Ystear Fearis's page

*Casts Augmented Mythic Animate Thread using mythic spellpower*
Sorry for the necro, but I couldn't find an answer to this question, did I just use some mythic power or was the augment free as well ?

On my side I can see both points. My reading tells me it should only work for the base mythic spell and not to augment them, but then I can't see the point of taking this instead of extra mythic power which you can take three times. So except if you really are stacking as much uses as you can and want to blow 4+ path abilities on points, it seems kind of useless.

It either seems too weak or too strong depending on how you take it.

My experience was a lot closer to DMW, at least for the first goblin fight. I think there's only so much you can account for rolls, really. Also, don't forget goblins aren't the most tactically savvy critters out there. ;)

Maybe it is a problem due to low level, in the same way that a bad crit could one shot a level character in v1, but that's the difference between an easy and a hard encounter. An easy encounter can be damaging if players have bad luck, but it should not nearly tpk them. A hard ecounter on the other hand is by definition an encounter that can go wrong for the pc because well its a hard one, with like maybe 50-60% chance of success meaning a few badrolls on one side or good rolls on the other can change the outcome. 4 goblins should not be an encounter that bad rolls make deadly.

And regarding tactics, well yes and no... goblins are used to fight in mobs, trying to get flanking etc (this is also shown in by their special ability to get a free step when one of them is close). The only monsters you can really play as brainless are undead, all living things, even animals should use basic tactics such as focusing on the weakest looking guy, or gang up on a dangerous fow.

Ystear Fearis wrote:

Alternatively I don't understand the part about spontaneous casters (same in nature, occultism etc). It seems to allow to only learn a spell and add or swap it with another one when you level up. But isn't this already what's happening when a sorcerer levels up ?

When you level up you can add / swap in spells that you have access to. "Learning" an uncommon, rare, or unique spell means you'll have access when you level up, which otherwise you probably wouldn't.

I didn't even see that spells had rarities. Is this even needed seriously ? (Not a fan at all of this common/uncommon/rare thing that is very abritrary., I would have understood the level as some kind of rarity index, but doubling it makes it weird)

Alternatively I don't understand the part about spontaneous casters (same in nature, occultism etc). It seems to allow to only learn a spell and add or swap it with another one when you level up. But isn't this already what's happening when a sorcerer levels up ?

So we'll be playing the second part of doomsday dawn and PCs need to create new level 4 haracter with : 1 level 3 item, 2 level 2 items, 1 level 1 item and 300 sp to buy common and maybe uncommon items.

I have a huge problem with the levels of items. Some items at the same levels have very different prices, particularily some consumable items have a price way lower (which is understandable as PC should be able to buy multiple of these). However this makes the choice of the items for each level kind of weird.

For example I wanted to make a poison user and looked at the poison prices which were not that bad. I took what I needed, bought some giant centipede poison for 30sp a piece using my 300sp and realized that I still had a level 2 item to choose. I looked at the poisons and saw that black adder venom was sitting there for 5gp a piece.

Who in his right mind would use his 2nd item slot for a 5gp item (i'm not saying poison should be more expansive) when he could get an expert weapon or light/medium armor worth 35gp... I don't know about selling rules but by estimating a 50% sale like for v1, it would be more interesting for a PC to take lets say a weapon, sell it and buy consumables with it. I looked at the table and it gets worse the higher you go.

My solution : Add a tag for consumables items and add a respectable number, or value of consumable items at creation and add a mean of converting a number of consummable to a permanent item (or reverse). I understand they are supposed to be bought with the money that's given, but depending on the character you want to build (thinking of spell casters, alchemist, maybe rogues or bards), you may want less costly items and more consumables, be it just more of something you would have bought anyway, or just more variety of items.

(My ideal solution : get rid of item levels, that just makes everything more complicated imho and is not at all adapted to all the different playstyle that exist. Maybe put some limitations to the way gold/silver is spent (in a way or another), but I really don't like how the game tells me how many things I should have in my backpack)

Cantriped wrote:

I am less bothered by the statistics than I am by how the encounter budgets treat level 0 creatures as level |-1| (aka like CR 1/3rd monsters instead of CR 1/2).

Honestly, having run a game, the 1st level PCs waltzed through Level 0 foes like they weren't even there. I'm thus not sure this calculus is wrong for most zero level foes. A few might be more impressive (zombies might be overtuned for their level, for example), but they seem appropriately easy to wade through, for the most part.

Well i guess your players were lucky, or maybe they were a big party. My 4 players got rolfstomped all session, that first ooze, with its +6 and 40 hp nearly killed the paladin.

Every goblin could move and attack twice, with decent chance of hitting for each attack (+6/+1) vs PC with AC ranging from 14 to 18.
3 goblins won initiatives with their master training in stealth (or maybe was it another skill I don't remember) and nearly dropped the paladin (again after using most of his lay of hands) who entered the room first to zero without him even playing. Using decent melee tactics and taking advantage of the goblin special ability, they could easily get flanks by the second turn and then hit at (effectively) +8/+2/-3. Granted my players had bad lucks and struggled to hit goblins, and yes the barbarian did one shot them when he hit them, but a little of bad luck for the PCs changed this encounter into a bloodbath.
Now I know luck can really change a lot of things, but I don't think an encounter with 6 goblins should be tight to the point that bad luck makes it a near tpk.

I know the adventure says the pc can go back and rest as umch as they like during the 7 days, but come on, that would have literally been a 15 minute adventuring day...

(I don't even speak about darkus cause he's supposed to be a boss, but with his +10, I didn't register the crits he scored and the party still ended with 3 of them and the animal companion down.)

Thanks for the answer, I didn't see that last line indeed.
I would advice that this line is put higher in the text, because that text explains how to findout the DC, but this should really be the last part, like saying: If the attack doesn't come from a spell of from a monster's attack, you can determine the dying DC by doing....

because i was looking for it and I honestly stopped reading once I found that part, as I had the answer to my question of "how are determined recovery DC"

With the absurd attack bonuses of all the monsters, We regularily had to roll fortitude for the dying condition. But finding the DC for it when PCs were droped by a sword hit prooved not that easy.

It was ok for goblins, where I decided to use their dex and considering their level of 0.

However when we arrived to darkus, I had no idea of the difficulty, 10 +3 (level written in the black box) + str or maybe dex.

In this case str and dex are both 3 so i totaled 16, making the dying DC 17 for the first roll (with dying 1 adding 1). But it is not that quick to find it and i'm not even sure i have the good value. It would be much easier if this value was written somewhere.

I agree, first playtest session went down horribly. My players had bad luck, but they were kind of depressed seing that mere goblins had better to hit bonuses than the barbarian or the paladin that were fairly maxed (18 strenght). The paladin was also dispaointed with the shield as a side effect because it didn't matter very much with the bonuses they had (+10 for darkus...) and in the end didn't even try to use it as he prefered to take a chance to hit a little more.

The value is too high, but I could roll with it if it made sense, but the +6 bonus of goblins come from nowhere, +3 dex, and ? I really am one to think that the same rules should apply to everyone and this is very disapointing.
The issue is the same with skills, monsters have absurdly high skills for no reason, i can accept the occasional big score in a specific skill because it would make sense considering the creature, but all monsters, even with lower levels are better than optimized pcs.

Everything is pretty much in the title, building an elemental ascetic I had this problem.
How does kinetic fist (or in the same fashion, kinetic blade) combines with infusions like bowling or enervating.

Let's talk about enervating for example:
While flurrying, does enervating applies to each "hit",does it only applies once, or does it just not combine at all ?

The first option seems clearly overpowered and I as a GM would use the second interpretation, but as I couldn't find any real precision, I am still asking how it would work according to RAW by curiosity.