Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules

[Ilja]

Id love to see your latest version, have only seen quite old ones. Mail is

superlina95 at gmail

[Arrius]

Most like-named bonuses do not stack, but overlap. Does this also apply to specialization bonuses? I.E. Does the favored enemy stack with quarry and with the favored enemy favored class bonuses?

[Tahlreth]

Arrius wrote:

The mana cost decreases the higher the Caster Level goes, with cantrips/orisons starting with a base cost of 3, 1st level spells 7, 2-6th level 8, 7-9 with a base cost of 9 mana. Here's a link to the base system.

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Mana-Based_Spellcasting_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)

I ntriguing. Good premise and better balance than what I was using. Though as is, I don't like how casters would end up with fewer total spells per day than with the vancian system. My personal characters would have either at-wills, Steal Spell, or Steal Ki, so it wouldn't really affect my playstyle. But I'd have trouble getting my group to adopt it. I'll have to play around with the numbers and see if I can find values that work better for me (and maybe get Microsoft Excel to hate me in the process). Now that I think of it, adjusting the size of the mana pool would be an interesting way to adjust campaigns between high-magic and low-magic.

Arrius wrote:

Most like-named bonuses do not stack, but overlap. Does this also apply to specialization bonuses? I.E. Does the favored enemy stack with quarry and with the favored enemy favored class bonuses?

The only bonuses I know of in Kirthfinder that stack are epic, dodge, circumstance (if the different situations overlap), and aid another (from different sources). Typeless bonuses from different sources would've stacked too, but Kirth got rid of those (for good reason). Natural armor technically doesn't stack, but virtually every source of it I've seen specifically say, "You gain +X natural armor bonus to AC, or any existing natural armor bonus increases by +X." Natural armor might as well stack. The favored enemy favored class bonus is worded similarly enough for me to say they stack too. Just remember, the favored class bonus references the ranger lore, which references Quarry, which says it's an insight bonus, so it won't stack with the Insightful Strike feat.

Kirthfinder - Battle Sorcerer - Archon & Kensai wrote:

Your eldritch blast strikes like an invisible blade, dealing force damage.

Are force effects invisible? Can people see a faint outline? Does it actually resemble generic magic missiles or arcane bolts from various video games?

I remember Kirthfinder having a focus somewhere on players being able to use whatever flavor they want for their characters. To that end, do all casters basically get Spell Thematics for free, maybe even applied on a spell-by-spell basis? Granted, if it's free, it'd have to be without the increased DC to identify the spell. (Though that'd make me wonder how spells are identified.)

[Arrius]

Tahlreth wrote:

Arrius wrote:

The mana cost decreases the higher the Caster Level goes, with cantrips/orisons starting with a base cost of 3, 1st level spells 7, 2-6th level 8, 7-9 with a base cost of 9 mana. Here's a link to the base system.

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Mana-Based_Spellcasting_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)

I ntriguing. Good premise and better balance than what I was using. Though as is, I don't like how casters would end up with fewer total spells per day than with the vancian system. My personal characters would have either at-wills, Steal Spell, or Steal Ki, so it wouldn't really affect my playstyle. But I'd have trouble getting my group to adopt it. I'll have to play around with the numbers and see if I can find values that work better for me (and maybe get Microsoft Excel to hate me in the process). Now that I think of it, adjusting the size of the mana pool would be an interesting way to adjust campaigns between high-magic and low-magic.

What the mana system provides in flexibility in design can cover for what the Vancian system has in raw power. I have made my own adjustments for feats and class abilities, even converting some World of Warcraft RPG items into Kirthfinder format, (like Spell Breaker, which is a strike feat that burns 1 mana for every 2 points of damage, up to a maximum of the striker's ranks in spellcraft).

Over here: http://wowrpg.fr.yuku.com/topic/320/master/1/#.UzVDQlc070k

General rulings on conversion:

General Rulings:
1- Bonus spell slots, such as what the Focused Mage, Argent Dawn Templar’s Blessed Revelation and Plageshifter’s Enhanced Power (as others as well) translate to bonus mana. The amount is a neutral +4 to the mana pool.
2- As the making of some items consumes spell slots, the mana drain from the spell level is cost enough.
3- Domain abilities like Flash Heal or Metamagic abilities that increase the spell’s level simply increase the cost according to the mana cost chart above.
4- Domain spells or favored school abilities lower the mana cost of respective spells by 1 mana point.
5- Concentration effects that, if failing the check, lose the spell slot without effect simply consume the mana required without producing the spell in question.
6- After being a target to Raise Dead spell and having mana, the spellcaster’s remaining mana pool is half amount. Touch of Life (or True Resurrection in 3.5), of course, restores mana.
7- Counterspell consumes mana to negate the enemy’s spell. Counterspell rules play as usual.
8- As the case with Spell-like abilities in the normal game, there is no mana cost for spell-like abilities generally.
9- With multiclass spell slots, you must calculate mana from different spell origins (Arcane, Divine) separately. For example, a Necromancer4/Priest5 with 15 Int and 17 Wis has an arcane mana pool of 17, and a divine mana pool of 19. An arcanist who is a mage4/necromancer5 has the same amount as they would if they were mage9 or necromancer9.
10- Purchasing abilities, like the Archmage of the Kirin Tor’s High Arcana, Death Lord’s Dark Arcana, the Warlock’s Fel Companion, and others that require sacrifice of a spell slot, what happens instead is that they sacrifice or ‘freeze’ a mana investment equal to half the mana cost for the spell slot in question, and do not regain it until they abandon the ability/summon/companion (or High Arcana, etc). The ability can be cheaper in cost according to the mana cost table, as a Warlock5 who uses 4 mana to call a Voidwalker may find that since reaching level 14, calling a Voidwalker costs only 1 mana at his newer level. Normal summoning as with Summon Monster/Nature's Ally work normally.
11- When it comes to artifacts or items granting spell levels (Finkle’s Hammer giving you a 4th level spell slot), take the general rule for 1 mana per spell level. I.E. Mana armor enchantment, if it grants you a 4th level spell slot, count is as +4 to your mana pool.

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

1. Most like-named bonuses do not stack, but overlap. Does this also apply to specialization bonuses?

2. Does the favored enemy stack with quarry and with the favored enemy favored class bonuses?

1. I've rolled "specialization bonuses" into the basic "competence bonus," and they don't stack.

2. Favored enemy says you always treat the critters of that type as quarry. You can't designate the same opponent as quarry multiple times, and the bonus types are the same anyway, so no, there is no stacking there.

[Kirth Gersen]

Tahlreth wrote:

1. Are force effects invisible? Can people see a faint outline? Does it actually resemble generic magic missiles or arcane bolts from various video games?

2. I remember Kirthfinder having a focus somewhere on players being able to use whatever flavor they want for their characters. To that end, do all casters basically get Spell Thematics for free, maybe even applied on a spell-by-spell basis? Granted, if it's free, it'd have to be without the increased DC to identify the spell.

3. (Though that'd make me wonder how spells are identified.)

1. Example I'm using (although there are of course other, contradictory ones):

PRD wrote:

A wall of force creates an invisible wall of pure force.

That said, remember that invisibility does not apply any kind of automatic proof against detection, but rather simply applies a scaling bonus to Stealth (a normal sword would have a check bonus of +0 ranks +0 size -5 Dex = -5; assume it always takes 10 and that's a base DC 5 to spot). A good enough Perception check would still enable you to notice an "invisible" force effect.

2. If you mean the Spell Thematics feat from the Players Guide to Faerun, you'd get the fluff for free, but not the +4 DC to identify, and definitely not the +1 caster level. (P.S. It would be a great favor to me to provide references and/or links when you ask questions about stuff from obscure splatbooks, like that one and whatever that "anytool" was from.)

3. We can probably assume that people able to identify spells (i.e., who are trained in Spellcraft) know what to look for, and can see past the cosmetic stuff. Since there's no magic in real life, it's hard to explain directly, but by analogy, I can go to a site and usually determmine the direction of water flow regardless of whether the terrain is barren or wooded or industrial.

[Tahlreth]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

(P.S. It would be a great favor to me to provide references and/or links when you ask questions about stuff from obscure splatbooks, like that one and whatever that "anytool" was from.)

Oh, whoops. I thought I did. Did I mess up the webpage link somehow? Sorry!

The Traveler's Any-Tool is from Ultimate Equipment. I didn't think it counted as a splatbook, but it would explain a number of... um... let's say 'opposing character-building philosophies' in my group.

[Death's Herald]

Kirth,

it appears i have encountered a problem involving weak / strong theurgy. the paladin prestige class has "spell theurgy" in which I choose one spell-casting class other than the paladin and I gain weak theurgy with it and in appendix : A you can choose one archetype and then gain weak theurgy to the class it involves in. for example, devoted tracker which grants weak theurgy to rangers and other benefits.

so, if i for example choose the ranger as the chosen class for spell theurgy and I also choose devoted tracker, does the theurgy becomes strong theurgy? or I cannot choose the two things all together because they don't stack at all?

[Tahlreth]

Renn Sanor The Returner wrote:

so, if i for example choose the ranger as the chosen class for spell theurgy and I also choose devoted tracker, does the theurgy becomes strong theurgy? or I cannot choose the two things all together because they don't stack at all?

The Paladin's Spell Theurgy is tracked separately from the theurgies in all the Paladin archetypes. None of the archetypes apply any theurgy to spellcasting.

[Kirth Gersen]

Renn Sanor The Returner wrote:

It appears i have encountered a problem involving weak / strong theurgy. the paladin prestige class has "spell theurgy" in which I choose one spell-casting class other than the paladin and I gain weak theurgy with it and in appendix : A you can choose one archetype and then gain weak theurgy to the class it involves in. for example, devoted tracker which grants weak theurgy to rangers and other benefits.

so, if i for example choose the ranger as the chosen class for spell theurgy and I also choose devoted tracker, does the theurgy becomes strong theurgy? or I cannot choose the two things all together because they don't stack at all?

Let's work with concrete examples so we can keep track of what we're talking about. Pretend you're a ranger 6/paladin 4. You have spell capacity 3rd as a ranger. Devoted Tracker provides Weak theurgy, so add 4/2 = +2. Your spell capacity is 5th. That's it. There's no choosing it twice, no stacking, etc.

Also keep the "stacking synergy" rule in mind; it trumps all of these (incorrect) exploits anyway:

Introduction wrote:

Stacking Synergy: Synergy, in any combination, can provide a maximum effective class level equal to your total number of hit dice, and no higher. Also, class synergy features from the same two classes do not create positive feedback loops (see below). The points made here may seem obvious, but I feel that some loopholes are best closed by rule, and not by assuming everyone will somehow interpret unwritten rules the same way I do.

For example, assume the fighter 6/rogue 6 mentioned above, with the Martial Outlaw talent, also selects the Practiced Rogue Talent feat (which allows him to treat his rogue level as up to 4 higher for purposes of adjudicating his rogue talents).
How it works: The character’s effective rogue level for rogue talents is already 9th, due to synergy from the Martial Outlaw talent. Practiced Rogue Talent allows him to treat it as up to 4 higher, to a maximum equal to his total hit dice; in this case, 12th. Martial Outlaw also provides Weak synergy to fighter talents, for an effective fighter level of 9th (see above).
How it does NOT work:

The character cannot first apply the effects of Practiced Rogue Talent, for an effective rogue level of 10th, and then also claim full synergy from Martial Outlaw (+3 more, for a total of 13th). The character has only 12 HD, so his or her maximum effective rogue level stops at 12th, no matter how many talents and feats get stacked.

The character does not apply Practiced Rogue Talents to his rogue level, for a total of 10th, then apply half of that to his fighter level, for an effective fighter level of 11th. The “virtual rogue levels” created by the fighter levels’ effects (from the Practiced Rogue Talents feat) cannot be used to create more virtual fighter levels in turn.

[Kirth Gersen]

Renn Sanor The Returner wrote:

the paladin prestige class has "spell theurgy" in which I choose one spell-casting class other than the paladin and I gain weak theurgy with it...

EDIT: Re-reading this, I think I see the issue; the writing on my part in the class feature really doesn't make the intent as clear as it should be.

Add the bolded text below to the spell theurgy description: "Prestige paladin levels provide Weak theurgy towards any one spellcasting or ki using class you possess, as noted in Appendix A (archetypes)."

Hopefully that will clear up the confusion!

[The Egg of Coot]

OK, so this weekend, I divvied up all the various conditions into severity levels: minor, moderate, severe, and critical, corresponding roughly to what you could inflict with a [strike] feat at BAB +1, +6, +11, and +16, respectively.

And like conditions that form chains got descriptors:
[Fear]: shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering.
[Debilitation]: fatigued -> exhausted (or attribute penalized) -> attribute damaged -> attribute drained.
[Inertia]: flat-footed -> staggered -> dazed -> stunned.
[Restraint]: entangled -> grappled -> pinned -> paralyzed.

Even conditions that don't fit neatly into chains got severities assigned to them, which allowed me to massively slash the word count for barbarians (what things you can resist in which levels of rage), prestige paladins (mercies), etc.

[Christopher Hauschild]

Kirth,

The condition feat chains are a good idea and will clean quite a few things up.

Couple things: For the ranger it may be easier to change the name of the favored enemy feats to quarry feats and just make them all work off the quarry mechaninc (since now the ranger's favored enemy feature semms to work off of that).

Also for the barbarian I think you can drop the deathless rage primal rage power since it seems to be subsumed by the new 17th level general primal rage wording.

[Kirth Gersen]

Christopher Hauschild wrote:

Couple things:

1. For the ranger it may be easier to change the name of the favored enemy feats to quarry feats and just make them all work off the quarry mechaninc (since now the ranger's favored enemy feature semms to work off of that).

2. Also for the barbarian I think you can drop the deathless rage primal rage power since it seems to be subsumed by the new 17th level general primal rage wording.

1. That was in the back of my mind to do, and then I forgot. Thanks for the reminder!

2. Exactly right; I noticed that over the weekend. Indeed, I ended up paring down most of the rage power lists.

[Kirth Gersen]

And a shift in focus: Once I get these last few edits and anomalies cleaned up and mail out the latest version, I'm done with "Kirthfinder." So the April-May 2014 version will be the final rules for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I sort of want to turn my attention to a simplified d20-compatible game with two big design goals:

1. Classless, skill-based character construction
2. Fewer numerical modifiers, so that we're not constantly swamping the RNG.

[Ilja]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

And a shift in focus: Once I get these last few edits and anomalies cleaned up and mail out the latest version, I'm done with "Kirthfinder." So the April-May 2014 version will be the final rules for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I sort of want to turn my attention to a simplified d20-compatible game with two big design goals:

1. Classless, skill-based character construction
2. Fewer numerical modifiers, so that we're not constantly swamping the RNG.

I'd seriously LOVE this. I've been trying to simplify pathfinder for quite a long time, since abandoning any attempts to make it more "realistic". I know you can do quality work, so I'd love to see whatever happens with this.

[Sellsword2587]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

And a shift in focus: Once I get these last few edits and anomalies cleaned up and mail out the latest version, I'm done with "Kirthfinder." So the April-May 2014 version will be the final rules for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I sort of want to turn my attention to a simplified d20-compatible game with two big design goals:

1. Classless, skill-based character construction

I too would love to see your version of something like this, Kirth.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

2. Fewer numerical modifiers, so that we're not constantly swamping the RNG.

This has actually been the focus of my Pathfinder rework for my futuristic homebrew campaign setting.

(Without getting into much detail) Bonuses are scaled back a lot, feats and class features give out fewer flat bonuses (instead they typically alter the way the rules work; negating penalties, allowing rerolls, etc.), no more skill ranks, lower-ish DCs for common tasks (resulting in fewer skill checks), attack vs defense are opposed rolls, and so on.

If you'd ever like to swap ideas Kirth, feel free to hit me up.

Also, put me down for the latest mailing of your rules at:

Spoiler:

brennanashby at gmail dot com

[houstonderek]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

And a shift in focus: Once I get these last few edits and anomalies cleaned up and mail out the latest version, I'm done with "Kirthfinder." So the April-May 2014 version will be the final rules for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I sort of want to turn my attention to a simplified d20-compatible game with two big design goals:

1. Classless, skill-based character construction
2. Fewer numerical modifiers, so that we're not constantly swamping the RNG.

So, um, Runequest? ;-)

[Trogdar]

I had a few ideas on the classless aspect. I would love to see how you would approach it.

[Kirth Gersen]

houstonderek wrote:

So, um, Runequest? ;-)

Never played it. Worth checking out?

[houstonderek]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

So, um, Runequest? ;-)

Never played it. Worth checking out?

It's the BRP system now, d6, but you'll find a bunch of good stuff (similar to quality of the 007 stuff you appropriated for KF). Look at some GURPS stuff, too, as they do classless, skill based well, also. Again, d6, so the math would have to be hashed out a bit.

[TriOmegaZero]

I look forward to Ultimate Kirthfinder.

[Kirth Gersen]

(Cringes) I wouldn't personally use the word "Ultimate"!
A lot of the impetus for my new project is that there are a lot of problems endemic to 3.X that I can't fix in Kirthfinder because I'm trapped in that same basic framework.

[TriOmegaZero]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

(Cringes) I wouldn't personally use the word "Ultimate"!

That would be why I used it. :)

Also, I was not referring to your new project, rather the final document of the current project.

[Kirth Gersen]

I suppose it's "ultimate" in terms of last foreseeable iteration, not "ultimate" in terms of "be-all, end-all," which it's decidedly not.

[heliopolix]

The Egg of Coot wrote:

OK, so this weekend, I divvied up all the various conditions into severity levels: minor, moderate, severe, and critical, corresponding roughly to what you could inflict with a [strike] feat at BAB +1, +6, +11, and +16, respectively.

And like conditions that form chains got descriptors:
[Fear]: shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering.
[Debilitation]: fatigued -> exhausted (or attribute penalized) -> attribute damaged -> attribute drained.
[Inertia]: flat-footed -> staggered -> dazed -> stunned.
[Restraint]: entangled -> grappled -> pinned -> paralyzed.

Even conditions that don't fit neatly into chains got severities assigned to them, which allowed me to massively slash the word count for barbarians (what things you can resist in which levels of rage), prestige paladins (mercies), etc.

I've been looking at severing strike again, and it falls outside the normal inflict-condition guidelines.

Rendering an arm useless is similar to a disarm attempt, only with a different resist mechanic (fort save vs CMD). The duration ranges from 1 round to 10 rounds to permanant

Severing a leg or wing should apply some sort of movement penalty, but what? A bipedal creature with one useable leg has its speed reduced to half, to 5', or something else? A winged creature with one useable wing probably loses the ability to fly entirely.

[Kirth Gersen]

You're right, Helio -- any of those not spelled out would need to be.

Severing Strike wrote:

A useless arm cannot be used to wield a weapon, hold an object, or carry a shield; a creature with only usable wing cannot fly; a quadruped with only one usable foreleg moves at half normal speed.

So some of those are spelled out. A biped with one leg can only hop -- I'd call it 5 ft. speed, for the sake of argument.

The thing is, I really want D&D/whatever to involve severed limbs. In 1e/2e there were any number of monsters (slicer beetle), traps (devil's mouth in the Tomb of Horrors comes to mind), and magic items (sword of sharpness) that could do that; in the 3e there aren't, and that makes me sad.

Regarding the scaling of severity:

If we consider a useless arm as similar to disarm, and a lost leg reducing your speed, these are reasonable BAB +6 effects (Maneuvering Strike or Slowing Strike), but they don't really scale well in severity except by means of duration.

So we make them permanent at BAB +11. The regenerate spell comes on line at 13th level, so the life span of "permanent" is actually pretty limited, in practice.

That leaves BAB +16; "dead" (head lopped off) is a pretty critical condition, albeit resurrection still means it's not necessarily permanent.

[heliopolix]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

You're right, Helio -- any of those not spelled out would need to be.

Severing Strike wrote:

A useless arm cannot be used to wield a weapon, hold an object, or carry a shield; a creature with only usable wing cannot fly; a quadruped with only one usable foreleg moves at half normal speed.

So some of those are spelled out. A biped with one leg can only hop -- I'd call it 5 ft. speed, for the sake of argument.

The thing is, I really want D&D/whatever to involve severed limbs. In 1e/2e there were any number of monsters (slicer beetle), traps (devil's mouth in the Tomb of Horrors comes to mind), and magic items (sword of sharpness) that could do that; in the 3e there aren't, and that makes me sad.

Regarding the scaling of severity:

If we consider a useless arm as similar to disarm, and a lost leg reducing your speed, these are reasonable BAB +6 effects (Maneuvering Strike or Slowing Strike), but they don't really scale well in severity except by means of duration.

So we make them permanent at BAB +11. The regenerate spell comes on line at 13th level, so the life span of "permanent" is actually pretty limited, in practice.

That leaves BAB +16; "dead" (head lopped off) is a pretty critical condition, albeit resurrection still means it's not necessarily permanent.

That sounds good. Speed reduction similar to moving while prone: 5' as a full round action, provokes AoO's.

[Scavion]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I look forward to Ultimate Kirthfinder.

+1 to Ultimate Kirthfinder.

I would also be interested in that. Should I repost my email?

[Kirth Gersen]

Scavion wrote:

Should I repost my email?

Probably a good idea; I can never seem to keep track of them!

[Scavion]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Should I repost my email?

Probably a good idea; I can never seem to keep track of them!

:

[e-mail]

[christos gurd]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Should I repost my email?

Probably a good idea; I can never seem to keep track of them!

eeep, and that case

email:

[e-mail]

[Ravenblack]

Just to be sure I don't not miss the "ultimate" kirthfinder. :)

Spoiler:

marcolivierd95 at gmail dot com

[agnelcow]

Admittedly, I'll be sad to see an end to revisions of Kirthfinder. It's truly a thing of beauty. Whenever the latest version is due out, I'd like a copy.

Spoiler:

agnelcow [at] gmail [dot] com

[Ilja]

And here's mine

Spoiler:

superlina95 at gmail dot the usual

[Tahlreth]

This being the final version of Kirthfinder makes me sad, but it'll make my DM happy, and I look forward to your next project.

Spoiler:

[e-mail]

[houstonderek]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Should I repost my email?

Probably a good idea; I can never seem to keep track of them!

Should I repost mine?

And send me a link to get a hard copy printed, I am getting a game together and using these rules, and having a hard copy would make teaching easier. The players are all 3.5 vets with no Pathfinder experience (been out of gaming for a bit).

[Trogdar]

email! woohoo!

Spoiler:

[e-mail]

[Jaegr "Knock Knock"]

Can't wait to see it

Email Address:

[e-mail]

[LoneKnave]

A bit late to the party, but wouldn't mind a copy.

email here::

[e-mail]

[Christopher Hauschild]

I will repost my email as well, I don't want to miss out

my email again:

[e-mail]

Also a few things I noticed in the rogue document. You were referencing the enforcer talent under sneak attack but it seemed to be changed into the Strong arm diplomacy feat.

Rogue's luck should state at 11th and 17th levels (not 16th)

The night vision talent now grants both darkvision and low light vision (the effects in the table still said or)

The arcane trickster bullet points did not always reference synergy and were still stating "add half your..."

[Arrius]

Email again:

[e-mail]

When it comes to updated versions, how old is the one posted here? https://sites.google.com/site/triomegazero/kirthfinder

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

how old is the one posted here? https://sites.google.com/site/triomegazero/kirthfinder

Very.

[TriOmegaZero]

I look forward to the day I have Kirthfinder sitting on my bookshelf alongside The Tomes.

[Kirth Gersen]

You're still probably better off with the Tomes -- Frank was a better designer 5 years ago than I am now -- but I appreciate the sentiment.

[TOZ]

Well, it's not like I play with either of them... ;)

Not PFS legal and my players are newbs anyway.

[kyrt-ryder]

Unless you deleted it you should still have my email address in a PM.

[Ilja]

TOZ, do you make a rule out of switching alias between every post? Just curious :)

[Scavion]

Ilja wrote:

TOZ, do you make a rule out of switching alias between every post? Just curious :)

Each one has a different purpose.

Mythic TOZ is for handling mythic problems.

Atleast that's what my goblin spynet is telling me.

[MYTHIC TOZ]

Each is a separate shard of my persona. We were shattered to limit the terrifying power our whole possesses.