lats1e's page

Paizo cooked with Mythic Destinies. I have many criticisms about the book but if there's one thing Paizo did right with the Mythic Rules it was the fantasy of being someone who is larger than life and the ability to play/run higher-power campaigns where you do stuff like fight demigods and ascend into divinity.

There is something really really great here, which makes me really really desperate for an errata.

Honestly, even if Paizo gives Kineticist support for mythic by giving them +3 gate attenuator or access to Mythic Kineticist DC, they're still absolutely disadvantaged due to Mythic Resilience being a thing. Kineticists in particular are hit super hard by this since they mostly target Fortitude/Reflex, so a monster with resilience in even one of these is going to screw them over really hard.

Do you think we'll get some sort of errata or statement about this? I wanna play and/or run a mythic game, but the way mythic monsters are right now makes me super apprehensive to get in one and I don't want to have to homebrew my own fix to tone down mythic resilience.

I could see a scenario where your immanence has a time limit, like you need to use an action to shift into it and it lasts until the end of your next turn. Though that might be overly punishing.

I'm kinda with the Cabbage on this though. A while back I was talking to somebody on bluesky who described how "most pathfinder options are mid" and I can see the argument for even a balanced game system to have a little swingyness. And even if this is a solid enough option that everyone in a party will want it, it's diverse enough that everyone will take different Ikons and the game doesn't end up samey.
For that matter, for all everyone's freaking out, the culture of the game born from every option being so balanced lends itself a lot more to grounding your choices in characterization than something like 5e. If you've been in this game this long and you're still hunting for the "broken" options, congrats, you found it, it's the I'm-A-Little-Bit-A-God limited use archetype, shocker there!

I don't think that's a good way to handle discussions of balance. The big thing about Pathfinder 2e balancing options against one another is that I don't have to worry about picking "sub-optimal options" over the most optimal ones because the floor and ceiling for most builds is so close together that I can get away with taking flavor or roleplay-oriented options without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot with it. I love min-maxing and making optimized builds but I also enjoy taking narratively-appropriate options, and the way PF2e handles it actually lets me have my cake and eat it too.

But Exemplar MC breaks this basic assumption of PF2e by making an archetype dedication that is so wildly unbalanced when put against every other dedication that if I want to make an optimized build as a martial I feel forced to take it.

I love War of Immortals so much but my god there is so much jank in this book that deserve big errata, this one being among them.

I think the immanence and transcendence for Exemplar MC ikons should be gated behind some higher level feat, and even then they shouldn't be benefiting from the full scaling.

As a primary wizard player, I have always enjoyed a well-placed golem encounter in an adventure, I just wouldn't want every boss creature to be a golem without that being incredibly broadcast from session 0.

As long as creatures with 3 saves at Mythic resilience are less than 10% of creatures encountered, I don't think it will be too big a deal for me, although I think Kineticist players might have a lot more trouble, especially as 2 or even just one resilient save could be a problem for them, especially if it is Fort/Reflex. I guess they can then at least make blast attacks and the creature isn't likely to have mythic resistances that will give them too much trouble. It actually sounds like every mythic caster is going to want some more spell attack roll spells in some high level slots again, so hopefully we get more of them in the near future.

Eh, it's still a really problematic mechanic. Regardless if someone is using 3 mythic resilient saves on their monsters or not, the fact that it even exists and is allowed by the rules is a very big problem.

This isn't exactly like designing a monster to have 3 extreme saves, because that is something the system's guidelines forbids and warns against, while having 3 mythic resilient saves is something the system makes no effort to warn against and actually makes it a base assumption of monster creation by introducing a basic monster template that has 3 mythic resilient saves.

I also don't think alot of casters will appreciate being forced into playing a buff-bot, and spell attack rolls are very few and far between, and aren't as impactful as save effect spells. There's also, as you mentioned, Kineticists and Toxicologists, and maybe some other more classes that rely on using Class DCs as well, and I don't think I'd enjoy playing a Kineticist where I'm relegated to only using my very underwhelming 5d6 Elemental Blasts or playing a Toxicologist who can't use their poisons, even if that's not every encounter, but it certainly is gonna be a considerable and meaningful number of them.

Squiggit wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.

This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.

And if you boost all saves, it's because it fits the Mythic story you want to tell. It's the beauty of NPC creation not being the same as PC creation.

"We're not in PF1 anymore."

I mean, you're not wrong but I'm not sure that's really meaningful here. Yes, as GM I can make changes to avoid overusing the bad mechanic but it's still a bad mechanic that shouldn't exist in its current form.

No. It has its uses to create a Mythic monster who is specifically extra strong against save attacks.

And has to be taken down with other means.

If the GM throws such Mythic monsters willy nilly in random encounters knowing they shut down a big part of a caster's arsenal...

That's a GM problem.

Makes me realize we need the Mythic henchman creature.

It's hard to think of it as a narrative device when it is part of the basic mythic monster design process. As the system is set up right now, a monster with 3 mythic resilient saves is a basic assumption the system makes that the players will encounter semi-regularly, and something the system assumes that the GM is expected to make for basic encounters.

The mythic monster creation guidelines say nothing nor does it warn GMs about making monsters with 3 mythic resilient saves with no limitations, and Paizo seems to intend to let GMs make monsters with 3 mythic resilient saves for basic mythic monsters becasue the Ambusher role template exists, which, as I have stated in a post above, specifically requires that it gets all mythic resilient saves by level 13. This isn't some "big-mega-boss" template for Treerazer, Oliphaunt, or the Tarrasque, this is just a template for your basic unnamed bad guys for your PL+1 or PL+2 encounters.

lats1e wrote:

The Level 10 feat is basically Impossible Flurry but for 2-handers. While in the Level 4 feat stance, you can spend three actions to do 2 strikes at no MAP, one with your weapon and one with your haft, and then another 2 strikes at max MAP, one with your weapon and one with your haft.

So basically -0, -0, -10, -8 to hit for three actions?

yup

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I saw some people talking about new Fighter feats. Did any other classes get additional feats, outside of class archetypes?

Yes, the Avenger Class Archetype section has a little section stapled onto the end that provides two spear feats for the Rogue Ranger AND Fighter.

Spear Rogue you say, now that could be interesting.

The Level 4 feat is essentially Polearm Mastery. If you're holding a 2-handed spear, hammer, or polearm, you get into a stance that lets you treat the haft of your weapon as if it's a separate weapon, which is a 1d4 simple club weapon, has the agile and finesse traits, and benefits from fundamental runes of the main weapon. Since this counts as you holding a separate weapon, you are treated as if you are dual wielding for the purposes of feats such as Twin Takedown or Double Slice.

The Level 10 feat is basically Impossible Flurry but for 2-handers. While in the Level 4 feat stance, you can spend three actions to do 2 strikes at no MAP, one with your weapon and one with your haft, and then another 2 strikes at max MAP, one with your weapon and one with your haft.

I have a concern with regards to the mythic resilience ability that is available to mythic NPCs. My concern is that it could make casters almost useless as debuffers and battlefield controllers at high levels due to Mythic Resilience on all three saves effectively shutting down casters as if all their spells had the incapacitate trait.

Imagine this. You're a party of level 11 PCs and you're a caster. You're going up against a mythic creature that is PL+2 with all three mythic resilient saves. A level 13 creature's low save is a +20, and as a level 11 caster you likely have a spell DC of 30 at this point. This pretty much means that the only way that the creature can fail a saving throw with their weakest save is for them to roll a 1. A caster should not be struggling this hard to hit the weakest save of a PL+2 creature.

Suppose though that we should instead be judging mythic casters by their mythic spell DC. In the case of a mythic 11 caster, they would have a mythic spell DC of 36 if they spend one of their mythic points. In that situation, the chance that that same creature gets a failure on their save would be 30%. It is as if you're targeting the low save of a creature that is PL+4. Even with mythic points and mythic DCs in play, casters seem to struggle way too much to target even low saves of PL+2 mythic creatures.

If we go up to level 20 mythic PCs, a mythic 20 caster would have a spell DC of 45. With mythic DCs in play, that would be 47. A PL+2 mythic creature with all three mythic resiliences has a low save of +33. Without mythic DCs, the only way the creature can roll a failure in their weakest save is to roll a 2 or less for a 10% chance of failing. With mythic DCs in play, the creature would have to roll a 4 or less for a 20% chance of failing with their weakest save. In this case, it'd be like targeting the moderate save of a creature that is PL+5.

This seems incredibly unfair to any class that relies on DCs to do their main thing, particularly casters, kineticists, and toxicologists. It shuts down an entire playstyle for casters and restricts them to being buff-bots. Classes like kineticist cannot utilize feats that use their Class DC and pretty much are restricted only to making elemental blasts. Toxicologists cannot use their poisons at all.

Is this the intended design? If so, is PL+2 meant to be the new PL+4 in mythic games? Or is there something I'm missing here? Because so far, mythic resilience seems to make high level mythic games feel horrible to play in for anyone that isn't a martial. Some party members would just not be able to contribute effectively in fights at a certain level.

Isn't mythic resilience really problematic? A mythic creature can get all three of them at level 13.

Imagine this. You're a party of level 11 PCs and you're a caster. You're going up against a mythic creature that is PL+2 with all three mythic resilient saves. A level 13 creature's low save is a +20, and as a level 11 caster you likely have a spell DC of 30 at this point. This pretty much means that the only way that the creature can fail a saving throw with their **WEAKEST SAVE** is for them to roll a 1. You would have to spend a mythic point to get your spell DC to 36 for a chance for them to fail their weak save and even then that chance is only 30%. Keep in mind that this is only a PL+2 creature and you're targeting their low save.

Mythic resilience just seems to f+$# over casters big time and makes being a mythic caster at high level seem awful. Please tell me I'm reading something wrong here.