Are there any balance issues that I'll have to worry about?


In pathfinder, it is much easier for a huge creature to start a grapple with a tiny creature than it is for him to simply touch the tiny creature. (This part of the combat maneuver rules has constantly driven me crazy, even though it rarely comes up)


This might be something that's less of an issue in PFS than I thought, lol. Though like I said, my experience with playing a summoner has been mostly in high level home games.

I guess one of the reasons why I'm so against the idea of a 'no gear' ruling is that this feels like one of those cases where we are inventing a problem that the designers never thought of. Kind of like the drama with the Ooze Shifter, lol. I would think that Paizo would have put out some sort of item or spell to work around equipping gear by now if they were even aware of this.


TimD wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here actually played a game where they had to re-equip their eidolon every time it was summoned?
Yes. May be another regional thing, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that they should be able to do so. The planar ally dodge is nice, though - will keep that in mind for non-PFS games where unnerfed summoners can still be played.

Yea, I think it is a regional thing, since I believe that summoners in my PFS region were allowed to summon with equipment.


Tallow wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here actually played a game where they had to re-equip their eidolon every time it was summoned? I would think that sort of ruling would make the class unplayable... especially if you were playing a summoner that gave up the standard summons monsters SLA.

I haven't played a summoner. But I was always under the impression as a GM that stuff didn't go with the Eidolon when it was dismissed. And 9 times out of 10, the Summoner starts the scenario with the Eidolon summoned, and when they don't, they usually have a beast of burden (mule, pony, goat, etc.) or handy haversack/bag of holding to carry the Eidolon's stuff.

Its never been a point of contention.

My experience playing a summoner has been outside of PFS, so it might be a bit different for me. These were level 1 to 20 games with 25 point buy.

The enemies that we fought in those home games were generally so strong that my eidolon had trouble hitting them even with an Amulet of Mighty Fists and a Belt of Strength, and it tended to die multiple times a day. Surprise attacks at times when I couldn't be expected to have the eidolon summoned were also common. I actually had to buy a wand of "Summon Eidolon" on hand in order to keep the thing around.

I can't help but think that my character would have been useless in those games if the eidolon came in without gear each time I used the Summon Eidolon spell. I guess that's part of the reason why I'm so against the idea of a 'no gear' ruling, lol.


Just out of curiosity, has anyone here played a game where they had to re-equip their eidolon every time it was summoned? I would think that sort of ruling would make the class unplayable... especially if you were playing a summoner that gave up the standard summons monsters SLA.


Blake's Tiger wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
. . . is so intuitive and obvious . . .

First, when people say this in a debate, it comes across as "you're stupid if you don't agree."

Intuitive and obvious: you fall prone when knocked unconscious, you can't take actions when dead

Desirable: your eidolon keeps its gear when dismissed so that I don't need to lug it around and can tank STR and don't have to re-equip it when I re-summon it.

Desirable != Intuitive and obvious

You cut off the part where I added "In My Opinion" immediately after saying that...

So, you could say that you violated a rule of debating by misquoting me there, so we are both at fault now ;)

That it is opinion is a given. My cutting it off does not change the context. Nor does explicitly stating it is you opinion that we are stupid for nit seeing the obvious make it any less insulting. Doubling down on it does make it worse, though.

Admittedly, I could have said all of that better, but honestly the way you aren't even acknowledging my attempt at softening what I was saying isn't helping matters here either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
. . . is so intuitive and obvious . . .

First, when people say this in a debate, it comes across as "you're stupid if you don't agree."

Intuitive and obvious: you fall prone when knocked unconscious, you can't take actions when dead

Desirable: your eidolon keeps its gear when dismissed so that I don't need to lug it around and can tank STR and don't have to re-equip it when I re-summon it.

Desirable != Intuitive and obvious

You cut off the part where I added "In My Opinion" immediately after saying that...

So, you could say that you violated a rule of debating by misquoting me there, so we are both at fault now ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will say this: In Non-PFS games if you have a GM who requires that your eidolon be re-equipped after each summon, then the solution is to equip it with (harmless) cursed items. The items should automatically return to the eidolon as soon as it is resummoned :)


Nefreet wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
The fact that this is still an unanswered question even after the creation of the Unchained Summoner is kind of annoying.
Why would rules from the Core Rulebook need to be reprinted in Pathfinder Unchained?

That an eidolon should get to hold onto its equipment is so intuitive and obvious (IMO at least) that many players just assume that the class' designer just forgot to mention this part. There has been so much confusion about this as far back as during the original summoner playtest that it is amazing we have never gotten some sort of official word on this.

The summoner breaks a number of rules about how summoning works anyway, so there isn't any reason why they couldn't be breaking the rules for how equipment works as well. ;)


The fact that this is still an unanswered question even after the creation of the Unchained Summoner is kind of annoying.

I will say this: Any sane GM will just let the eidolon keep his gear, because any other rules interpretation just leads to problems. GMs who try to be difficult about it will generally change their tune after you summon your *humanoid* eidolon without equipment in mid battle with the 1 round summon spell.


You're assuming some big assumptions about the intent of my post, lol. Oh well, whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

Trog Player: Ah... Hay, dude, did anyone pass by here in the last hour?

Judge: roll a Diplomacy check.

Trog Player: Ah... roll of 6, -2 is a 4.

Judge: roll initiative.

This is where I feel a need to point out that most people don't even understand how diplomacy checks work. If people were more aware of the rules, then people with low diplomacy skills would not be afraid to roleplay.

There are two actions you can make with diplomacy: improve someone's attitude, and make a request. Diplomacy checks based on making requests, by the rules, *do not cause an NPC's attitude to become worse*. It is the "Improve Attitude" action that has penalties for failure.

Plus, once an NPC has a 'Helpful' attitude they will generally accept basic requests without rolls even being needed.


My rule of thumb is to "Maim my players, but stop short of killing them". You have to make them *think* that their characters are going to die, but if they actually die too many times it makes the game less fun over all.

I give my players a few hero points (about 1 each time they gain a level) that they can spend to avoid the massive death that I'm constantly sending their way.


GM Rednal wrote:
No, they are not. Most effects are straightforward numbers (AC bonus, damage, buffs) or fairly straightforward effects (light a fire, create an object). You may have to fiddle with things a little, and possibly use custom fields to keep track of things, but it should be easy enough.

Thanks for the confirmation!


Weird question: I am thinking of running an online game using the Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might rulesets. I know that some virtual tabletops like roll20 and d20pro support d20 game systems, but are the spheres rules so *different* from standard d20 that the game system support isn't really going to work?


Gorbacz wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Personally I really like the stat increases and immunities you can get from mythic rules.

I agree the mythic spells were a bit much.

But it's not the spell that were a problem. It's martials one-shotting pretty much everything. Mythic spellcasting is pretty tame.

Mythic spellcasting is actually completely ridiculous, and possibly even more game breaking than what the martials can do. With the right combination of powers, mythic spells, and mythic feats you can kill almost anything in one round. You can get AOE damage numbers so high (while also ignoring immunities) that no other character can survive without evasion. Worse than that: you can get save DCs impossibly high while also forcing your targets to roll twice and take the lowest.

When I was playing in Wrath of the Righteous my GM gave up on random encounters because of how ridiculous the wizard in our party was. In book 5 he killed four CR 22 Thanatotic Titans in a single round before anyone else was able to act. There was essentially no point in having us fight anything that wasn't mythic at that point.


The problem with mythic was that it took Pathfinder's glass cannon issue and took it to the Nth power. There was nothing stopping both players and enemies from simply stacking all of the best damage multiplying powers.

This is my personal suggestion for running a mythic game: Ban ALL mythic feats and spells. Then throw away the automatic powers that players gain from their mythic tiers (like the one that lets them do a day's rest in 10 minutes). THEN go through the list of mythic powers and ban everything that seems too powerful for your game. Heck, while you're at it throw away the entire mythic path system, because it is too inflexible and the starting powers it grants for each path are too powerful.

At that point, all you're left with is the players gaining mythic powers at a rate of 1/tier. When mythic is stripped down to *just that*, you're left with something that is fun and flavorful without being overpowering.

1 to 50 of 1,600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>