Tyrannon's page

Rycke wrote:

Enemies get all the penalties as players. If they're a 9th level wizard and get enervated 3, they can't cast 4th and 5th level spells.

Let's suppose the ennemy is a night hag. Night hag aren't spellcasters: they have innate spell but this isn't spellcasting per say. Even if it were spellcasting, the hag is level 9 and has access to level 8 spell: at what level did she gain a level 8 slot? At what level did she gain an infinite number of slots for invisibility? At what level did she gain a constant detect magic effect?

Monsters aren't builded as PCs, so you can't tie their abilities to any level. When a night hag is enervated 9, she retains her innate spells, she retains her change shape ability, and she retains her coven spells. In the end she doesn't lose any ability - although she looks like a spellcaster monster, she isn't, and she doesn't have any feat nor class feature.

This is how most of the monsters work.

Now let's look at goblin: can a goblin lose Goblin scuttle? No. Even the level 0 goblin has it. Anyway, goblin scuttle isn't a racial ability (do you see it somewhere in the goblin feats? no? So it isn't a racial ability) nor a class ability: it's a monster ability and those abilities don't fall in the scope of the enervated status.

snipped ...

This is not new. It was the case in 3.0, 3.5 and PF1: conditions are written to debuff the PCs as much as possible but to preserve monsters. It's maybe a bit worse in PF2, since disarming a monster doesn't even debuff it (its bonus to hit and its number of damage dice are innate instead of depending on the magic of its weapon: if a level 6 skeleton grab a rotten pointy stick, then it deals 2d6 damages with +15 because a level 6 monster deals 2d of damage with +15 to hit. If a PCs grab the same stick, he deals 1d6 damage and replace the +1 item bonus from his magical sword by a -4 from his poor quality weapon), but this problem is 20-year-old. PF2, like PF1 and 3.5, decided to pretend this problem doesn't exist.

+1, since everyone after you seemed to want to avoid responding to you & pretend this problem doesn't exist.

Everyone needs to remember, the idea that anything in the playtest written for PFS play is categorically false.

While I appreciate your comment, I do not see any proof in your claim. The underlying reason for bringing up PFS is due to future planning and development. While I can see how you can think that the PT is disassociated with PFS, the future of PF2e WILL involve PFS play. To build something into the system for the future change of PFS play is not unforeseeable. It is something called planning and foresight for the future. What I see is a system design that indoctrinates players to accept what will be part of a standard organizational structure. After all, PFS play and rulings will be built upon the foundation of the PT results. You cannot ignore that the two will be interlinked intimately.

my general understanding:

"does it mess with PFS in any way"
yes = uncommon
no = common (until someone uses it to mess with PFS, since encounter design is rather hit or miss for paizo official)

This is the reason for rarity. It has less to do with home games and is designed to serve as a baked-in check on society play. Same with the magic item controls built into the system.

Slightly more seriously, the most optimized characters right now are probably spell casters multiclassing into the appropriate martial class. Details depend a lot on level.

This is the problem. I should not have to multiclass into anything if I want to play an optimal character.

@Ryan Freire:

Excellent points. To be fair though, a number of threads that reference quitting the playtest should be looked at by Paizo. Those who have shown dedication to Pathfinder (be it 1 ed. or the PT)have given one last bit of feedback by dropping out. Paizo needs to acknowledge the loss - at least internally - of their dedicated base; something that their PT has done to alienate core customers & subscribers.

@Dire Ursus: Fantastic point that a more accurate analysis involves comparing 1E to 2E PT core.

@PossibleCabbage: I was highly amused by the old school reference to lugging splat-books. That was the most exercise many gamers would get. Too bad PDF has stolen that.

Concerning the ease of attribute stat allocation, I suppose you are correct MaxAstro. I imagine the crux of my issue is that this part of character creation smacks (IMO) of the dumbing-down approach that 5th edition D&D adopted. To me, PF was always something for people with creativity and required more than a passing use of intellect.

Then again the PT has dumbed things down even more: make a martial PC, take a 2-handed weapon, swing 3 times a round.

The internet happened. :)

Bringing it back to the original topic, I'm not sad to see point buy go. It was something I felt compelled to optimize, but it wasn't really fun to optimize.

Which is the exact same boat with PF2E: you must optimize to be even remotely close to the 50(ish)% success chance we've discussed. At least with the PF1, you were punished less harshly for being less than optimal.

This is one of the main reasons I avoid forums: look at our discussion vs. the OP. I admit to falling prey to tangentially running down the rabbit-hole as well. And while I understand that the two topics are closely associated, there are several threads with hundreds of posts all over these forums concerning success rates. No need to beat that dead horse here. So back towards the OP topic.

I reiterate what I said above: I enjoyed the point buy flexibility and challenge when it made you wonder if the 4 (out of 20 or 25) points to go from 17 to 18 was worth it; or, if you could wait until level 4 for the stat boost.

I could make a N/PC that felt heroic for high fantasy. PF2E does not allow me to make a PC that feels heroic, or (as GM) make a NPC that feels like a dangerous villain.

Furthermore, (please correct me on this topic as I have not even bothered to make an NPC) from what I have seen here [forums] NPC creation rules do not follow the same rules as PC creation. If this is true, I have to question the reasoning underlying that decision.

I find it rather interesting that both Draco18s & MaxAstro fixated upon the lawyer aspect for the example, rather than a doctor or surgeon. I'd like to think that most people would prefer to have a surgeon who is better than 50% success rate when going under the knife for life-saving surgery.

@MaxAstro, your post was probably something I skimmed over and missed. I skimmed a lot once the topic went completely off point buy (though I found much of the discussion interesting). I don't live for the forums (check my profile, my post count is low).

Yet, it is the less than 70% success rate that has completely turned me off to PF2E. I enjoyed the point buy flexibility and challenge when it made you wonder if the 4 (out of 20 or 25) points to go from 17 to 18 was worth it; or, if you could wait until level 4 for the stat boost. Given, IMO, the bloat of required stat increases needed to be curtailed. That strikes me as more of an issue with game balance, character development/growth vs. expectations of challenge and difficulty. PF1 is a good character system, however, the growth curve demands too much to stay effective (notably the Big 6 magic items of stats, saves, attacks, AC, skills and resistances). None-the-less, I could make a N/PC that felt heroic for high fantasy. PF2E does not allow me to make a PC that feels heroic, or (as GM) make a NPC that feels like a dangerous villain.

I cannot even attempt to express my disappointment with how spellcasting magic has been neutered. Example: PF1E has the Runelords (and wizards) that ruled vast empires and shaped the world; PF2E Runelord, Nex, Geb, Whispering Tyrant cannot even rule a quaint village, let alone shape the world.

That lawyer comment is interesting to me - wouldn't one assume lawyers would have a lower success rate then that?

If you assume that a trial is successful in determining the truth of guilt or innocence, and defendants are randomly distributed between the two (in reality you would expect bias towards guilty), one would expect lawyers to have a 50% success rate.

Off topic, though. XD

I agree, off topic and splitting hairs, being argumentative just to argue.

The point still stands that when people are in dire need to avoid trouble, be it death or imprisonment, they seek the best that they can get to champion their cause. The same is true for the groups enlisting the adventurers for the PF APs. They need heroes; some not some randoms with a 50%(ish) success rate.

Somewhere else semi-quoted a study done with MMOs (iirc) that said that a 70% success rate was ideal.

And my gut feeling is that that is about right.

I forget the study as well, but 70% has long been a benchmark for an acceptable success.

Think back on school. In my era (70s & 80s, plus college again 2015), a grade of less than 70% was deemed a near failure. Some education systems now require a 70% or higher performance to pass; i.e. anything less than that is a failure.

I sure as hell wouldn't trust my fate to a doctor or lawyer with a less than 70% success rate.

Good point Long John. I refuse to go with rolled stats. I understand how to microwave dice so you get max rolls, and I have seen people cheat stat rolls. Furthermore, great dice rolled stats can wreck balance.

@MaxAstro, and most appreciatively, Megistone. Pardon me if I am not going to dig out page numbers, cite references, and draw upon SCOTUS precedent (but I am not "at work"); particularly when most in this thread seem to be well-versed in the topic.

The exact stat breakdown is splitting hairs. I have made one character, (perhaps it was 18, 16, 14, 14 & ?); regardless, nothing was less than a 10. This is a feat that would have been rather difficult in a normal 20 or 25 point buy. The real problem is two-fold: you can make a character with decent "looking" stats, that is far from optimal. The success system pigeonholes the player into optimization. This leads to the case where you can make a less than optimum stated PC and be the party liability that is mentioned via dumping stats.

The case here is that I am a veteran RGP play from the mid 1970s. Much like Megistone, I am not always a fan of change, but I am open-minded enough to accept it. First edition needed to have the massive bloat reduced and be more streamlined. However, this iteration -in my personal opinion - of PF2E is worse than D&DB 5th E (which I refuse to play).

Matthew Downie stated the crux of the problem best: "No, it's 50%(ish) success rate if you're optimised for the task at hand. If you're not, your chances of success will be much lower. A d2 can't capture that level of nuanced disempowerment."

That is, the rates are so poor it is a common joke about PF2E. (Sarcastically) We should be lucky enough to get a good enough success chance to just flip a coin!

Now, since this thread has gone way off topic, the remaining issue (for me) is that point buy (to ME; MY opinion; I respectfully welcome your own) provided more nuance and variety in PC creation (with the caveat of MAD mostly).

It sucks to see such decently appearing stats (for 1st ed), on a 2E PC and know that the 2E is garbage next to the 1E.

Did you ever see a PF1 wizard with less than 18 Int? Or one with more than 10 Str? The 'challenge' was dumping Str and Cha to 7-8 and get your 20 Int anyway.

You could do something different if you really wanted, yeah... you still can.
About having a 18 and 'a few 16s' you are wrong, that's just not possible.
The d2 coin flip is a blatant exaggeration.

I like point-buy, really. That doesn't mean that I condone spitting lies on a different system.

Funny since I made a character with an 18 and two 16s. Furthermore, read over the boards, look at the stats (from the people who have spent hours crunching numbers: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs428n9&page=4?Arcane-Spellcasters-in-PF2E-qu o-vadis#191

And: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs428ww?Some-statistics-on-success-chances-for#1

While there is some variation, this shows that the system is a (largely) 50% success rate. Or, d2.

I agree getting a dump on a single ability (SAD) PC was easy enough; however the MAD builds really made the player decide on stat priorities. Additionally, the point on flaws is that you can have them, but they are worthless (i.e. no benefit for taking them). The player is even warned off of taking flaws. From my long experience with the public, very few people have the benefit of starting with all "10s" in their abilities. Furthermore, if you feel like adding to the dialogue, please do.

Furthermore, I find your tone offensive with your accusation of "spitting lies." Then again, many players only understand "class" when it refers to their PC.

I despise the new ability stat buy in PF2e. The system is easier to build a N/PC. However, the new structure, which allows for simple 18s (and overall high stats), has stolen the challenge for me. I enjoyed the fact that it was a serious choice as to how much to dump if you really wanted to start with that 18. Now, every PC can have an 18, a few 16s, and nothing needs to be under 10. Furthermore, the optional flaw system gives nothing.

The whole stat system is designed to give easy access to optimization - that way you can have your 50% d2 coin-flip to succeed or fail!

'Never justify the ends' is fairly paladin specific.

For non-paladins, casting an 'evil' spell is pretty regularly offset by 'good' actions, so even if casting the spell would nudge you towards evil, there are plenty of nudges back in the other direction.

The PFSRD does list explicit rules about it, but I'm not sure where or if they are in the official docs, perhaps Champions of Purity:

Quote:

Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.

There are two alignments with an "ends justify the means" approach: Neutral Good & Neutral Evil. What everyone has seemed to overlooked with the Paladin argument is the LAWFUL aspect. From Paizo's alignment - Lawful Good - page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules/) "They oppose evil wherever it is found, and avoid putting the good of the individual ahead of what is good for the masses. For these characters, the end rarely justifies the means.

Thanks Matthew Downie. I had forgotten to adjust her age (though I did make her a Venerable human). I'm hopeful that most reasonable people would overlook such minor issues and focus on the main content.

Since I've seen some responses to the thread, I have two questions. One, did my link to the doc work? And, what are thoughts on the actual stated version that I present as a possible Sorshen?

That sounds like a definite possibility, Skizzerz; however, they might be more focused on 2nd edition rules before giving runelords any stats.

I know this an old thread, and 2nd edition is due for release soon; however, I have made a roughly CR 24 Sorshen using Hero Labs. Hopefully this link will work to the PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cXXTJMQrdj_h1nDJYL9KEuSFGNTa8HpW/view?usp= sharing

Opening move is to use Overwhelming Presence,since a successful save still staggers the targets for 1 round. Quickened Feeblemind on a caster.

I could go into more detail, but I prefer to see thoughts from others first. An intelligence player can look at her spells & see all sorts of tactical variants.

Wow..I honestly didn't expect someone to find actual rules on how long a day is in pathfinder...cudos. still, my point about how long an individuals day is depending on when they go to sleep and wake up is still valid.

*Snipped for brevity*
Just to clarify, I'm in agreement that the ability gives you back all your spells after one hour of sleep because I believe that was the intent. But it does need clarification.

Not going to argue either. As an ex-combat veteran myself I know what you mean about the apparent "day". But, by RAW & RAI, in the game sense, your point is not valid in terms of duration or activities that can be preformed "per day". Otherwise, any spell with a duration measured in days would tick off every time you go through your sleep/wake "Day/ Night" cycle. Hence the 24 hour day.

From inner Sea World guide:
"Golarion spins on its axis roughly once every 24 hours. A
week consists of 7 days, with 52 weeks per year. A year has 12
months,"

I take they assume most people function on the basic assumption that 24 hours = 1 day. However, the game Mastery Guide has information on time in a campaign in terms of altering things like increasing the amount of hours in a game world's day.

As to the Cleric thing (which I brought up a few post ago) there is a fiat to buy pass, at Mythic Tier 6.

Divine Source (Su): You can grant divine spells to those
who follow your cause, allowing them to select you as their
deity for the purposes of determining their spells and
domains. Select two domains upon taking this ability...

But then again what about the gap between 3 - 6?

So regardless of rest, if it isn't their 1 time of day, they can't memorize/prepare spells. If Recuperation only counts as 8 hours of rest, and doesn't count as "specific over general", divine casters pretty much get the shaft. I don't think the ability is stated as well as it could be, but if it doesn't apply the same to all classes (especially with the "spells per day" listed in the example) it isn't a "Mythic Hero" ability, it is a "Mythic Hero of certain classes" ability.

I agree with you on the specific over-ruling general. Mostly based on this one point of yours in bold. This is a general Mythic power granted to ALL Mythic characters regardless of path.

[QUOTE="friluftshund" *snipped*
One other mention of this is the Divine spellcasters

Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, she must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, she must wait until the next day to prepare spells.

What about them? Does Recuperation make the sun rise every hour?

Thank you. A lot of this discussion has focused almost exclusively on the wizard. I had tried to call attention to rage, bard perform & similar call outs on power per day type effects. It had struck me that if the rage & perform abilities overcame the recently daily limit, that spells per day are also under this fiat accompli. So as Recuperation is written, if the bard & barbarian overcome the daily limit on rounds of rage, then casters recovery fully as well.

The major issue involved, however. Come with the application of the recent casting limit rule. It is when someone tries to apply Recuperation with Barbarian Rage & bard Performance.

No one else has tried to argue the point about clerics & the time of day they recover spells. So even with a FAQ, I assume many of these same people would then open up the can of worms involving the time of day Clerics recover spells. Arguing that, "Even if you can recover spells per day multiple times, you cannot pray to get new spells until Dawn, noon, tea-time, etc."

Not sure how a Mythic Path that lets you memorize all your spells in 15 minutes is so great when there's already a Wizard Discovery that lets you do that.

It's for the non-wizard arcane caster types Rynjin. Like the Bards, Sorcerers, Witches, etc we keep semi-ignoring here.

Just want to reiterate two things.

1) A wizard can rest with mythic regain all spells, use them all, rest with mythic and do it all again over and over. However that is going to stop them using those mythic points for a lot of other things including powering mythic spells so they almost certainly won't.

2) Mythic is a major power up all round and comparing its abilities to the operation of general use items created well before it came out seems a little off.

I mean it has a path ability that let's you memorize all your spells in 15 minutes or grant divine spells to followers.

Personally I'm on the side of those who say it says you can recover spells per day but I'd like to see a reply by developers.

Yet another parallel to draw upon. Look at Reign of Winter 6 if you'd like to see a full 20 level caster stated with 0 Mythic tiers. Her name is Baba Yaga. She can usually trash out non-Mythic 20s, deals with demon lords, archdevils, fey Elders, took over a realm in the First World & conquered & created Irrisen in less than a month.

Yes, it is VERY clear. But people seem to think the ability lets you get around a limit it makes no mention of.

I do not agree with Rynjin 100%. But his analysis is solid.

The bold is the major point of contention. Had the power covered the recent casting limit, this debate would most likely have been open & shut.

I feel like you guys have spent hours combing rules to find an excuse to stop something you just don't like, honestly what is the problem with the ability as written, the one that gives spells back a wizard can normally only cast x spells a day and a barb can only rage x round a day this ability circumvents those limits could a barb rage until he was out of rage sleep for 8 how rage till he was out the sleep again regaining his rage rounds 3 times in one day and if not why does recuperate circumvent this limit but not the spell limit? Why does the barb get to take naps and not the spell-casters is it just because you think casters are just too good?

That was my original argument. Why do bards, barbarians, etc get the restoration of their special class features, yet spells per day are left out. I think it is around page 1, lots of counter points to my posting of that parallel. It seemed to be rule twisted & shot to bits.

I am of two minds about this, I can see the argument about the recent casting limit, however. I can also see (& believe) that spells per day are restored with the rest. It is finding that middle ground in how this functions. Does the specific over ride the general? Normally yes. Many feel this is vague. I have my own RAI translation which I which I can use & do not need someone else telling me how to think for myself. With that in mind however. There is reason for some extra clarification for those DMs who desire to kill this debate at the gaming table before it turns hostile in a direct confrontation.

Sometimes rules need to cleared up. I will give an example for a vague ruling from old 1st ed D&D. But the original write up of the Cleric's Purify Food & Water, by scientific fact, you could use that as an insta-kill 1st level spell because it removed all impurities from water. The average adult human body is 50-65% water, averaging around 57-60%.

I can sorta kinda see that, but based on other things in the rules (namely the Ring of Sustenance) I still don't think it was intended to work that way. It's not actually passing the time, it's just making you "sleep faster" basically.

Though it raises an interesting question, does it work on personal time, or universal time?
If universal, you'd actually never be able to recover spells in a Timeless plane.

Sometimes we need to look elsewhere & draw parallels with things that function in a similar fashion. I can see your questions raised by the timelessness of a situation. Also, digging deeper I can draw a parallel with a similar function of a Mythic spell in the effect & how it works by RAW.

TIME STOP
Select a number of creatures equal to half your tier or fewer within close range ( 25 feet + 5 feet per 2 caster levels) .
Mythic time stop has the same effect on these creatures as it does on you , allowing them to act for the same number of rounds of apparent time that you can . You and these creatures can all interact with one another normally while time appears to be stopped .
Augmented (10th): If you expend three uses of mythic power, the duration increases to 1 hour per level of apparent time . You and other affected creatures gain no benefit from rest or sleep while the spell is active .

The sticking point there is that the "sleep" period is apparenttime. By this wording, you can, at level 20, cast a 20 hour time stop & rest as often as you like, with or without Mythic power, & gain no benefit of said rest due to time being universal in this case. Mind you this is a specific rule that plays trumps. Just as the Ring of Sustenance discussion is similar (not identical) to the Recuperation power.

@Mulgar: You are correct, "some people are so narrow minded that they can only see their point of view". Just as there are people who enjoy arguing every single interpretation of a word.

@Marthkus: "I suggest we move this thread to homebrew, where house-rules belong." Why move it to Homebrew. House rules are just that, for the house, decided by the GM & players. The do not need forums to debate such minutia. Most groups I have played with can come to a decision quickly as to the RAI if there is an argument over RAW.

All I can suggest is that we try & remain open-minded. A wise man once told me "use your head as more than a hat rack." Sometimes you have to think outside of the box.

With Mythic Recuperation: He must rest 1 hour, he does not need to study for 1 hour because the ability states: In addition, by expending one use of mythic power and resting for 1 hour, you regain a number of hit points equal to half your full hit points (up to a maximum of your full hit points) and regain the use of any class features that are limited to a certain number of uses per day (such as barbarian rage, bardic performance, spells per day, and so on). The daily limit states: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.

So, he will gain spells up to his daily limit, as per the Mythic ability, BUT, that daily limit is reduced by the recent casting limit, because the limit is still there, and the spells per day gained by the mythic ability only allows you to go up to that limit.

You raise another interesting point that I have been toying with. Just another wrench to throw into the mix. By the bold, would that imply, that he could refresh his spells, but not prepare new spells? In effect, a non-spontaneous caster, e.g. Cleric, Druid, etc, would get back the use of his spell slots but still be limited to his prepared spells?

I know, semi-stupid mixed with tangentially warped logic.

One additional point to raise on this discussion.

"It treats one hour of sleep as 8 for the purposes of recovering limited use abilities."

Directly from Mythic Adventures:

"This rest is treated as 8 hours of sleep for such
abilities. This rest doesn't refresh uses of mythic power
or any mythic abilities that are limited to a number of
times per day."

In bold. Now, (to play devil's advocate), it does say it counts as 8 hours. Therefore, would that not mean, that since it counts as counts as 8 hours, it overcomes the "You cannot regain spells you have cast within the last 8 hours."

If so, then the mythic point rest/ recovery counting as 8 hours of rest also clears as it would, by default rest rules (correct me if I am wrong Rynjin [you do know your rules mate]) the 8 hour recent casting limit?

In italics: This, by RAI (to me only), seems to outline the limitation of the rest. Using my brain to make my mind up & reading comprehension to understand the intent, this gives the guidelines on what is not covered. Which is anything based off of Mythic power. Therefore, to me, it would potentially allow the recent casting limit to be overcome.

To toss on another log to this fire, for consideration. I have seen new arguments implicating "resource management" with mythic points being limited to X per day. I agree MP are limited, however, at Mythic Tier 10 you get :

Legendary Hero (Su): At 1oth tier, you have reached the
height of mortal power. You regain uses of your mythic
power at the rate of one use per hour, in addition to
completely refreshing your uses each day.

@Rynjin: On a side note, there is nothing wrong with being "rigid". I have enjoyed reading both your's & bigrig's posts, they have given me food for thought & consideration of different ways of looking at this stuff.

EDIT: This post was not intended to single out anyone in particular as any form of insult or attack.

This is ridiculous. The power clearly states that you regain spells. Any arguments to the contrary are inherently absurd and can be disregarded. I apologize to any of you who think this is a matter of debate and needs an FAQ.

Though I agree with you to a point, this is a little vague & I had thought it was clearly written. What I do agree with you fully, is that many topics are brought to this forum by people who seem to lack reading comprehension. I have seen a few threads that debated the application of the use of the word "Or". Something I would think was clearly written. Oh well, I can use my own judgement.

I will say, according to the various opinions listed here, however; this is a hot button issue that can quickly force a game session to fall into disarray with yet another rules debate for hours.

Unrelated: Thank you both 137ben & Tholomyes. That makes reading some of these other threads & posts a bit clearer.

I agree with Rynjins reading of the RAW.

Stupid question. Can someone give me the exact terms for the acronyms RAW & RAI? Still a little new to the forums here & not up on all the acronym abbreviations.

I'd mention that [b]"Just use common sense! You don't need better rules; you need a better DM!"]/b] is already both insulting and nonconstructive, so I'm not clear on how I'm lowering the level of discourse.

Re-read MY post. Do not put words into my text as you see fit.

Leaving this off, I have better things to do than spend time making a reply to trolls.

Tyrannon wrote:

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense.

I'm unclear on how 7 out of 16 people qualifies as "the vast majority."

Is "common sense math" different from regular math?

Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9).

But that aside, the same question always stands. If a simple erratum to the rules can fix the problem, and at the same time not affect your game at all, why are you so opposed to it?

So your response is an insulting attack instead of trying to be constructive. Why not try & learn to rise above such petty replies & address the others there, or better yet, let it go?

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense. Common sense tells me that a level 7 spell cannot duplicate a spell-like ability that is level 9.

Also, using the Efreet example, I find it incredibility amusing that a fire subtype creature that radiates a continuous fire/ heat damage effect can be formed from ice or snow.

As to that, if a GM wants to allow this, do remember the rules for wish granting types of Jinn from the Legacy of Fire AP. You do not get to decide how the Efreet grants the wish. So ponder this. Do you really want a Efreet, as many times a day as you can cast Sim, granting you 3 wishes a day? Good luck with that.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

You can however take Dimensional Agility, cast & use Dimension Door, then use the Quickened touch spell to attack. Given that Dimensional Agility let's you make what you desire doing happen, sir.

Hope that helps.

If you're stating up Sorshen and Xanderghul I could see you allowing Harmonious Mage work.

If Baba Yaga can use all wizard/sorcerer spells along with her normal witch spells anything is possible.

I would love to see those 2 Runelords stated up. Not well enough versed with the rules yet to take that attempt.

But as I mentioned in the OP, I do not see them harmonious Mage either & allowing access. Shattered Star states that Sorshen would have just enchanted a Necro to make her clones & that she did not have access at all to Necro.

Truth is, I would not have asked the question, however, there are many inconsistencies in relation to the Runelords (refer to OP).

Off topic, read up Korchay the deathless in relation to Baga Yaga from Russian folklore.

Once again, thanks for the help mate. :D

Can I cast quickened shocking grasp (or similar touch spell) then teleport to a distant foe with dimension door and attack them with my free touch attack (which if you recall, is technically part of the former spell's action)?

Would that bypass dimension door's "no more actions" limitation?

Dimension does clearly state "After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn".

Quicken spell is "Casting a quickened spell is a swift action."

Not a great answer at all for Ravingdork, but I think this feat, from UC that let's you use dimension door & make an attack. Is what you are looking for.

Dimensional Agility
Teleportation does not faze you.
Prerequisites: Ability to use the abundant step class
feature or cast dimension door.
Benefit: After using abundant step or casting dimension
door, you can take any actions you still have remaining
on your turn. You also gain a +4 bonus on Concentration
checks when casting teleportation spells.

But other then house rules I think it's been established that Sin Magic specialists can't do anything to allow them to use their prohibited schools.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pc0c?Can-Opposition-Research

Thanks much SamuriX. This was my thought, I am thankful for the link, I am trying to plan this out as a GM to head off to potential issue in a future game with someone who was thinking over that combination.

Not disagreeing with you BigRig, just using your post as a highlight example sir.

I DO agree that this power refreshes spells.

I DO agree you only need one hour to do so.

I DON'T agree that you can cast every single spell you know, multiple times per day.

Letting wizards/sorcerors/etc. cast their full allotment of spells per day multipe times per day is a BAD idea.

We're letting the people who can bend reality, do so several more times per day.

This is agree with fully on principle. Given the debate going on currently, I am not going to judge or make any further assumptions upon the rules set to use.

I just don't think letting wizards triple or quadruple (or however many uses of mythic power they have) their highest level spell slots is what this power is supposed to do.

Just my opinion.

As I put in bold, most here are thinking of Wizards almost exclusively it seems. Let's not forget that Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches, bard, etc. Spells per Day are ALSO under the purview of this power. Clerics can do some truly nasty damage as well any of those other casters, direct damage, death & destruction as well as reality alteration is not limited exclusively to the domain of the Wizard.

i think everyone here is forgetting something: Mythic in and of itself is OVERPOWERED ON PURPOSE! by taking the stance that this ability DOESN'T allow a caster to use more spells in a day, you are asserting that you want less OP from mythic...that's stupid. the idea was to make PC's even more insane in power level, this does just that...

100% agree. The rest is just figuring out how the Mythic overpower scale is intended to work for some facsimile of balance among equal classes of Mythic, Sir.

Not every ability is designed to be the best thing for everyone.

It is also helpful to rest and let the Barbarian regain Rage or Paladin regain Smites in the middle of the day as needed. It lets them nova as required and still regain their abilities.

Your caster, frankly, should not be dumb enough to blow all his spells at once as a Tier 3 Mythic character.

Spells are the best ability in the game. Honestly it's almost too much to let them regain their spells ONCE this way, but the Ring of Sustenance already set that boat on fire, so this is an even more efficient way to do it.

I do not have the link, but I've seen another topic concerning Mythic powers from a Designer & do know you are correct. The Designer did state not all powers are meant "to be the best thing for everyone."

Also, the bold is the biggest part of this that, to me, applies. Any caster 9especially one based off of Int or Wis) should be smart enough & have the common sense to not blow every last spell in their repertoire in a single encounter.

As Rathendar stated, there are rule using make Whole for ship repair. You talk about a shipwreck, which to me, means a ship counted as "sunken" in effect. I know it could be on the beach, etc.

There is a spell just for this from Inner Sea Pirates. I imagine a 9th level spell is not a viable option for your players given the AP.

Salvage

School transmutation; Level cleric 9, sorcerer/wizard 9
CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M
EFFECT

Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Target one shipwreck
Duration see text
Saving Throw Fort negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)

DESCRIPTION

An invisible force pulls together the remains of a shipwreck. Bits of hull, tattered sails, broken masts, and smashed figureheads knit themselves back together. Rotten wood turns solid once more, and sails re-weave themselves as the rigging snakes across the masts.

It takes a variable amount of time for the ship to rebuild itself, depending on its size.
Size Duration
Raft 1 minute
Rowboat 1 minute
Keelboat 10 minutes
Longship 1 hour
Sailing ship 2 hours
Warship 3 hours
Galleon 4 hours

At the end of the duration, an air bubble forms around the repaired ship. If submerged, the ship shoots to the surface, erupting with a great splash before settling on the water.

Though the spell requires time to repair the ship, its effects are instantaneous. A salvaged ship cannot be dispelled to return it to a shipwreck. However, before the spell’s duration ends and while the ship is still being repaired, salvage can be dispelled to interrupt the repair process. The ship remains in the condition it was in when the spell was interrupted until a new salvage spell is cast (but continues to age normally and suffers the effects of its environments). A new salvage spell’s duration is modified by any repairs already begun.

Not the best example, given it is taken from an AP. This is merely food for thought (for myself as well). To me, this moment of Mythic Ascension seems to charge the PCs with the full benefits of an instant Resurgence.

From Wrath of the Righteous: The Worldwound Incursion

Just more food for thought.

Dare we even open the can of worms associated with:

Legendary Hero (Su): At ioth tier, you have reached the
height of mortal p ower. You regain uses of your mythic
power at the rate of one use per hour, in addition to
completely refreshing your uses each day.

My interpretation is "No" based on your example there, unless i missed something in the rules (very likely).

However, I see you being able to use the greater the two limits. Divine anger would give 17 rounds as a Cleric (equal to inquisitor as per rules) -3. Your Cleric would only grant you 10 rounds of rage. So you would get 1 or the other, not both together. You would still get the other, along with the level granted powers.

In effect, Anger Inquisition grants you 17 rounds, while using Rage sub-domain to pick up extra rage powers. This is how I would read it as a GM, your GM may (of course) vary. This is also, from my point of view only, a way to keep game balance so a Cleric does not, in effect, gain more rounds of rage than a pure Barbarian.

I will not say I am 100% accurate, this is merely an interpretation based on the rules for stacking bonuses. Stacking does not apply when a bonus derives from the same source unless they are completely different types of bonuses (i.e. enhancement, morale, sacred, etc.)

To me, bonus rounds of rage are "Domain" bonuses, if you will, and, therefore, the same type in the end.

I will add, I am not massively endowed with all the rules & I might have overlooked something. Just food for thought. Thank you.

No, "by my logic" nothing. Sorcerers also have a recent casting limit.

As well, it counting as 8 hours of rest is irrelevant to the recent casting limit. The recent casting limit does not rely on rest, it relies on a specific unit of time. Specifically, hours. 8 of them.

You have not slept for 8 hours. You have slept for 1. It was as restful as 8 hours of sleep, but it was not 8 hours. 8 hours has not passed, therefore you cannot refresh spells you have cast within the last 8 hours.

As strange as this may sound I did more digging while at work. Rynjin is correct about the rule with recent casting limit, which applies to not just wizards & sorcerers, but bards, clerics, any divine or arcane caster (as far as I could find).

I ultimately agree RavingDork & DesolateHarmony. This is a conundrum & I more interesting in addressing this issue before it arises in a game session & we are falling into playing rules lawyer for hours.

The time at minimum would be 8 hours & 15 minutes re-prep all spells around the 8 hour limit. Assuming: 7 hours of non-casting, spend mythic power, rest for 1 hours, then 15 of prep via the mythic mastery.

Seannoss hit upon the main point I was trying to find a good draw down with the spells per day analysis & that is " It is odd how it would restore other classes most powerful and game balance-wise equally powerful abilities while not effecting casters"

It does seem strange that is grants massive, imbalanced uses to one set of classes & not others. This was part of what i was trying to raise with the bardic powers comparison. I was trying to draw a correlation between the other cited examples for the Resurgence. Also, to perhaps broaden the scope. Most of this discussion seems to focus upon arcane, wizards mainly it seems, casters. Example: Clerics pray at dawn, noon or dusk usually to prep spells. How about them?

@LazarX: I can see both sides of your analysis, just like Rynjin's. Here is the crux sir. You say "Spell slots do not fall under that description." yet is does state Spells per Day. I will use the first table I can find with my point. Core rules, page 36. bard, Table 3-3, far right column is listed as .. wait for it (sorry could not resist) ... Spells Per Day. Forgive the smart-ass sarcasm.

To much law is at play with the rules here. How is it to be read? Is it like real world law? Newer laws replace, adjust, limit, expand, or even completely eliminate previous laws. To cite an example,Red means STOP! Then it is changed to be, except when making a right turn. Adjusted: unless you are driving a vehicle over XX tons.

We have the same issue here. Core rules are base (older) "laws" & Mythic rules are newer. Therefore, to me, the Mythic power does over-ride SOME of the old rules in this effect. Rynjin raises a great point casting limit. To me, Piazo just needs to expand upon this Mythic Power & make it crystal clear. Based on everything I have read here so far, this rule to open to so many different ways of looking at & subject to abuse.

I mean, I actually agree with Rynjin.

The ability specifically states that the one hour is counted as eight normal hours for those features.
If you rest eight hours normally, you regain spells.
You still can't regain a full complement of spells multipe times per day.

I really don't see, besides disregarding the nonexistent inclusion of a sentence that says something along the lines of "You may prepare spells multiple times per day with this ability.", how this could mean that you can.

You just can't.
Does that make me the "end-all-be-all god of everything" too?

I am seeing that point of view also Bigrig.Which is why I raised the question of:

With the 8 hour rule, say a caster discharges 50% of their spells over a 12 hour period. They rest. The could re-prep ANY spell cast outside of the 8 hour window that immediately proceeds the rest. Anything within the prior 8 hours is unavailable.

That is how it seems to me. The example of rest for 1 hour, cast all, rinse & repart, seems way over-excessive.

And no, I am not looking for end-all-be-all. I am more curious about the interpretation. I've yet to run anything with Mythic & want to avoid this issue when it finally arises. In fact, had Rynjin given an answer & showed more willingnesss to keep an open mind & address some of my issues (which I thought were thought out well enough, perhaps not), I would have been pleased.

All right. Very interesting. Can't wait to hear what happens next. Has anything about the bloodline been problematic?

I like the creativity in the succubus sorcerer bloodline. I will admit, I only got the change to skim this post. Found 1 problem with the bloodline suggestion however:

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell from the charm subschool, the spell lasts twice as long.

Most bloodline powers give +2 caster level to spells from a school. So going for double duration is overpowered. That is even greater than saying all Charm subschool spells are Extended.

What about a Thassilonian Enchanter specialist with the Manipluation focus (I think it was that one).

After all Sorshen, the Runelord of Lust is an enchanter & one of two of the only original Runelords to never be taken down.

As I stated earlier, let's get a Designer answer.

Sorry to burst your bubble Rynjin, but you're not a Designer & therefore, your opinion, is invalid as mine.

I can see the split point, I think too many of us saw the example of cast ALL your spells, rest for 1 hours & do it again, over & over.

I am curious to see your view on the 8 hour limit & how that applies. I cannot agree that it only let's you prepare spells ONCE per day as the rule over rides that.

Here is what I CAN see:

With the 8 hour rule, say a caster discharges 50% of their spells over a 12 hour period. They rest. The could re-prep ANY spell cast outside of the 8 hour window that immediately proceeds the rest. Anything within the prior 8 hours is unavailable.

As to the "It takes more than an assertion to make that true." I only followed in your footsteps, seeing you seem to post that your opinion is the ONLY correct one.