I think we can all agree that it's obvious how Mythic Vital Strike is meant to work.
Even RAI, Mythic Vital Strike is incredibly powerful, seeing as you can move and do as much damage as 6 regular attacks (extra Standard with a use of Mythic Power). I'm not saying that's not in line with Mythic stuff, cuz mythic stuff is really balls-crazy powerful, but DAAAAAAANG!
I'm just imagining Champions with Mythic Vital Strike and Critical Master.
Walk up, swing once, destroy mountain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just imagining Champions with Mythic Vital Strike and Critical Master.
Walk up, swing once, destroy mountain.
I know it's the wrong system, but I'm picturing something like this.
seeing as you can move and do as much damage as 6 regular attacks (extra Standard with a use of Mythic Power).
8, not 6 isn't it?
|
I think we can all agree that it's obvious how Mythic Vital Strike is meant to work.
Even RAI, Mythic Vital Strike is incredibly powerful, seeing as you can move and do as much damage as 6 regular attacks (extra Standard with a use of Mythic Power). I'm not saying that's not in line with Mythic stuff, cuz mythic stuff is really balls-crazy powerful, but DAAAAAAANG!
Yeah even if used as intended, I am not that worried with that kind of power in the hands of a player character, but what happens if that giant with vital strike actually hits a character....
I have seen this happening with a mind controlled archer ranger (with the right kind of favoured enemy and full attack), almost killed 2 players. ^^ Well I deserved "some" fun in Kingmaker 5 ^^
Enduring Armor should probably be (sp) instead of (su).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enduring Armor should probably be (sp) instead of (su).
Why should it be a spell-like ability instead of a supernatural ability? Why should it provoke AOOs, or be disruptable? What spell is it emulating? What is its effective spell level?
As written, the ability is much simpler as (Su) than as a (Sp), and because the intent of mythic was to simplify things where it could, (Su) is appropriate.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enduring Armor should probably be (sp) instead of (su).Why should it be a spell-like ability instead of a supernatural ability? Why should it provoke AOOs, or be disruptable? What spell is it emulating? What is its effective spell level?
As written, the ability is much simpler as (Su) than as a (Sp), and because the intent of mythic was to simplify things where it could, (Su) is appropriate.
I figured it should have been (Sp) b/c in the ability description it says that it acts as an "Abjuration effect with a spell level equal to your teir." It also says it can be dispelled, which I didn't realize could be done to (Su) abilities (outside an antimagic field that is). I thought it was an just over sight not a design decision.
On Errata: Pg 162 in the item description it for staff of eldritch sovereignty, after the list of abilies, the description switches to the staff of arcane sovereignty and then back to "eldritch" on the next line down.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I just read the first part of that ability. Yes, it's weird that it has that text and is listed as (Su). I'll have to talk to the rest of the design team about it.
I'm just imagining Champions with Mythic Vital Strike and Critical Master.
Walk up, swing once, destroy mountain.
My PF group just faced a bad guy with exactly that combo. It was scary. He could literary one shot anyone in our party if he crit. It made for an intense (yet short)fight. We managed to have enough firepower to take him down quick enough, but he still dropped our fighter (who only survived because he was mythic got the double negative con survival) and almost dropped my wizard's bodyguard cohort. The bad guy also carved a path through NPCs to get to us.
It definitely felt like a mythic encounter.
Here's one:
The Archmage wild arcana ability vs. the Hierophant inspired spell ability. The abilities are identical except the wild arcana ability states that it requires a swift action, while the inpsired spell ability omits any mention of action cost (meaning in my mind that you spend whatever action is specified for the spell you choose, and spend a mythic power as part of that action). Is this difference intentional or not? Does the swift action in the wild arcana ability mean you are able to cast such spells as swift actions (wildly overpowered) or that we must spend a swift action in addition to the action need to cast the spell (weaker than the hierophant ability)?
Yea, I'm pretty interested in hearing about how these abilities are supposed to work since it will have a big effect upon the party that I'm planning to run a mythic campaign for.
Yea, I'm pretty interested in hearing about how these abilities are supposed to work since it will have a big effect upon the party that I'm planning to run a mythic campaign for.Here's one:
The Archmage wild arcana ability vs. the Hierophant inspired spell ability. The abilities are identical except the wild arcana ability states that it requires a swift action, while the inpsired spell ability omits any mention of action cost (meaning in my mind that you spend whatever action is specified for the spell you choose, and spend a mythic power as part of that action). Is this difference intentional or not? Does the swift action in the wild arcana ability mean you are able to cast such spells as swift actions (wildly overpowered) or that we must spend a swift action in addition to the action need to cast the spell (weaker than the hierophant ability)?
I've been playing an Archmage Wizard with Wild Arcana that started during the playtest, and that has been converted to the release version. During the playtest I was going with the assumption that Wild Arcana used whatever action the spell being cast used, and I think I preferred it that way. The new swift action version is more powerful, I can cast two spells in a round now, but I find it's less versatile. During the playtest I found I was using it a lot for those very useful, very situational, immediate action spells like Feather Fall and Liberating Command. Now it mostly just means quicker buffing or more offensive spells. I'm also finding that I'm burning through resources a lot faster, which I don't like.
The two balance questions I have about the ability though: I don't see any mention of casting time, and does it bypass opposition schools?
One, characters get amazing initiative at tier 2nd, not tier 3rd.
Second, monsters have ranks, not tiers, and ranks do not grant the abilities presented in Table 1–1. Monsters with the mythic subtype gain abilities according to Table 6–5 on page 226. So the mythic aboleth doesn't get amazing initiative just for being rank 2, nor should any mythic monster get amazing initiative just for being rank 2.
Ranks are not tiers.
Does that mean mythic ranks can exceed 10?
Page 176:
"A monster’s mythic rank (MR) is a game statistic for monsters that’s roughly equivalent to a mythic tier— monsters with only a little mythic power are 1st rank, and the greatest mythic monsters are 10th rank."
Table 6–5, page 226:
[doesn't go past rank 10]
The wording on Epic Damage reduction is a massive step away from how DR x/epic worked in the past, to the point of rendering it the second easiest to bypass.
Previously, only a +6 enhancement weapon, or monster with epic damage reduction could penetrate DR. That meant a +4 bane weapon, or an actual +6 enhancement such as those that showed up on some artifacts like the Axe of the Dwarven Lords.
Currently, due to the rewording of the text, a +5 keen weapon, frostbrand, holy avenger, vorpal sword, +3 sword of speed....all of these penetrate DR x/epic. It has become that a +6 weapon of any sort, the kind that costs 72,000 gp, penetrates DR x/epic.
As someone pointed out on a different thread, that means the adamantine golem is vulnerable to the magic sword that the stone golem ignores. It means that a +5 flaming sword penetrates ALL damage reduction in Pathfinder.
I'm listing it here because it is possible that it was a misunderstanding and not a design choice, since it is such a radical shift away from the old concept.
I've created a FAQ thread about that topic a few days ago, but so far the devs have ignored it, although it has over 50 FAQ clicks already.
I've created a FAQ thread about that topic a few days ago, but so far the devs have ignored it, although it has over 50 FAQ clicks already.
"So far the devs have ignored it" is (1) accusatory, and (2) false. This sort of language and attitude doesn't help.
And for the record, since you started that thread, the entire design team has been in the office at the same time a total of TWO days. Can't address FAQs unless all three designers are available to talk about them.
I've created a FAQ thread about that topic a few days ago, but so far the devs have ignored it, although it has over 50 FAQ clicks already."So far the devs have ignored it" is (1) accusatory, and (2) false. This sort of language and attitude doesn't help.
And for the record, since you started that thread, the entire design team has been in the office at the same time a total of TWO days. Can't address FAQs unless all three designers are available to talk about them.
Alright, that last bit is of course something of which I wasn't aware and thus I apologize for my statement. As for the attitude, that was out of line, too and came from a moment of frustration. Another apology.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of how long it takes to get a FAQ done, whether three days or three months*, we are never ignoring FAQ issues. I spend time each week looking at the FAQ queue and prioritizing which questions we should get to sooner rather than later. Except in weeks where we're off at GenCon. And weeks where I'm off on vacation. And weeks where most of the design team is away (such as me catching up on email and other work after being away for 10 days, or Jason getting ready to leave for DragonCon).
Would it be possible to get you all to post a quick forum message (or edit in the post with the clicks like you've done other posts here) in the threads that you (plural you) are looking at? It would also let us know when we no longer need to bump threads in an effort to get more FAQ clicks.
All flagged threads are being looked at. No threads need to be bumped. Once they have clicks, they stay in the queue until they are answered or cleared.
Everybody needs to understand (or at least accept) that if there's a week where we don't answer an FAQs, there is a good reason for that, and the reason is almost always the word "deadline." Like "the deadline for sending this reprint to the printer is this week, or we won't have it in stores in time for the holidays." Or "the deadline for finishing these scenarios is this week, or we won't have them at GenCon." Or "the deadline to get the firsts drafts of the Advanced Class Guide classes to the freelancers is this week, or we'll be cutting into the time period they're supposed to be designing support material for those classes." Or even, "the deadline to get this to the editors is Friday, because if it slips a week the editors are scheduled to work on four other projects that week and they're already at capacity."
And if we finish those deadline issues early, or have a week where there are no urgent deadlines, then we (the design team) can see about getting some FAQs answered. Nobody wants all of those FAQs answered more than I do, because that would be one less thing each week taking time away from designing and developing our books.
And everybody needs to stop getting frustrated because their pet question hasn't been answered yet. It's just a game. Make a ruling and move on. And if you're playing PFS... make a ruling and move on. We'll get your question answered; until then, you're still the GM, and you have the authority to make a ruling.
* And there are some issues in the FAQ that have been waiting quite a while because the questions are formatted poorly, or they're on a weird corner case of the rules that the three of us need to read up on before answering, or because there are more important questions--despite having fewer clicks--that we wanted to answer first. We don't answer FAQs based on which has the most clicks, because just because someone managed to rally a lot of support about a particular question doesn't mean it's the most important, urgent, or relevant question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of how long it takes to get a FAQ done, whether three days or three months*, we are never ignoring FAQ issues. I spend time each week looking at the FAQ queue and prioritizing which questions we should get to sooner rather than later. Except in weeks where we're off at GenCon. And weeks where I'm off on vacation. And weeks where most of the design team is away (such as me catching up on email and other work after being away for 10 days, or Jason getting ready to leave for DragonCon).
Would it be possible to get you all to post a quick forum message (or edit in the post with the clicks like you've done other posts here) in the threads that you (plural you) are looking at? It would also let us know when we no longer need to bump threads in an effort to get more FAQ clicks.All flagged threads are being looked at. No threads need to be bumped. Once they have clicks, they stay in the queue until they are answered or cleared.
Everybody needs to understand (or at least accept) that if there's a week where we don't answer an FAQs, there is a good reason for that, and the reason is almost always the word "deadline." Like "the deadline for sending this reprint to the printer is this week, or we won't have it in stores in time for the holidays." Or "the deadline for finishing these scenarios is this week, or we won't have them at GenCon." Or "the deadline to get the firsts drafts of the Advanced Class Guide classes to the freelancers is this week, or we'll be cutting into the time period they're supposed to be designing support material for those classes." Or even, "the deadline to get this to the editors is Friday, because if it slips a week the editors are scheduled to work on four other projects that week and they're already at capacity."
And if we finish those deadline issues early, or have a week where there are no urgent deadlines, then we (the design team) can see about getting some FAQs answered. Nobody wants all of those FAQs...
Thanks for the info, I would love to see this post (or a reworded version of it) stickied somewhere, maybe at the top of the Rules Question forum. Having a clear "We aren't ignoring your questions: How the FAQ process works." post might help clear out some of the frustration before people start bumping threads and complaining.
Question regarding the Guardian Call 'Absorb Blow'.
Absorb Blow (Su): As an immediate action, whenever you take hit point damage from a single source (such as a dragon’s breath, a spell, or a weapon), you can expend one use of mythic power to reduce the damage you take from that source by 5 per tier (to a minimum of 0 points of damage taken). If you have another ability or effect that reduces damage (such as protection from energy), reduce the damage with the absorb blow ability before applying any other damage-reducing effects. For every 10 points of damage that this ability prevents, for 1 minute you gain DR 1/epic and 5 points of resistance against acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic damage. The DR and resistances stack with any other DR and resistances that you have.
The damage reduction was change from 10 per tier (playtest) to 5 per tier (go live). Due to this fact the bold marked part of the ability is only active with tier2 and higher. Is this RAI or some kind of typo?
Found some contradictions in the Magic Items section. Boots of Earth & Wind(pg. 147), Helm of the Serpent King (pg. 152), Mithral Rose ( pg. 154), & Gloves of Stonefist (pg. 157) are listed as Arms & Armor. Should they be Wndr. Items? Also the Feat Ascendant Spell (pg. 56) is Mythic on the table & Metamagic in its description.
Does Mythic Power attack give a benefit to wielding a weapon in two hands, or an off hand weapon? As written it only gives a bonus to wielders of one handed melee weapons in the main hand.
|
|
The mythic version of
ANTIMAGIC FIELD
Select a number of spell schools equal to half your tier. Spells
and effects of the chosen schools are unaffected by the
antimagic field.
seems a bit off. Either you can "fail" to select several schools or the spell actually gets worse the highter your tier is.
I suspect it should be "up to or equal than half your tier".Allowing two schools to work seems very effective (flying spell, summonded monsters) considering, that the spell still supresses all magic items.
Does Mythic Power attack give a benefit to wielding a weapon in two hands, or an off hand weapon? As written it only gives a bonus to wielders of one handed melee weapons in the main hand.
If I remember the wording correctly (don't have book in front of me) it says that you get +3 per -1 instead of +2, the normal Power Attack rules should still apply (i.e. +50% for THW) since the feat doesn't say otherwise.
Here's one:
The Archmage wild arcana ability vs. the Hierophant inspired spell ability. The abilities are identical except the wild arcana ability states that it requires a swift action, while the inpsired spell ability omits any mention of action cost (meaning in my mind that you spend whatever action is specified for the spell you choose, and spend a mythic power as part of that action). Is this difference intentional or not? Does the swift action in the wild arcana ability mean you are able to cast such spells as swift actions (wildly overpowered) or that we must spend a swift action in addition to the action need to cast the spell (weaker than the hierophant ability)?
I'm also curious about this; I've not yet found any answer concerning this in the forums.
It seems odd that every other Mythic ability for the five other classes, AND the Mythic ability for Hierophant that is NOT spell-related (for animal companions and the like) are either Swift, or Immediate actions but the two spellcasting abilities for Hierophants are not.
Is this deliberate? And what is some of the reasoning behind it if it was, if I might ask?
@j b 200 the key thing about mythic feats is strangely not detailed in the book but seems consistant. Mythic feats in most cases can't really exist on their own as independent feats. This means when reading them you always need to refer back to the origonal feat.
This is different than the improved greater feats because most of these in theory can operate on their own. Though ill freely admit that I've never seen anyone with just greater two weapon fighting.
Anyhow once you realize mythic feats are not independant they all make more sensw
That is in fact detailed in the book.
Really? I skimmed the front of the feat section before I made my post. But I will look again later.
Does Mythic Power attack give a benefit to wielding a weapon in two hands, or an off hand weapon? As written it only gives a bonus to wielders of one handed melee weapons in the main hand.If I remember the wording correctly (don't have book in front of me) it says that you get +3 per -1 instead of +2, the normal Power Attack rules should still apply (i.e. +50% for THW) since the feat doesn't say otherwise.
Indeed sir, you are correct.
In the bestiary entry for the Mythic Worg, the “Special Attacks” section lists a ‘fear cone’ (30ft, DC12). It’s mentioned nowhere else in the creature’s stat-block, though the Mythic Winter Wolf next to it has the usual cone-of-cold breath-weapon. Normal worgs have no such ‘fear cone’, so it’s probably just a typo or copy-and-paste error. :S
And, to show I'm not an opinionated shill for the developers:
6th Tier Archmage ability Channel Power, p19.
Channel Power (Su): You gain the ability to channel raw arcane power into a spell. You can also expend one use of mythic power when casting an arcane spell to increase its damage by 50%. If the spell has a duration greater than 1 round, the duration doubles. Any saves required by the spell take a –4 penalty, although for mythic creatures, this penalty is reduced to –2. This spell ignores any spell resistance the targets have, although targets immune to the spell or to magic still retain that protection.
Emphasis mine. "Also" what?
Suggestion: remove word "also" from the second sentence of the ability.
Here's a second question on Mythic Hierophants.
If you take Dual Path, seeing that the Mythic Hierophant's spell abilities are NOT a Swift Action, are you able to spend a Mythic Point to do a Swift action for say an Archmage's spellcasting or a Champion's extra attack... and THEN spend a Mythic Point to cast an extra spell with the Hierophant ability?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the bestiary entry for the Mythic Worg, the “Special Attacks” section lists a ‘fear cone’ (30ft, DC12). It’s mentioned nowhere else in the creature’s stat-block, though the Mythic Winter Wolf next to it has the usual cone-of-cold breath-weapon. Normal worgs have no such ‘fear cone’, so it’s probably just a typo or copy-and-paste error. :S
Not an error. Fear is a universal monster ability, and usually is in the form of an aura, cone, or ray.
Here's a second question on Mythic Hierophants.
If you take Dual Path, seeing that the Mythic Hierophant's spell abilities are NOT a Swift Action, are you able to spend a Mythic Point to do a Swift action for say an Archmage's spellcasting or a Champion's extra attack... and THEN spend a Mythic Point to cast an extra spell with the Hierophant ability?
Well, considering how the action economy is extremely clear about how it works, it seems like your REAL question is, "Is it correct that this specific ability does not require a swift action, and therefore can be combined with other abilities?" You're bound to get a, "No errata required" answer as a result of that.
Honestly, guys, it seems like half of this thread boils down to "Does this power REALLY work in the exact way its printed in the text?!"
Yes. It does. This is Mythic Adventures, not Exact Same Power Level as a Non-Mythic Game Adventures. I don't want to speak for Sean, but getting a kerjillion questions like that would personally bug the heck out of me if I were in his shoes.
Actually, it's more along the lines of "Paizo, you've twice been asked why the Hierophant, of all classes, does not get Swift action for two of its abilities (and is this a mistake in printing), despite the fact every other class gets Swift or Immediate actions for theirs - for every single one of the core three abilities. So I'm going to ask from a different direction."
And it does matter as when I introduce Mythic to my monthly Reign of Winter game, one antagonist will have the Hierophant Mythic ability, and thus I want to know if this is a deliberate limitation or if the antagonist will be able to do one additional action a round using Mythic, like all the other Mythic Paths do.
Something I noticed earlier today was this little accident.
POWER WORD KILL
Treat the target’s current hit point total as though it were lowered by 5 times your tier. For example, a 3rd-tier archmage casting mythic power word kill would instantly kill a creature with 85 hit points or fewer.
Emphasis mine. Seems like there was just an issue with addition/subtraction and that example should read "115 hit points or fewer". Though it would be odd that one would go through all the trouble of gaining Mythic ranks, learning the Mythic version of the spell, pour mythic power into it, and wind up with a less powerful version of the original spell.
Something I noticed earlier today was this little accident.
Emphasis mine. Seems like there was just an issue with addition/subtraction and that example should read "115 hit points or fewer". Though it would be odd that one would go through all the trouble of gaining Mythic ranks, learning the Mythic version of the spell, pour mythic power into it, and wind up with a less powerful version of the original spell.POWER WORD KILL
Treat the target’s current hit point total as though it were lowered by 5 times your tier. For example, a 3rd-tier archmage casting mythic power word kill would instantly kill a creature with 85 hit points or fewer.
It's awkward wording but not wrong. What it's trying to say in the example is that a 3rd-tier archmage would treat a 100 hp opponent as if it only had 85 hp. (So he could affect a 115 hp opponent.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's awkward wording but not wrong. What it's trying to say in the example is that a 3rd-tier archmage would treat a 100 hp opponent as if it only had 85 hp. (So he could affect a 115 hp opponent.)Something I noticed earlier today was this little accident.
Emphasis mine. Seems like there was just an issue with addition/subtraction and that example should read "115 hit points or fewer". Though it would be odd that one would go through all the trouble of gaining Mythic ranks, learning the Mythic version of the spell, pour mythic power into it, and wind up with a less powerful version of the original spell.POWER WORD KILL
Treat the target’s current hit point total as though it were lowered by 5 times your tier. For example, a 3rd-tier archmage casting mythic power word kill would instantly kill a creature with 85 hit points or fewer.
No, the wording of the example is wrong -- and does not match the description. Why would we care about treating a creature with 100 hp as if it had 85 -- PWK auto-kills up to 100 hp -- so there's no difference whatsoever between 100hp or 85.
However, what the example is likely trying to say (and thus, the math error being called out is correct), is that a 3rd-tier mythic PWK will instantly kill a creature with 115 or fewer hit points.
It says you would instantly kill a creature with 85 hit points or fewer -- but you would instantly kill a creature with 115 hit points.
are the mythic spell started on p. 84 totally distinct spells that you have to find copies of and memorize separately or if you have the non-mythic version you automatically have the mythic version too?
You need to have the spell known/in your Spellbook, and need to have a path ability or mythic feat that lets you select a number of mythic spells which you can then cast as the mythic versions.
Casting Mythic Spells: If you know the mythic version of a spell, any time you cast the spell, you may expend one use of mythic power to convert the spell into its mythic version as you cast it. This doesn’t change the level of the spell slot you use to cast the spell.
If you’re a caster who prepares spells (such as a cleric or wizard), you never have to prepare the mythic version of a spell—if you prepare the non-mythic version, you may cast it as the mythic version by expending one use of mythic power. Unless otherwise specified, casting the mythic version of a spell doesn’t take any longer than casting the non-mythic version.