Lets try this again, for the third time.
The problem with any formula that does not include level is that it causes characters at higher level to lag far behind when they begin adding mythic tiers. Getting four (or 5) uses of mythic as a level 14 / tier 1 character does not make you the equal of a 15th level character in most instances. This is even more true in a level 14 / mythic 3 character who has only a marginally larger pool (9).
If the goal is for mythic to be equal at any level for any character - e.g. the equivalent of adding a level - then the fact that higher level characters are often expected to have greater staying power needs to be addressed.
And as Kain and Peter have been saying, making it solely based on tier means that your first few mythic tiers give no significant boosts to a group that starts getting them when already at high level.
In the same campaign, my 14th level Fighter/Barbarian, Tier 1 Champion/Guardian has 4 uses of Mythic Power. Four. That won't even last him one difficult combat.
I think tier + 1/2 character level would be about right, and avoid the SAD issues.I agree that this seems like it would be a good middle ground, as long as it is desirable that a 'max level' at level 20 + tier 10 would have at least 23 mythic points per day. That seems like an awful lot, but then again maybe you will need to be using at least one point a round in combat at that level.
I'm not sure how one would get through fights at level 20 tier 10 without spending mythic points at least every round (and I would expect something more on the order of 2-4 per round). This will be a 20th level party expected to compete with foes aimed at APL 30, no? If they forgo spending the mythic points, they are mostly just a regular level 20 party fighting that CR 30+ monster. In other words, it seems likely that it's spend mythic points like they are going out of style, or else go splat?
I'm not sure how one would get through fights at level 20 tier 10 without spending mythic points at least every round (and I would expect something more on the order of 2-4 per round). This will be a 20th level party expected to compete with foes aimed at APL 30, no? If they forgo spending the mythic points, they are mostly just a regular level 20 party fighting that CR 30+ monster. In other words, it seems likely that it's spend mythic or go splat?I think tier + 1/2 character level would be about right, and avoid the SAD issues.I agree that this seems like it would be a good middle ground, as long as it is desirable that a 'max level' at level 20 + tier 10 would have at least 23 mythic points per day. That seems like an awful lot, but then again maybe you will need to be using at least one point a round in combat at that level.
This might be intentional since it means that the GM may not have to fill the world with CR 30 monsters to challenge a 'max' level mythic party. After all, the party would want to save their mythic power to fight the 'real' opponents.
And what happens when you run out of Mythic Points halfway through that fight with the "real" opponent?
And what happens when you run out of Mythic Points halfway through that fight with the "real" opponent?
The better question may be "What the hell is the point of a new rule set with tons of added complexity that you only use in a very small number of encounters?"
Also - in what way is a tier equal to a level if it only applies to 1-2 combats a day?
I see what Matrix is getting at from a world building standpoint, but from a game design stand point it sounds like an awful idea. It gets even worse when you think about, for instance, a level 10 party with 10 mythic tiers.
Well, to be fair, most levels of a spellcasting class are only ever used in 1-2 fights a day, when first gained.
Think about it, any caster that gains a new spell-level, isn't going to be blowing his most powerful spells on the ferocious chipmunks leaping from the bushes, when there is mass murdering bunny rabbit leaving a cave up ahead.
You save your best, most powerful abilities, for the most powerful enemy you face if possible. If you absolutely have to use your most powerful ability to save your party, then do so, but you want to try and save such abilities for later.
It's a common mistake with new players launching all their Fireballs at 5th level to annihilate some kobolds, only for the young dragon to come out of the cave laughing at the puny caster.
And what happens when you run out of Mythic Points halfway through that fight with the "real" opponent?The better question may be "What the hell is the point of a new rule set with tons of added complexity that you only use in a very small number of encounters?"
Also - in what way is a tier equal to a level if it only applies to 1-2 combats a day?
I see what Matrix is getting at from a world building standpoint, but from a game design stand point it sounds like an awful idea. It gets even worse when you think about, for instance, a level 10 party with 10 mythic tiers.
Keep in mind that Mythics also get a +10 to their primary stat... which makes them 25% more effective even when they aren't using their mythic points. There are also a number of 'passive' mythic abilities that don't require points. A mythic character not using his points is still pretty powerful.
Keep in mind that Mythics also get a +10 to their primary stat... which makes them 25% more effective even when they aren't using their mythic points. There are also a number of 'passive' mythic abilities that don't require points. A mythic character not using his points is still pretty powerful.
Another awful decision for game balance, and one that does not in any way actually equal 10 levels. Every two levels is theoretically a 100% increase in character power. Mythic benefits fall flat, especially without points.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of games do we anticipate to make it to level 20, tier 10, or both?
The reason I ask is that I think it obfuscates balance discussion if that is what's focused on. IMO it's like focusing on the capstones each class gets. For groups that don't make it that far (and I believe RotRL is the only AP that does), such high-level benefits might as well not exist. Also, as that is generally the 'end game' if there are imbalances unique to that stage, they will only be a temporary issue as you've likely reached the end of a long-running campaign.
I would be much more interested to see balance analysis that examines phases of advancement that we anticipate most groups go thru, not just the lv20/t10 'end game'. If tiers are supposed to be equivalent to level (which I'm apprehensive of), then perhaps figuring out how often characters are supposed to be able to break out their mythic moves by APL would be a better place to start.
After all, the tone a group is striving for could be heavily influenced by how freely then can expend their mythic power. If it can be used nearly at-will with no need to conserve for big fights, that game will have a much different feel than one where it is a more limited resource — kind of like the difference between a game that uses a 40-pt buy versus 15. This may ultimately have to be an issue that is approached from that mindset and not a one-size-fits all.
|
@Laithoron - So, are you suggesting a "point buy" alternative, which a GM can use to tailor the power level of Mythic Tiers?
I'd be all for that, but I honestly believe 3 + ability score modifier + tier is the way to go. And, I think Peter's previous post makes a good point for doing just that. Higher level characters should be expected to have higher scores/modifiers than lower level ones. So, even if they did just get to Tier 1 at level 17, they should, through level up bonuses/magic items/tomes/wish, have higher scores than someone who got their first Tier at character level 2. I think that should work out just fine.
Well, my suggestion is that instead of quarreling over whose math is better, it might be more effective to focus on what our end-goal is and what various groups might want to achieve by adding mythic rules to their games.
A group that wants their characters to resemble superheroes will probably need a lot more mythic points than a group that wants a much grittier tone where their achievements may be equally grand but simply more rare of an occurrence.
That's what I meant by drawing an analogy to ability score point-buys.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the goal is for mythic to be equal at any level for any character - e.g. the equivalent of adding a level - then the fact that higher level characters are often expected to have greater staying power needs to be addressed.
I keep bringing it up because you have to yet address my key point which is design philosophy not the specific mechanics of determining mythic points which is secondary. We are in agreement that as your PC grows in power you need more mythic points.
However, mythic points do increase as you level if stick roughly to the 2:1 ratio of levels to tiers. Would you agree that 17 mythic points would be enough at 14th level? Since that falls in between the 3+level+tier and 3+1/2level+tier systems you suggested the answer is probably yes. You get those 17 points if you use 3+2*tier for a 14L/7T character. Again, this is just mechanics and not our main difference.
What we have here is a difference in philosophy. You argue that you have too few mythic points at 14L/1T and I feel you have too few mythic tiers for your level. Our difference is what to balance the system around. I feel that tying levels to tiers in such a direct fashion creates more of a traditional epic system. Based on your arguments, you seem to prefer to start getting your tiers at high level and want to see your character become noticeably stronger after just taking one tier.
There's nothing wrong with that and it represents a completely valid approach to the game. However, I personally prefer a system where you are mythic for the life of your campaign and not just at the very end. The designers are actively trying to avoid re-creating another epic system as well. I was at the Mythic session at Gencon where JB stated they are avoiding an epic system since they just stack bad math on top of bad math. If levels are tied to mythic abilities that is exactly what will happen. Higher levels will just get exponentially more powerful which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
If I may suggest the following -
3+2x Tier OR 3 + (level/2) + Tier. Use whichever is greater.
No matter which one you use it's 23 at level 20 Mythic 10.
Maybe the best solution to the problems to calculate the formula for the Mythic points is make the change appropiate to use them less frequently; make some options a bit less powerful but that not use them?
What we have here is a difference in philosophy. You argue that you have too few mythic points at 14L/1T and I feel you have too few mythic tiers for your level. Our difference is what to balance the system around. I feel that tying levels to tiers in such a direct fashion creates more of a traditional epic system. Based on your arguments, you seem to prefer to start getting your tiers at high level and want to see your character become noticeably stronger after just taking one tier.
There's nothing wrong with that and it represents a completely valid approach to the game. However, I personally prefer a system where you are mythic for the life of your campaign and not just at the very end. The designers are actively trying to avoid re-creating another epic system as well. I was at the Mythic session at Gencon where JB stated they are avoiding an epic system since they just stack bad math on top of bad math. If levels are tied to mythic abilities that is exactly what will happen. Higher levels will just get exponentially more powerful which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
Your own suggestion (of keeping a 2:1 level/mythic ratio throughout the campaign) ties mythic far more to level than including level in mythic point math. It also results in a far less flexible system, that has to be played out from the beginning, or utilized in such a manner that higher level games that are introduced temporary mythic power experience a massive leap in dangerous encounter levels.
In essence, your system only works for games that are being run your way. 2 levels, 1 tier. A level based point system ideally works for games run your way, my way, or the host of approaches in between. As it is more flexible, and can function for more total games, it is superior to your limited one.
I gave my players 1 mythic tier at level 14 to playtest the system. I didn't give them 7 because the system doesn't imply or suggest that I have to give them 7, and also because them facing threats +1 ECL is not as jarring to my gameworld as them facing threats +7 ECL.
Your own suggestion (of keeping a 2:1 level/mythic ratio throughout the campaign) ties mythic far more to level than including level in mythic point math. It also results in a far less flexible system, that has to be played out from the beginning, or utilized in such a manner that higher level games that are introduced temporary mythic power experience a massive leap in dangerous encounter levels.
In essence, your system only works for games that are being run your way. 2 levels, 1 tier. A level based point system ideally works for games run your way, my way, or the host of approaches in between. As it is more flexible, and can function for more total games, it is superior to your limited one.
I gave my players 1 mythic tier at level 14 to playtest the system. I didn't give them 7 because the system doesn't imply or suggest that I have to give them 7, and also...
Very well said Kain.
OOo I found a wee Mythic point wrought.
1: Have a PC with a animal companion,
cohort, eidolon, familiar, or mount etc.
2: Get the Mythic Spell ASCENSION,
[Mane Mythic class or v Dual Path feat etc.]
3: Cast it on your animal companion,
cohort, eidolon, familiar, or mount etc, and blow a second point to make it last day/s.
With this mighty spell, you invest a number of creatures with
mythic power. The total duration of this spell is split evenly
among the total number of targets. Each creature targeted by
this spell becomes a tier 1 mythic character and must select
a path and the abilities that come with that path.
4: Now its 1st level Mythic, Work out its mythic power points.
say Con3mod+3 = 6 or what ever you lot come up with as a means to work it out.
5: Now Make its mythic class, MARSHAL With its Path Ability:
Lend Power (Su): As an immediate action, you can grant one use of your mythic power or confidence ability to a mythic ally within 30 feet. This expends your mythic power or confidence ability as normal. If the ability is used to add to a die roll, it uses your die type. The ally must spend this use of mythic power or confidence before the start of your next turn; any use not spent is returned to you.
6: Then have your main PC take
[Mane Mythic class or v Dual Path feat etc.]
Mythic Companion (Su):
Select one animal companion, cohort, eidolon, familiar, or mount gained from one of your class features or feats. That creature gains can call
upon mythic power (as the base mythic ability) a number of times per day equal to your hierophant tier. This mythic power can be used only to add a d20 roll, and uses the same type of die you use for your mythic power.
and if you can add
Mythic Paragon (Mythic)
Your mythic power is greater than even you understand.
Prerequisite: 1st mythic tier.
Benefit: Your mythic tier is considered two higher for the purposes of determining the strength and potency of mythic abilities, feats, or spells. This does not grant you early access to mythic abilities or greater versions of mythic spells, nor does it grant you additional uses of mythic power or adjust the dice rolled for mythic power use.
7: Now look, your animal companion, cohort, eidolon, familiar, or mount can pump its mythic power points wile you pump its nice plus;s to d20 rolls with out the need of its own mythic power points.
yes its complicated and costly.
But look a spear mythic power point pool in we Bonzo the familiar sheep.
:)
If I am wrong in this or its all ready well known please just point it out and I will happy go away :)
|
|
I get what you guys are saying. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For the record, the 2:1 ratio is not my idea but one I heard from one of the developers (at Gencon maybe?). Whichever way the mythic point formula is set it is a part of the mythic system that will be easily adjusted by houserule at least.
How does 3+character level+mythic tier sound? I think it would fix Peter's issue of a level 14/MT 1 not feeling as equal as a level 15 person, while still keeping the level 1/MT 1 from feeling too powerful. If that seems a bit much, perhaps 3+character level+1/2 mythic tier (minimum 1)?
I get what you guys are saying. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For the record, the 2:1 ratio is not my idea but one I heard from one of the developers (at Gencon maybe?). Whichever way the mythic point formula is set it is a part of the mythic system that will be easily adjusted by houserule at least.
There was mention of 2:1 being the norm. There was also talk of adding mythic to campaigns in progress that would not see the same ratio, or of adding just a dash of mythic to a game, or of using it to keep a game going after 20. Your view allows for only one of these things, while ours allows for all of them. Why is it so hard to embrace using a level + tier based formula?
How does 3+character level+mythic tier sound? I think it would fix Peter's issue of a level 14/MT 1 not feeling as equal as a level 15 person, while still keeping the level 1/MT 1 from feeling too powerful. If that seems a bit much, perhaps 3+character level+1/2 mythic tier (minimum 1)?
You mean what Kain, myself, and others have suggested at least three times? ;)
I get what you guys are saying. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For the record, the 2:1 ratio is not my idea but one I heard from one of the developers (at Gencon maybe?). Whichever way the mythic point formula is set it is a part of the mythic system that will be easily adjusted by houserule at least.There was mention of 2:1 being the norm. There was also talk of adding mythic to campaigns in progress that would not see the same ratio, or of adding just a dash of mythic to a game, or of using it to keep a game going after 20. Your view allows for only one of these things, while ours allows for all of them. Why is it so hard to embrace using a level + tier based formula?
How does 3+character level+mythic tier sound? I think it would fix Peter's issue of a level 14/MT 1 not feeling as equal as a level 15 person, while still keeping the level 1/MT 1 from feeling too powerful. If that seems a bit much, perhaps 3+character level+1/2 mythic tier (minimum 1)?You mean what Kain, myself, and others have suggested at least three times? ;)
Bah, I can't keep up with all the posts here, now can I :p
One suggestion is apparently 3+Char lvl+Tier. Right now I have a game that is level 20, with four mythic tiers, which would be 27 Mythic Points.
Too much? Just enough?
Why don't you playtest it with the current ruleset, which says you get 7 mythic points, and find out? If you run out of mythic power in the first ECL 24+ encounter (or first round of the encounter), you can probably safely suggest more is needed.
We might. I haven't actually decided yet definitely which way I'm going, though I am leaning towards Jason's later suggestion of 3+TierX2 for 11.
Just pointing out how many we would have, if that was the route we went, which is highly doubtful.
I'd like to state for the record that I think the modification made to Amazing Initiative is terrible. Here's why:
I quite often run games at a very high level. This means a great number of character options during play, and can mean that a player's turn can get quite lengthy. While I use the existing 3.5e Multispell feat, I never really liked it because (a) it made caster's turns incredibly long and (b) there was no equivalent whatsoever for non-casters.
As a result, I found the existing system for Amazing Initiative to be quite playable, and I really, really liked how it gave the mythic characters additional actions during the round without making a specific player's turn even longer, instead realistically scattering characters' actions throughout the round.
The proposed change to Amazing Initiative just threw that all out the window and replaced it with a system that both increases the delay of game due to the increased length of one player's turn while simultaneously pissing off every caster in the world with an arbitrary "yes, you get an extra standard action, and yes, casting a spell is a standard action, but no, you can't cast another spell because we say so."
I playtested with the existing Amazing Initiative system at high levels and frankly quite liked it. Actions (both character and opponent) were distributed throughout the round in a realistic manner while simultaneously highlighting the ability of the mythic characters to just plain do more. I did think it was extremely powerful at lower levels, and before this 12/21 update was prepared to go with the original suggestion of the bonus being tied to mythic tier instead of a flat +20; that sounded like a great way to make it less overwhelming at low levels.
The proposed version of Amazing Initiative? I can't get behind that. I've never liked Hero Points or Action Points or anything like that because it just breaks the realism of the game for me - all of a sudden someone can take a whole extra turn? Have the laws of time and space just suddenly halted because someone threw an M&M in a jar?
Furthermore, as I mentioned above, now a player will delay the game even more, and not just because they'll get an additional action, but they'll also want to even more carefully plan out their entire turn including that extra action.
Plus, I'd say it's subject to debate when that action should go. Technically the PC now has the following actions: 2 standard, 1 move, 1 swift. Can they go in any order? Or are we going to even more arbitrarily say that the extra standard action always is at the end, which will lead to even more metagamey plotting of turns?
Please, reconsider this whole course of action. Yes, an additional turn is highly powerful. Yes, it means the mythic characters can do much more. So what? Isn't that the point.
Personally, I have no problem with the system as it was, but I could see the following as a reasonable compromise:
1. The bonus, instead of +20 is +2/tier.
2. An extra turn costs 2 uses of mythic power, and can only be taken if the second initiative count would be >0.
3. The ability to take an extra turn would not be gained at the same time, but instead at, say tier 4 or tier 6, and the bonus to initiative would be at tier 1.
4. The arbitrary "you can't cast a second spell because we said so" thing goes away. Either casting a spell is a standard action or it isn't. Please don't add illogical caveats to the rules.
In any event, thank you for listening :)
|
***Stuff***
It is your opinion that your stance was mechanically superior based on your reasons. You may even be right. That being said phrases like "You have a right to your opinions, but that doesn't make them as good as anyone else's", " I broke things down and showed him exactly why his suggestion was inferior", and "That's why mine > yours" are inherently rude. They were unnecessary to your point, and again only a reflection of your personal opinion, regardless of whether others agree with it.
I believe that Jason's clarification that the extra standard action granted by Amazing Initiative not being eligible for a caster to use to cast a second spell is actually well-balanced. Others think it skews the system in favor of melee characters. I believe my stance is supported by the fact that casters still have a slew of SLA's and class abilities to draw upon in addition to their spells, while martial characters will generally only get an extra attack action, granted one that's likely far more potent than any weapon attack a caster could make. Others might disagree, and that's fine.
See how I just made my point and supported it without belittling others or riding a crest of self-righteous disparagement?
I believe that Jason's clarification that the extra standard action granted by Amazing Initiative not being eligible for a caster to use to cast a second spell is actually well-balanced. Others think it skews the system in favor of melee characters.
Since this derailment is going to cause my comments on Amazing Initiative to be lost in the chaff, I'm going to chime in here.
I'm perfectly fine with you believing the extra action is fine in his clarification. Can you give us some examples to back up that belief? I know for a fact Kain has lots of empirical data to back up his claims though he's being too humble to admit why; I'm quite curious if you're just offering an opinion based on your opinion of the rules or have something to back it up.
Because, frankly, for the reasons I state quite clearly, I would like to see the initiative and action rules returned to what they were before the decision was made to turn them into what feels to me like a less interesting version of what 4e did with PC actions.
|
|
Since this derailment is going to cause my comments on Amazing Initiative to be lost in the chaff, I'm going to chime in here.
I'm perfectly fine with you believing the extra action is fine in his clarification. Can you give us some examples to back up that belief? I know for a fact Kain has lots of empirical data to back up his claims though he's being too humble to admit why; I'm quite curious if you're just offering an opinion based on your opinion of the rules or have something to back it up.
Because, frankly, for the reasons I state quite clearly, I would like to see the initiative and action rules returned to what they were before the decision was made to turn them into what feels to me like a less interesting version of what 4e did with PC actions.
Jason's clarification was based on text already existing in the CRB. That being said, casters have: Bloodline Powers, Hexes, School Abilities, Mysteries, and some Arcana and SLA's that take standard actions. Normally they're either casting or using these abilities. Amazing Initiative now allows them to utilize these abilities in the same round in which they cast a spell, allowing them to use the full breadth of their abilities in a single go. By contrast, martial characters gain a single extra attack, granted one amplified by their feats. I would say a witch being able to cast slay living and utilize her slumber hex in a single round is easily as potent a power gain as a fighter being able to slap an extra Vital Strike onto his attack routine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given a little more thought, I think maybe there should be a High - Medium - Low Mythic setting. Just like there is the various Point Buys for more powerful characters, maybe the should be more Mythic Power choices for more or less Mythic Power games.
Maybe 3 + 2xTier for Low Mythic Power games, 3 + Half CL + Tier for Mythic Campaigns, and 3 + Half CL + 2xTier for High Mythic campaigns.
Jason's clarification was based on text already existing in the CRB. That being said, casters have: Bloodline Powers, Hexes, School Abilities, Mysteries, and some Arcana and SLA's that take standard actions. Normally they're either casting or using these abilities. Amazing Initiative now allows them to utilize these abilities in the same round in which they cast a spell, allowing them to use the full breadth of their abilities in a single go. By contrast, martial characters gain a single extra attack, granted one amplified by their feats. I would say a witch being able to cast slay living and utilize her slumber hex in a single round is easily as potent a power gain as a fighter being able to slap an extra Vital Strike onto his attack routine.
I'm aware of all of that, including the one throwaway line added to the CRB that causes all the confusion in the first place, yet another slippery little Pathfinder addition that does nothing more than create an exception where none is needed.
What I have yet to see is any evidence that you've actually played in a game where such things actually saw action.
On the other hand, in the level 20/tier 10 game we just played, I was perfectly fine with Amazing Initiative as written, and that was including two full turns of actions per PC should they choose (they did about half the time). The only thing I ran into that I was unhappy with was time stop (mythic), or as I've come to call it, screeching halt of game, greater.
|
|
I'm aware of all of that, including the one throwaway line added to the CRB that causes all the confusion in the first place, yet another slippery little Pathfinder addition that does nothing more than create an exception where none is needed.
What I have yet to see is any evidence that you've actually played in a game where such things actually saw action.
On the other hand, in the level 20/tier 10 game we just played, I was perfectly fine with Amazing Initiative as written, and that was including two full turns of actions per PC should they choose (they did about half the time). The only thing I ran into that I was unhappy with was time stop (mythic), or as I've come to call it, screeching halt of game, greater.
We ran the original way, and it tended to be a royal pain in the ass, although that was tied into the nonsense about taking a new place in the initiative order more than the gain of an extra turn. I felt the extra turn was too much because I ended up with some characters either not getting turns or trying to run over other players in an attempt to be relevant in encounters vs. non-mythic creatures.
The reduction to an extra standard action clarified to not granting extra spell-casting has actually done exactly what I just said it did. We've seen our casters utilizing their class abilities in conjunction with spells far more often. Our Magus has even taken an Arcana he otherwise never would have, Pool Strike, and utilizes to great effect when he does his "going nova" routine. The witch example I gave previously was also directly drawn from our game.
That being said, Tel made an excellent case for the same stance Hangman supported in the post just above yours.
Mythic Tiers are intended to be roughly equivalent to a level. The flat gain of a single Tier when balanced to a single level gain are roughly equivalent, regardless of the level you gain them at. They impact the game more noticeably dependent upon the level in which you gain them, but the rough gain in power is equivalent throughout.
Except they aren't, as I've pointed out several times. Three mythic tiers on a 14th level character - with the 3 + 2x tier formula - does not make a 14th level character the equal of a 17th level character. Period. End of story. No current mythic abilities 9/day are the equal of 200,000gp in wealth, 8th and 9th level spells, more spells prepared AND better caster level, more skill points, more feats, more hit points (in my case ~25 vs. 12), better saves, and so forth.
Maybe, maybe with 20 uses (level + tier + 3) you could make that argument. With 9? Good luck.
I use the 14 / 3 example because it is the actual situation in my weekly game during this playtest, not in some attempt to pick a favorable number. You could make the same argument about 20 / 4. Is an average 20th level party with 4 mythic tiers suddenly going to be able to overcome 16 Iathavos in 4 groups of 4?
My guess is no, and further my guess is they probably cannot overcome 4 at one time at all - though the rules say they should be able to easily. Even if they do win one it is likely to burn through the vast majority of their uses of mythic power and other resources in what is supposed to be a CR = Encounter.
Amazing Initiative: Glad to see the change to Amazing Initiative — generally I don't like abilities that make fights a foregone conclusion. Clarifying the no double-casting rule also should help to constrain rocket-tag too [hopefully].
Daily Uses: I'd still like to see 3+ability score bonus+tier considered as the formula for determining a character's daily uses of mythic power. IMO it would mesh better with established rules than 3+2x.
Mythic Saves: Like Joel, I'm not wild about giving away class abilities. However at least stalwart and evasion would still be applicable against mythic opponents...
Can I use the extra standard action to counterspell? Can I use the extra tankard action to cast from a staff or other item? Can I use the extra standard action to counterspell from a wand of dispell magic?
|
|
Can I use the extra standard action to counterspell? Can I use the extra tankard action to cast from a staff or other item? Can I use the extra standard action to counterspell from a wand of dispell magic?Amazing Initiative: Glad to see the change to Amazing Initiative — generally I don't like abilities that make fights a foregone conclusion. Clarifying the no double-casting rule also should help to constrain rocket-tag too [hopefully].
Daily Uses: I'd still like to see 3+ability score bonus+tier considered as the formula for determining a character's daily uses of mythic power. IMO it would mesh better with established rules than 3+2x.
Mythic Saves: Like Joel, I'm not wild about giving away class abilities. However at least stalwart and evasion would still be applicable against mythic opponents...
You still "cast" a spell when counterspelling, so that's probably a no, unless your first standard action was used for an SLA, class ability, or melee attack in which case you're golden. The rest should work just like normal and be fine since you aren't casting, you're activating spell-trigger items.
Counterspelling requires a readied action and a readying is a standard action. So far so good.
However, depending on HOW you counterspell, that could potentially run afoul of the 1 spell per round rule. Casting dispel magic or another spell yourself in the same round that you already cast would probably be problematic, but a ring of counterspells requires no action to activate.
As for activating a magic item, as I read it, spell-completion items would fall under the same rules as spellcasting while using wands, staves, etc would be a legal use of the extra standard action.
Can anyone else provide rule analysis to support or refute this interpretation?
|
|
Counterspelling requires a readied action and a readying is a standard action. So far so good.
However, depending on HOW you counterspell, that could potentially run afoul of the 1 spell per round rule. Casting dispel magic or another spell yourself in the same round that you already cast would probably be problematic, but a ring of counterspells requires no action to activate.
As for activating a magic item, as I read it, spell-completion items would fall under the same rules as spellcasting while using wands, staves, etc would be a legal use of the extra standard action.
Can anyone else provide rule analysis to support or refute this interpretation?
Everything you're saying seems backed by the rules for Spell Trigger. The only place I see a possible issue is Spell Completion items like scrolls.