Missing the Myth


Mythic Adventures Playtest General Discussion

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Epic Meepo wrote:
some very insightful stuff

I would love to make a clever post about how wrong you are, but I agree completely :)

Now that raises another issue though: If all we need for mythic games is narrative; why should we have a mythic rulebook? Wouldn't a 64 page compendium about running myths be enough?

And if we really can't get around having rewards for doing mythic things, shouldn't it be enough with a table saying that doing X gives Y bonus XP and then leave it at that?

I'm sorry. I follow you completely, but your point only makes me see the mythic rules as even less nessessary than I already did.

Paizo Employee

Epic Meepo wrote:

From a narrative standpoint, trials are all you need to duplicate myth, and everything else is extraneous. No repeatable ability can ever be quantified as mythic in and of itself; the exact means the hero uses to overcome a trial of mythic proportions is completely secondary to the fact that the hero somehow managed to overcome the trial.

Unfortunately, Pathfinder is a game that revolves around heroes accumulating repeatable abilities. If the mythic rules are going to have any player content whatsoever, they will have to include repeatable abilities that PCs can access and use. And no matter what form those abilities take, they will be largely irrelevant to the myth of the PCs that use them; the PCs will be immortalized for the once-in-a-lifetime things they achieve with their abilities, not the abilities themselves.

Well said.

I'd argue you probably need some sort of currency to handle corner cases as well (those situations where something is Mythic, but you think it should cost something). So you need something like Mythic Power too, but that and trials is basically it.

Which isn't to say that the general power boost isn't helpful for telling Mythic stories and separating the game mechanically from another Pathfinder game. But they handle the day-to-day applications of mythic power, not the truly Mythic ones.

Cheers!
Landon


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to point out that the phrase Mythic is probably what's bothering people more than the concept of Mythic rules. There are legendary aspects to heroes all across time - Lancelot's legendary battle-prowess, Gawain's legendary purity, Herakles' legendary strength. These aren't mythic concepts - they're repeatably demonstrated, constantly shown throughout their legends. Lancelot is a freaking badass. Gawain's purity is a plot point that eventually nets him the Grail (even if Gawain was added later and is functionally a fanfic).

If you divorce yourself from the word "Mythic", this is a set of rules designed to make characters more able to forge legends other NPCs in the campaign cannot replicate. Being the strongest, being the smartest - that's not really what this is about. It's about going beyond mortal limitations, and I feel that Mythic rules are fully capable of that.

Yes, not every combat is going to be the most mythic of mythic. Yes, once you start repeating things they lose their lustrous fun-time Legendary Awesome Super-Feel. But being Lancelot means more than just tapping Guinevere like she's bonus mana and sending Arthur to Avalon (I don't remember if Lancelot actually killed Arthur but he certainly hastened his downfall). It means being an incredible swordsman, the greatest of a peerage. It means being superior, all the time, forever.

That's what Mythic is for. It's not so you can produce those one-of-a-kind moments in the campaign; Jesus, if you need a rulebook for that, I'd feel pretty bad for your players. No, it's to produce characters, monsters, and legends that go beyond the mortal coil, characters who can cleave through a dragon with one mighty blow or cunningly outthink a Lawyer-Friendly Cameo Of A Betentacled Intelligence-Devouring Humanoid Whose Abilities May Or May Not Be Described As Flaying.

A Fighter 1/Mythic 1 is always going to be more awesome than a Fighter 1. A Fighter 2/Mythic 1 is always going to be more awesome than Fighter 2. Yes, there might be bigger fish in the sea, but...eventually, you'll be the biggest of all. And you'll probably die in the process, because who doesn't love a myth about heroic sacrifice?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kerian Valentine wrote:
I'd like to point out that the phrase Mythic is probably what's bothering people more than the concept of Mythic rules... the entire post

What you describe is basically what bugs me about the "mythic" stuff in a nutshell. To me, the mythic levels are redundant. Everything you describe, and what I've read about as far as "mythic" inspirations, is already modeled in the existing class hierarchy. At least in my games it always has been.

Examples (the classes and levels are arbitrary, it's the progression that matters):
- Gandalf the Grey (level x wizard)/Gandalf the White (level x+2 wizard)
- Soldier (level x fighter)/Captain (level x+5 fighter)/Lancelot (level x+15 fighter)
- Temple trainee (level x paladin)/Temple Champion (level x+5 paladin)/Temple Hero (level x+7 paladin)/Gawain (level x+10 paladin)
- Tough guy in a tavern (level x barbarian)/Toughest guy in the tavern (level x+3 barbarian)/Toughest guy in the country (level x+7 barbarian)/Hercules (level x+15 barbarian)

I just don't understand where the "mythic tiers" fit within the existing class system on a narrative level.

To a common farmer, a 12th level cleric seems mythic. A 12th level cleric can create water at will and bring people back from the dead, certainly "godlike" powers to a farmer, or even a 2nd level person. So to that same farmer, what is a 12th level cleric with 1 mythic tier?

What is a cleric 2/mythic tier 2 cleric to a 12th level cleric? Does the 12th level cleric look at the mythic guy and aspire to have his power, revere him in awe as a chosen servant? Why would he? He's 12th level! If not, then whats the point of the mythic tiers?

A 10th or 12th or 15th level paladin has certainly done many extraordinary things in his adventuring life in service of his deity and the greater good. He has the divine blessing of his deity and is directly granted powers due to this blessing. So when a level 3/mythic tier 2 paladin comes along what does that mean to him? Despite his (probably) years more dedication and service to his deity this chosen one is more favored?

I don't get how the mythic stuff works on a story level when the existing class system is already modeling "mythic" and "fledgling" beings today.

What would make more sense to me is if the "mythic" tiers were reserved for deities and monsters, NOT PCs. Now that would be interesting because it would open truly horrific and/or beautifully powerful beings for the PCs to interact with and battle and for designers to stat out so we can see the numbers on these terrible beings (I'm not above stats for stats sake!). High level PCs would have to draw upon their own "mortal" (non mythic) abilities to defeat these cosmically powerful foes by luck, planning, overwhelming numbers, perseverance, or some combination of all. It would give PLAYERS of high level characters reasons to count up and track all those little bonuses (instead of hand-waving them) for every little edge and come up with strong battlefield tactics or work as a group to defeat a mythic opponent. It would allow GMs to run high level battles with powerful BBEGs without over complicated stat blocks, tons of mooks, and reams of paper.

So "mythic monsters" work for me but "mythic PCs" seem redundant and unnecessary to both the game rules and narrative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to fundamentally disagree. The reason Mythic exists is to separate the PCs from the NPCs who are identical to them, as well as the monsters and so on. Saying that the level X+15 Barbarian is Herakles is all fine and dandy, but at heart, that level X+15 Barbarian is identical to all other level X+15 barbarians in the world.

If you think this is a situational case, I invite you to take a look at the Forgotten Realms, where the guiding rule of your PC is that you aren't special and there are a million other people who can do your job better than you can, and the only reason problems really happen is that Elminster doesn't do diddly

Yes. You can easily run the game as if only your players have levels in PC classes. Yes. You can easily say that Herakles is the only X+15 Barbarian in the world, and make him a goal for your players to surpass.

But what about the formative levels of Herakles? Herakles was awesome even as a little kid - he beat two snakes Hera sent to kill him to death, in the crib. Can a level 0 Fighter beat two snakes to death? Probably not. Can a 0/Mythic 1 Fighter? Probably.

Yes, that's silly. You're never going to be in a situation where a player has 0 Character Levels but Mythic Tiers (although that gives me an idea for a campaign...). But the point is that Herakles was special from birth, not because he had 20 levels of Flipping Out And Killing People - and unless every single character in your campaign is always below the level of the PCs, you really can't model that in Pathfinder rules default. A level 1 is a level 1 is a level 1 is a level 1.

But a level 1/Mythic 1? That's a whole different ball game, even if it doesn't seem like a fundamental change.

Paizo Employee

Kerian Valentine wrote:
If you think this is a situational case, I invite you to take a look at the Forgotten Realms, where the guiding rule of your PC is that you aren't special and there are a million other people who can do your job better than you can, and the only reason problems really happen is that Elminster doesn't do diddly.

This is a sort of interesting weakness with building NPCs the same way as PCs.

It puts you in an uncomfortable situation when you're running high-level games with humanoid enemies. If tenth level characters are special, where do you pull your enemies from? How much do you have to plan out each combat encounter in advance so it doesn't strain belief? Do you really want to include plot devices to explain mooks in your fights?

The mythic rules provide something of an answer to that. You don't need to be 20th level to be the chosen ones. It says you're the chosen ones right on your character sheets.

Which means you can scale challenges without threatening the PCs' place in the narrative. And can flag other people and creatures as important when the plot demands, rather than needing to throw away "important" people to get to your target CR.

It's reasons like that that I appreciate the raw power-up player abilities. They don't make the game's tone Mythic, but it's sort of weird to be the son of a god or the chosen one... but not be able to point to something on your character sheet that reflects that or call on it in battle.

Kerian Valentine wrote:
Yes, that's silly. You're never going to be in a situation where a player has 0 Character Levels but Mythic Tiers (although that gives me an idea for a campaign...).

Huh. I think you just hit on how to recreate a lot of myths. And it puts off some of the rules complexity that a low-level Mythic game could have.

And now I want to run a level 0 Mythic game. Curses!

Cheers!
Landon


Yeah I'm trying to sketch out rules to level 0/Mythic 1 something myself. Nearest I can figure out, you'd have to apply age penalties for being a kid to the standard rolls, as well as give them like...I dunno, 6 HP+Constitution?

You couldn't be too tough on 0/Mythic 1s, but it's definitely an option now.

Paizo Employee

Kerian Valentine wrote:
Yeah I'm trying to sketch out rules to level 0/Mythic 1 something myself. Nearest I can figure out, you'd have to apply age penalties for being a kid to the standard rolls, as well as give them like...I dunno, 6 HP+Constitution?

6 + Con bonus + HP from Mythic path should be fine for starting out.

Depending on the age, you may or may not need attribute penalties. I probably wouldn't worry about it, but handing out Intelligence and Wisdom penalties for being young does appeal to my inner old person.

Kerian Valentine wrote:
You couldn't be too tough on 0/Mythic 1s, but it's definitely an option now.

And a pretty cool one, thanks for bringing it up :)

Cheers!
Kinak


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Kerian...

"But being Lancelot means more than just tapping Guinevere like she's bonus mana"

I think I need a keyboard now due to the coffee i sent spraying across my desk... thanks...

I am stealing that line, though.. that was awesome...

regards,

Pol

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Rocket Surgeon wrote:
I'm sorry. I follow you completely, but your point only makes me see the mythic rules as even less nessessary than I already did.

That's because mythic rules aren't necessary for telling stories that resemble myths, and never will be. To paraphrase one of the players in my playtest, which included both mythic and non-mythic adventures: the mythic adventures felt mythic because of the fantastical flavor text and maps I used during those adventures.

My interest in the mythic rules has nothing to do with mythology. I was excited about the mythic rules based on claims that mythic tiers would allow me to run high-level adventures without worrying about the complicated rules for high-level, non-mythic PCs. So far, my playtest has shown that the mythic rules don't lived up to this promise (but that's a topic for another thread).

Accordingly, I don't want to see a whole bunch of complicated, flashy abilities added to the mythic rules because those abilities will supposedly feel more mythic than the abilities already in the playtest document. I don't think any ability feels particularly mythic in and of itself. I'd prefer to focus effort on the elimination of complicated rules that bog down play, freeing players up to focus on the flavor of the game (which actually can make the game feel mythic).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Landon Winkler wrote:

It puts you in an uncomfortable situation when you're running high-level games with humanoid enemies. If tenth level characters are special, where do you pull your enemies from? How much do you have to plan out each combat encounter in advance so it doesn't strain belief? Do you really want to include plot devices to explain mooks in your fights?

The mythic rules provide something of an answer to that. You don't need to be 20th level to be the chosen ones. It says you're the chosen ones right on your character sheets.

What's wrong with just writing "chosen one" on your background and in the plot? If you're a cut above any other humanoid, that's represented by being higher level. Adding tiers of Mythic doesn't make them any more unique than just adding another level or two to them, if raw power upgrade is what you're wanting. Another way to make NPCs inherently less than PCs is to just make the PC classes special; wizards are quite the force in a world of adepts, as are rogues amongst experts.

Nothing you're stating here as a goal/advantage isn't fulfilled by just adjusting the expectations of your campaign/setting.


Virgil wrote:
Landon Winkler wrote:

It puts you in an uncomfortable situation when you're running high-level games with humanoid enemies. If tenth level characters are special, where do you pull your enemies from? How much do you have to plan out each combat encounter in advance so it doesn't strain belief? Do you really want to include plot devices to explain mooks in your fights?

The mythic rules provide something of an answer to that. You don't need to be 20th level to be the chosen ones. It says you're the chosen ones right on your character sheets.

What's wrong with just writing "chosen one" on your background and in the plot? If you're a cut above any other humanoid, that's represented by being higher level. Adding tiers of Mythic doesn't make them any more unique than just adding another level or two to them, if raw power upgrade is what you're wanting. Another way to make NPCs inherently less than PCs is to just make the PC classes special; wizards are quite the force in a world of adepts, as are rogues amongst experts.

Nothing you're stating here as a goal/advantage isn't fulfilled by just adjusting the expectations of your campaign/setting.

Along similar lines, I had a campaign in mind in which the special nature of the PCs not only gave them some special abilities (mostly immunities and a few subtler things), but on the meta level explained them learning and growing in power so quickly. Essentially making the "we've adventured for a week and gone up 3 levels" a part of the story and their unique nature.


Virgil wrote:

What's wrong with just writing "chosen one" on your background and in the plot? If you're a cut above any other humanoid, that's represented by being higher level. Adding tiers of Mythic doesn't make them any more unique than just adding another level or two to them, if raw power upgrade is what you're wanting. Another way to make NPCs inherently less than PCs is to just make the PC classes special; wizards are quite the force in a world of adepts, as are rogues amongst experts.

Nothing you're stating here as a goal/advantage isn't fulfilled by just adjusting the expectations of your campaign/setting.

But...but that's wrong.

Your PC Paladin is the only Paladin in the entire world? No other human being in the history of the last, let's say century because that's about three generations, has ever been chosen by the gods of good? Every single other high-level human being who serves the Church is an adept 10+?

Your PC Fighter is the only Fighter in the entire world? In the past hundred years, no other human being has ever been trained in the fighting arts, they've all just been crappy warriors, even the guys who've spent their entire lives training and soldiering on?

Your PC Cleric is the only cleric, yadda yadda.

That's literally just humans. When you take elves and other long-lived races into the equation, it looks even sillier.

The "PC" classes aren't intended to be PC-only, and it shows - heck, all you have to do is open the NPC Codex for that. There ARE gulfs, dividing lines - number of stat points, amount of gold, quality of gear - that separate NPCs from PCs, but "classes" isn't intended to be one for major players in the campaign world.

And I don't mean the campaign. I mean the campaign world.

If you start opening those classes up to "the bad guys", you have a really strange situation going on, where all the guards are 10th-level Warriors who can't stop evil's arrows with anything but their soft, fleshy bodies, but all the bad guys are 10th-level fighters because...because.

Similarly, if you shut off those classes, you get humanoid challengers who are tenth-level...nobles and warriors. That doesn't really make the players feel cool; that's the equivilant of curbstomping some goblins at level 2.

So what's the line? Where do you determine who gets the "PC" Class and who gets the "NPC" class, in a theoretically-living, breathing, realistic, stable world?

Again, you see this a lot in older settings and amateur homebrew, as well as That Other Default Setting For That Other Game Going Unmentioned But Referenced By A Number That Is A Multiple Of Two And The Letter E - where you have dudes who couldn't possibly sustain the empires they rule, guards who are just so slightly higher-level than the PCs but always seem to be low-level when the bad guys come rolling around.

If the world needs to be bent to your party, there's something wrong here - or you're a big Ayn Rand fan, and if you are, that's cool.

Mythic rules enable those of us who aren't Ayn Rand fans to still have the Chosen One story, and now support it by actually being special and feeling like big badasses because our Fighter 10/Mythic 5 can and does outshine every Warrior and Fighter 10 on the planet by a wide margin.

Yes, you can just write "The CHOSEN ONE" on your sheet; yes, you can just pretend those classes are forever off-limits to the NPCs; yes, you can even have a setting with zero humanoid antagonists.

For those of us who like our settings to be cohesive, sane, and full of NPCs who are actually competent, and thereby make sense internally, there's Mythic.

Basically, PC-relativistic settings aren't my bag, but if they're yours, have fun. You probably won't need this book.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Kerian wrote:
Mythic rules enable those of us who aren't Ayn Rand fans to still have the Chosen One story, and now support it by actually being special and feeling like big badasses because our Fighter 10/Mythic 5 can and does outshine every Warrior and Fighter 10 on the planet by a wide margin.

But he's not outshining any of the other Fighter 10/Mythic 5 characters on the planet. The world is just as bent and PC-relativistic by denying Mythic tiers to only the players, which brings us to the same kind of tactics I suggested; make PC classes rare/special/unique, make NPCs lower level, etc. The difference is less homework and that's about it, unless Mythic fulfills a role of more than raw numeric power upgrades.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Uh it fulfills the roll of allowing PCs to fight creatures that are supposed to be much, much stronger then CR 20 or 25 for that matter...

Scarab Sages

The thing that I think represents "Mythic" is 'mysterious.' I think the act of assigning stats to the variable acts of Fate is too much like looking behind Oz's curtain.

Point of fact; being awesome 24/7 isn't mysterious, mythic or heroic
Point of fact; having no framework to reference when determining the outcome of battles between Gods allows for awful storytelling
Point of fact; having too much framework to reference when determining the outcome of battles between Gods allows for awful storytelling

I was thinking that it's great to have the framework for these abilities, but the best way to keep them inspiring awe might be to not let players take them!

As a GM, assigning the mythic roles to the character in secret would let me apply those abilities and skills behind the GM Screen (Oz's curtain) when they're most needed; letting the player make that extra move, or get that additional d6 to their roll to save the day. Savvy players will eventually figure it out; but at that point the story can develop around the growth and discovery of those powers. If I see what I can do on the sheet, then there's no wonder to it ...

I think that mysterious element takes 'rules' and turns them into 'magic.'


Virgil wrote:
Kerian wrote:
Mythic rules enable those of us who aren't Ayn Rand fans to still have the Chosen One story, and now support it by actually being special and feeling like big badasses because our Fighter 10/Mythic 5 can and does outshine every Warrior and Fighter 10 on the planet by a wide margin.
But he's not outshining any of the other Fighter 10/Mythic 5 characters on the planet. The world is just as bent and PC-relativistic by denying Mythic tiers to only the players, which brings us to the same kind of tactics I suggested; make PC classes rare/special/unique, make NPCs lower level, etc. The difference is less homework and that's about it, unless Mythic fulfills a role of more than raw numeric power upgrades.

But that's wrong, because Mythic tiers don't progress with XP/things killed/"life experiences", they progress by "being spectacular and forging a legend", whereas every single class level ever has always been represented as growing "with experience".

Unless you're telling me that literally no one in the last hundred years has ever learned to swing a sword with a +1 BAB per level, despite doing the exact same thing as the heroes...no, no, that's just too damn strange to me. The Mythic tiers are non-class abilities that have nothing to do with professions, but, again, literally "being special".

Again, yeah, you can do it the way you're describing, but then I have to question what you actually even want out of the Mythic rules in the first place?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're describing a world that has never had legends before the players entered the scene, and 'spectacular' doesn't exist in the dictionary until they do something that deserve it. This implies very self-centered bards, because the only tales they can tell are about themselves. I guess slaying dragons, zounds of bandits, dark necromancers, and the like just never happened before? You know, all the stuff the PCs would be doing in a non-mythic game, unless adding the <mythic> tag to your notes somehow makes it more special.

What's the difference between a warrior and a fighter, despite both being +1 BAB/level and requiring the same amount of experience to level? The Fighter is a PC class, which is also by definition more special than an NPC class.

I and many others have stated what is actually desired out of the Mythic rules, and that is something more evocative than a "slaying marginally more enemies or surviving some fraction more damage."

Here's another option if raw power is all you care about, which doesn't need an entire book; just set the XP for the fast track, give high-fantasy wealth (double WBL), use epic fantasy point-buy. Everyone else in the world can be stuck with the low fantasy point-buy, wealth, and slow experience.


Virgil wrote:
You're describing a world that has never had legends before the players entered the scene, and 'spectacular' doesn't exist in the dictionary until they do something that deserve it. This implies very self-centered bards, because the only tales they can tell are about themselves. I guess slaying dragons, zounds of bandits, dark necromancers, and the like just never happened before? You know, all the stuff the PCs would be doing in a non-mythic game, unless adding the <mythic> tag to your notes somehow makes it more special.

There's a gulf of difference between being Bard, who slew Smaug with the black arrow, and Turin Turambar, Conqueror Of Fate, destined to *come back to life and slay the root of all evil at the end of the world*.

One has stories told about him, and yes, they're great stories about killing horrible things and epic bravery, and no one is devaluing them.

The other is literally chosen by forces beyond his control for a fate that surpasses his own death.

Unless you're implying that Bard should've been a warrior, because he wasn't a member of the party, and that killing Smaug was a lucky shot? I mean, sure, that's fair - but it's not like anyone in Lord of the Rings really conforms to fantasy class archetypes, so I'll be fair.

How about good ol' Theseus, who was born from Aegeus and Poseidon both sleeping with the same woman on the same night? Or Achilles, who was held over the fire/dunked in the water of the lethe until he became damn near invulnerable (good ol' mythic DR), except for his one critical weak point (you know the one).

Or Siegfried, who became indestructible when the dragon Fafnir's blood spilled over him, except for one spot on his back that was covered by a leaf?

Or Baldr, the god, who was immune to all forms of damage because of his mother going around the entire universe and making everything promise not to hurt him, ever? Except the Mistletoe, of course. Shame.

You can't really mimic those abilities with D&D, not if you want the game to remain playable. But Mythic DR pretty much does the job for you! And - this is the best part - it's outside the class/level system, so the players actually feel like it's something unique that they can do, instead of being something every barbarian ever has!

All you need to do is imagine some flavor for it besides "these numbers on the sheet" - which you really ought to be doing anyway!

Virgil wrote:
What's the difference between a warrior and a fighter, despite both being +1 BAB/level and requiring the same amount of experience to level? The Fighter is a PC class, which is also by definition more special than an NPC class.

Fighters get feats that express being competent in their chosen style, and nothing about the fighter or its feats beyond the arbitrary "PC" distinction makes it seem as if it's anything out of the ordinary for humans to possess? They aren't even "PC" classes, they're "Base" classes.

The NPC classes even say, right on page 242 of the NPC codex - "these are not meant to represent specific, named NPCs; rather, they are used for common roles these sorts of characters play in the game - minor cultists, swineherds, and so on."

Emphasis mine.

You'll also note that there's a comment about your way of doing things on page 242, going into 243, as well! "In a low-magic or gritty campaign setting, humanoid opponents are the norm and skilled opponents are rare exceptions; the villain may have levels in a PC class, but the rest of his minions are experts and warriors."

But I don't play low-magic, and I'd really like the Pope of Crystal Dragon Jesus-Land to be able to cast real magic instead of Adept crap, and still let the players feel like they're special despite having super-Pope in the setting.

Virgil wrote:
I and many others have stated what is actually desired out of the Mythic rules, and that is something more evocative than a "slaying marginally more enemies or surviving some fraction more damage."

Impossible. If you're going to codify something into rules, it must be repeatable - which strains the mythic out of it, as people have already noted - or unique, in which case you don't need rules for it at all. The best you can possibly do is make something outside the norm and hope it will be utilized in a manner that isn't "slaying marginally more enemies".

Virgil wrote:
Here's another option if raw power is all you care about, which doesn't need an entire book; just set the XP for the fast track, give high-fantasy wealth (double WBL), use epic fantasy point-buy. Everyone else in the world can be stuck with the low fantasy point-buy, wealth, and slow experience.

OK, or you could stick words in my mouth about how all I care about is raw power, sure.

I'll spell this out for you, as easily as I can.

If you want evocation from the mythic rules, you are going to have to drag it out of the rules yourself. The moment you create rules for unique, special events that can never be repeated, you have created a means by which they can be repeated - effectively, you cannot make a "system" for miracles and expect miracles to remain miraculous. Mechanics are mechanics; evocation will either come with the fluff, or from your own imagination.

What I have been arguing has not once been about power scale, but about a framework by which players can acquire abilities beyond the ken of mortal men, outside the "class/level" system. It has nothing to do with slaying dragons a little better - that's not mythic, and if you think that's what I'm arguing, I invite you to go reread my arguments a little closer.

TL;DR: You Cannot Make Repeatable Rules For Miraculous One-Of-A-Kind Events. The Best You Can Do Is Make A System For Exalting The Player-Characters Above Normal People, And Then Build Off It, Using What Opportunities It Provides.

Paizo Employee

Kerian Valentine wrote:
TL;DR: You Cannot Make Repeatable Rules For Miraculous One-Of-A-Kind Events. The Best You Can Do Is Make A System For Exalting The Player-Characters Above Normal People, And Then Build Off It, Using What Opportunities It Provides.

That's very well said. Good condensation!

Cheers!
Landon

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Three men who hit things with sticks gather in a tavern one day to enjoy some delicious ale.

The first is a 3rd Level Warrior, we'll call him Bill.... he's got a bit of experience in him and could be called a veteran guardsmen of Sampleville. He knows how to use a sword and shield, taught to him in during training. He knows how to put on armor as well, also taught to him during training. Occasionally a small goblin raid might happen or there my be a brawl to break up but otherwise things are relatively peaceful most of the time. He doesn't really train or exercise beyond what his job calls for and it took him a few years to get to 3rd level.

The second is a 3rd Level Fighter, we'll call him Valeros.... He's been around the block a bit. He's taken it upon himself to make sure the goblin raids happen as little as possible and so him and his friends go outside the town to hunt goblins and orcs to the east. Unlike the warrior, his life isn't really one for peace... There are peaceful moments of course, but this guy might feel the most alive when his life is in peril of being ended with that orc's axe. One day this guy will leave Sampleville and go to Megacitapolis and find real adventure. This guy practices his swordsmanship quite often and he got to where he is at in just a couple of months and he's probably destined to do some pretty impressive things like slay a dragon, maybe save a damsel in distress... Valeros is a guy to watch!

The third guy is also a 3rd Level Fighter, we'll call him Cayden... Cayden has had similar life experiences as Valeros such as fighting goblins, killing orcs, excitement in a fight, etc... a friendly rivalry exists between Cayden and Valeros... During a recent hunt, Cayden came across a cave that was hard to get into and a way out of the way for normal orc caves. Cayden squeezed and went deeper in the cave where he found a mural of an impressively armored figure practicing an impressive sweeping strike. The mural goes on to show the armored figure killing many men with that strike! Inspired, Cayden decided to try and emulate the moves that the mural was showing.
He spent all day and all night there training... his party thinking him dead and going home to bring the bad news... but when his training was over Cayden was a new man! He could feel that perfect strike at his finger tips, ready to be let loose at a moments notice. It was ingrained into his head and he could feel the power of this perfect strike as though it was a living thing inside him! As he walked home, a wyrmling green dragon came across his path... a dangerous beast even in its infancy! The green dragon charged down Cayden with its claws and its breath! Cayden called forth this new perfect strike and in one blow, felled this dragon, decapitating it! Cayden then vowed that if there were any other murals out there like this one, he would seek them out to discover their power!

How do you put Cayden down on the character sheet?

  • Some of you say you'd just give him an extra level... but the problem with that is a few things... what if you have other 4th level fighters or even higher level fighters in your campaign???? Did they also find murals of this perfect strike?! Also it's not really a fancy myth inspiring move if you just represent it as an extra level
  • Some of you say give him a bonus feat... That's fine if this bonus feat is one that normally can't be taken but if it is then it isn't what I described above almost mystical perfect strike that can be felt inside Cayden... the mural would be a training manual for Improved Trip or whatever rather then this mystical perfect strike Cayden performed. And those aren't really all that mythic either
  • Or maybe you could go with Mythic. It has abilities that can emulate this mystical perfect attack and can be grown as Cayden finds more murals! The knowledge of the manuevers perfected by an ancient hero has made Cayden all the more powerful. He didn't gain a level, his fighter level remained where it is at, but the abilities he gained as a tier 1 champion do a good job of showing his increased prowess after learning this perfect strike without causing issues with verisimilitude, without making fighter level 4 (or higher) more special then it already was.

The arguments of Keiran and Landon are really well done. Truly they show what Mythic offers to Pathfinder... Maybe you don't view a need for it, feeling you can trust in your own creative processes to find ways to give players the powers of the direct descendants of gods or those imbued with power by the gods. Maybe doing it the nice and simple way, level increases, stat increases is the way you prefer. But I and others feel that this rule set offers up a good framework to help us tell stories about creatures and characters that are special beyond what the world normally allows - semi-deific powers beyond the normal mortal capabilities.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

xevious573 wrote:
...I and others feel that this rule set offers up a good framework to help us tell stories about creatures and characters that are special beyond what the world normally allows...

For that reason alone, I'm not going to argue that the mythic rules need to change course. The mythic rules as written provide more options, and options are good, even if I see no compelling reason to use those options when telling mythic stories in my own games.


I disagree that you cannot make rules to suit Mythic events, but I do agree that the existing 3.5 and Pathfinder rule "style" don't suit Mythic. The designers have themselves said that this is a "new style" of playing Pathfinder. However the rules at this point are being developed just the same.

I am far from a game designer but what I wanted to see was a mix and match toolbox approach. Perhaps something along the lines of Ars Magica spellcasting. You could fuel your powers with Mythic points, and decide on what effect you are after, based on what mythic path you have chosen. The rules should be built as a framework for allowing the players or GM to make a power or effect up on the spot, and to offer limits to balance out these powers. For example you could have a combat style that allows you to perform super grappling moves. The players can decide in what form it takes and how it looks, for example if you are fighting a dragon you can jump on it and slam it to the ground. The rules might say you can decide to do 1d10 damage per tier, or less damage and add in a condition. The framework helps define upper limits of damage and outcomes. This is quite different from the current model of "take this power then you can do this thing".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Consider also the phrase from The Incredibles, 'If everyone is Mythic, than nobody is.' Mythic PCs will be more often than not facing Mythic foes and thus everyone is back on the same level they were before they became Mythic. A Mythic paladin should be able to rip the wings off of a Vrock and make it cry instead of struggling against a Mythic Vrock

Grand Lodge

Andrea1 wrote:
A Mythic paladin should be able to rip the wings off of a Vrock and make it cry

I agree, BUT...

This kind of game would quickly grow stale once the "novelty" wore off.


Digitalelf wrote:
Andrea1 wrote:
A Mythic paladin should be able to rip the wings off of a Vrock and make it cry

I agree, BUT...

This kind of game would quickly grow stale once the "novelty" wore off.

To a large extent I think this is why people have a problem with mythic. It is the same reason you don't consistently pit your fighter PC's against warrior NPC's. You need variety, and you need humanoid enemies that can stand up to the PC's. For a lot of people a high level fighter or wizard is a good approximation of someone like Hercules or Merlin.

Personally, I'm still a bit torn on where I stand, as I like the looks of mythic, but I've also always liked the idea of high level PC's being leagues beyond their contemporaries. However, I will say that those arguing in favor of mythic have been making wonderful points so far, and this conversation seems integral to making this playtest progress in the right direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I first read the Mythic rules, my first question was "Why?" I was expecting it to be a new version of Epic level rules, not this.

My primary problem is that I already thought my PCs were "mythic". They are the heroes, and thru their adventures they are becoming legends. I can understand the desire to have a more "Extreme" game from time to time. I prefer the options from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana; Gestalt Classes, spell-touched feats, etc. Mythic first level character just doesn't seem right to me, PCs should earn their legendary stats. And yes Heracles was killing snakes as a toddler, her was also a Demigod.

Problem two is that the Mythic rules are just a layer of complexity added to an already complex game. I would prefer something like substitution levels, maybe even each class remade into a Mythic version. When your PC becomes mythic, you stop using the regular class levels and switch to the mythic rules. The tiers would be built into the class or presented as Mythic Prestige classes, not layered on top, and the rules would support multi-classing better.

The other problem is that there needs to be a danger to your PC. I need to feel that they are at risk to enjoy the game. But when nothing can hurt them, they heal like Wolverine and even auto-resurrect, where is danger? Oh just add Mythic to their adversaries and then they are at danger? So those honeybees are Mythic Bees, those rose bushes must be Mythic Roses for their thorns to scratch them and your PC choked to death on a chicken bone? Must have been a Mythic Chicken!
As Andrea1 said above; "When everything is Mythic, no one is"


Andrea1 wrote:
Consider also the phrase from The Incredibles, 'If everyone is Mythic, than nobody is.' Mythic PCs will be more often than not facing Mythic foes and thus everyone is back on the same level they were before they became Mythic. A Mythic paladin should be able to rip the wings off of a Vrock and make it cry instead of struggling against a Mythic Vrock
Dark Psion wrote:

The other problem is that there needs to be a danger to your PC. I need to feel that they are at risk to enjoy the game. But when nothing can hurt them, they heal like Wolverine and even auto-resurrect, where is danger? Oh just add Mythic to their adversaries and then they are at danger? So those honeybees are Mythic Bees, those rose bushes must be Mythic Roses for their thorns to scratch them and your PC choked to death on a chicken bone? Must have been a Mythic Chicken!

As Andrea1 said above; "When everything is Mythic, no one is"

That's not even kind of true. There's no point in which I think I'd have my Mythic PCs facing more Mythic foes than non-Mythic foes. You can create just as much danger with a massive horde of enemies - and continue to make the players *feel* mythic as they mow through a small army on their doorstep - as with a single Mythic foe, perhaps more. Honestly, did the concepts of "action economy" and "horde tactics" - nevermind just "actual tactics" - vanish with the arrival of Mythic rules or something?

Similarly, high-level monsters don't just vanish because they're Mythic now. On the contrary - "PCs Imbued With Ultimate Power" is the perfect reason to start dragging things that are many CRs higher than your players out of the Bestiaries.

Also, consider that Mythic Flaws exist for the same reason as they did in the actual stories - to fuel character development...and place pressure on the mythic hero. You can use them to apply danger with even the least mythic of enemies - again, it was not a dragon that felled Baldr, but mistletoe. Yes, mistletoe fired by a god, but it was the mistletoe that killed him.

Consider this. Yes, a mythic Fighter might tear through a hundred goblins in a round. But what if he's up against ten thousand? Even if you shorthand them to having one attack roll per thousand, that's ten rolls - with what is likely a not-insubstantial bonus behind them - to hit the Mythic fighter.

That's ten chances to Crit, again probably with not-insubstantial damage bonus behind it.

You can't rely on the same old tactics to challenge Mythic PCs. This is a fact. But nor do you need to resort to making everything ever Mythic to face them - scaling up the old tactics, as well as inventing new ones that we will surely see open up to us as the playtest continues, will be enough.

Dark Psion wrote:
My primary problem is that I already thought my PCs were "mythic". They are the heroes, and thru their adventures they are becoming legends. I can understand the desire to have a more "Extreme" game from time to time. I prefer the options from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana; Gestalt Classes, spell-touched feats, etc. Mythic first level character just doesn't seem right to me, PCs should earn their legendary stats. And yes Heracles was killing snakes as a toddler, her was also a Demigod.

Which is precisely what Mythic rules are intended to emulate. Not "being better than everybody else" - "being beyond human comprehension", "outside the rules", "superior". The PCs aren't just "the heroes" in a Mythic game - they're Demigods, they're Immortals, they're Legends Writ Large. They have a grand and glorious destiny beyond the destinies of normal people.

This isn't a problem you're having with the rules. This is you not comprehending what Mythic rules are for. They're not for a more "extreme" game - they're for PCs who challenge Heaven and Hell with the power of gods behind them.

If you don't like it, that's cool, but at least understand what it's meant to do. Yes, it might be something you "earn", but it's also something PCs can start with from birth because they are demigods or something to that effect.

Dark Psion wrote:
Problem two is that the Mythic rules are just a layer of complexity added to an already complex game. I would prefer something like substitution levels, maybe even each class remade into a Mythic version. When your PC becomes mythic, you stop using the regular class levels and switch to the mythic rules. The tiers would be built into the class or presented as Mythic Prestige classes, not layered on top, and the rules would support multi-classing better.

A 3.5-based game, adding complexity with a splatbook? No way! I'd never have guessed that was a thing that would happen /ever/.

Okay, slightly less sarcastic now, absolutely g@$@$%ned not. Do you know what a pain in the ass it is to rebuild characters compared to adding phantom "levels"? What you're suggesting is actually more complex than the Mythic rules are. The Mythic rules are a phantom set of "levels" you progress in through great (and pre-determined by the DM) deeds, meaning all advancement in Mythic power is strictly controlled.

That means that every mythic tier-up is because you, the DM, offered it to them. You can't "grind" mythic tiers - the mechanics, as far as I understood them, literally prevent that.

So what's less complex - a system by which players can increase in power according to their actions and the DM's whims at literally any point in time, or an entirely new set of classes, prestige classes, "substitution levels" (which I have always felt were horribly done, personally, they've never ever been worth what they were substituting until Archetypes came out)?

Because the answer is "the one you can staple onto an existing character sheet without any changes". That's always the right answer - /always/.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Kerian Valentine wrote:
You can't rely on the same old tactics to challenge Mythic PCs. This is a fact.

My ongoing playtest disagrees with you.

I've spent over forty hours testing what happens when non-mythic adventures designed to challenge non-mythic PCs are run for a party of mythic PCs of the same effective APL. I've found that encounters using tactics that would challenge a non-mythic party regularly challenge a mythic party of the same APL.

In fact, my most recent playtest adventure ended with an APL+3 'boss' fight killing a party of four mid-level mythic PCs. The 'bosses' were a handful of non-mythic outsiders using tactics they would use against non-mythic opponents: hide behind illusions and summons; exploit terrain to split the party; hit-and-run with greater teleport; focus fire on one target at a time; kill the casters first. Fairly routine tactics for a gang of highly-intelligent evil outsiders, and more than sufficient to provide an epic challenge for a mythic party.


I'd argue that using things of the effective mythic level isn't quite the same as it was but that's good to know; I haven't had a chance to wrangle my players into an actual playtest, they're stubborn.

EDIT:

Also that pretty much reinforces my point of "Mythic doesn't mean you need Mythic challenges" so either way that's good!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kerian Valentine wrote:
A lot of things I can't agree with

Relax, please.

I understand the intention of the rules quite well, as, I think, do the rest.

Everything you've said thus far - as I read it at least - can be boiled down to: Mythic is meant to make characters different from the people around them. Agreed.

What those of us that disagree with you say is: Mythic is meant to make characters different from the people around them. Agreed?

Where we have a clash is in the how. You seem to think that because it's a rules set it is great and you will add the rest through narrative. That's fine, I have no problem with that. But some of us feel that a rules set that calls itself mythic should be more than just another boost in power that we then have to fit in ourselves.

If we remove how we feel about the rules from how we see them and just look at what they are, we should all be able to agree on a few things:

1. The rules add power to a character in various basic ways, ranging from bonus hit points, over bonus saves, to new abilities.

2. The feats could all have "Improved" before the name and it would be ok for everyone to have them.

3. The spells could all have "Improved" before the name and be a higher level, and it would be ok for everyone to have them.

4. Mythic points are required to activate mythic abilities.

So what it boils down to is that:

1. Power Boost.

2. Power Boost with a higher requirement.

3. Power Boost with a higher requirement.

4. Added book keeping for everyone.

How is this any different form how things are already?

The Magus and Gunslinger use points to activate abilities that wasn't available before they showed up. That didn't make them mythic.

The Ninja use points to activate abilities that wasn't available to non-spellcasters before he showed up. That didn't make them mythic.

The mythic paths use points to activate abilities that wasn't available befroe they showed up. That doesn't make them mythic.

The point is that the rules as they are doesn't feel like myth, the paths might as well have been prestige classes with high requirements and the feats/spells is a slightly upgraded copy-paste from the core rules.

The idea in itself is good, the result is bland, uninspired and, in all honesty, boring.

Paizo Employee

Rocket Surgeon wrote:

4. Mythic points are required to activate mythic abilities.

...

4. Added book keeping for everyone.

Mythic points do have boring (or sweet but purely mechanical) combat applications. But I think you're missing or underselling their actual potential.

When a mythic character tries to do something Mythic, which almost by definition can't be covered by the rules, you need some way to say "yes, but..." Mythic power provides a one-stop-shop for those issues and let you limit mythic actions without just saying "no" half the time.

But without developing a new pool or system, there isn't a good answer to those questions.

The combat uses of mythic power aren't what excites me about it. That said, mythic power should be usable in combat and Pathfinder isn't really built to ad lib combat.

There are going to have to be some defined (i.e. not Mythic) combat functions in the mythic rules. Those are also the section that needed to be playtested the most, so that's what we've seen so far.

None of that is to say that the rest of the book will satisfy everyone. I'll probably end up hacking together the rules anyway. I just can't get too worked up that the rules that define how mythic powers interact with mundane activities aren't particularly mythic.

Cheers!
Landon


I see your point Landon.

Problem for me is that the rules doesn't do what they claim to be doing. They are, as I keep saying, merely another boost.

If this is going to be a grand new flagship addition to the rules, it would be the perfect time to redifine the system into something that fits the mythic vision. But we get the lazy edition, with absolutely nothing new and that bugs me a bit.

I'm almost a little sad that you don't look at these rules from the combat point. The rules as they are now is an excellent boost when killing monsters to steal their treasure. And that's fine, that's what this game is about, but it's still done in a boring, uninspired way.

And if you need to hack something togeather from the rules; why even get them? I'm almost hearing you say that you expect the rules to be so counter your needs that you will have to rebuild them basically from the ground up. If that's the case, why even bother getting them?

No thanks, I'll pass.

And I'm not getting worked up at all, that's the main problem with these rules, I can't even be bothered to hate them, they're just ... Meh.

Cheers! to you too :)


kerian valentine wrote:
I invite you to take a look at the Forgotten Realms, where the guiding rule of your PC is that you aren't special and there are a million other people who can do your job better than you can, and the only reason problems really happen is that Elminster doesn't do diddly
Dark Psion wrote:
your PC choked to death on a chicken bone? Must have been a Mythic Chicken!

fantastic and hilarious quotes! :D


Rocket Surgeon wrote:
And if you need to hack something togeather from the rules; why even get them? I'm almost hearing you say that you expect the rules to be so counter your needs that you will have to rebuild them basically from the ground up. If that's the case, why even bother getting them?

I feel basically the exact same way about the Teamwork feats.

The difference is, several classes I very much like (Cavalier, Inquisitor) require complete rebuilds to be viable without Teamwork Feats; I am required to use these feats, or pull the guts out of the class and remake it. I tend to opt towards the latter, because I like Cavalier and Inquisitor in concept.

No class requires Mythic rules. Mythic rules open options for development we did not have before - namely, abilities not tied to class progression. Yeah, in their current, playtest form? They're not that great, and I can't argue that they are.

But the avenues of development they open excite me to no end.

Paizo Employee

Rocket Surgeon wrote:
I'm almost a little sad that you don't look at these rules from the combat point. The rules as they are now is an excellent boost when killing monsters to steal their treasure. And that's fine, that's what this game is about, but it's still done in a boring, uninspired way.

Oh, I've thought about them from a combat perspective, I just don't think that has a lot to do with whether a D&D/Pathfinder game feels Mythic.

I'd love, dearly dearly love, for them to be "level-equivalents" that are simpler than levels. If a level 10/tier 10 game was simpler than a level 20 game, I'd use the hell out of the mythic rules just for that. And if a level 20/tier 10 game is substantially more complicated than a level 20 game... ugh.

But, even if I got my wish, that won't make it feel Mythic. The way Mythic conflicts should play out, in my opinion, doesn't really square with Pathfinder's existing rules. D&D combat, in particular, depends on very discrete, measurable actions. Mythic combats don't live in that sort of structure.

I certainly think they should cram as much Myth as possible into each and every combat ability they include, but... at the end of the day, I don't see how adding things to Pathfinder's combat system could make it Mythic.

If I had to sketch a path forward, I'd suggest a focus on passive abilities that let you ignore rules. Precise Shot is a good example on the non-mythic side. It's handy, but its real value is stripping a complex rule out of the game.

Then, once those rules are peeled off, add a tiny number of active abilities but make them huge and ridiculous. Little bookkeeping effects like stat boosts are fine in the background, but the actual powers should be flashy enough that noone could mistake it for a normal action and freeform enough that it has unintended consequences.

But you're talking about a fundamentally different combat system after all of that. It's combat system I'd love, and might just have to develop myself, but I understand if Paizo doesn't want to go down that road.

Rocket Surgeon wrote:
And if you need to hack something togeather from the rules; why even get them? I'm almost hearing you say that you expect the rules to be so counter your needs that you will have to rebuild them basically from the ground up. If that's the case, why even bother getting them?

Same reason I got Ultimate Combat, I guess. I haven't even read much of it, just grabbed the bits I've needed as I've needed them.

That goes back to simplicity, though. I'm going to use the absolute minimum ruleset I can for what I need, so everything I do is hacked together.

Honestly, if they have good advice for running a Mythic game, I'd buy a book just for that. Any rules that help me implement the advice are just gravy.

But that isn't to say I can't totally understand where you're coming from. I just come from a school of thought where hacking things together is what you do as a GM. I blame 2nd Edition :)

Rocket Surgeon wrote:
Cheers! to you too :)

Thanks :)

Cheers!
Landon

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:

I'd love, dearly dearly love, for them to be "level-equivalents" that are simpler than levels. If a level 10/tier 10 game was simpler than a level 20 game, I'd use the hell out of the mythic rules just for that. And if a level 20/tier 10 game is substantially more complicated than a level 20 game... ugh...

I certainly think they should cram as much Myth as possible into each and every combat ability they include, but... at the end of the day, I don't see how adding things to Pathfinder's combat system could make it Mythic.

If I had to sketch a path forward, I'd suggest a focus on passive abilities that let you ignore rules. Precise Shot is a good example on the non-mythic side. It's handy, but its real value is stripping a complex rule out of the game.

Then, once those rules are peeled off, add a tiny number of active abilities but make them huge and ridiculous...

^ 100% this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think in my games I'll simulate the entire "you need to do awesome but difficult to repeat things to be mythic" situation by just using hero points. Want to do something which should be impossible? Use a hero point and mythic power at the same time.

Sczarni

Epic Meepo wrote:
Landon Winkler wrote:

I'd love, dearly dearly love, for them to be "level-equivalents" that are simpler than levels. If a level 10/tier 10 game was simpler than a level 20 game, I'd use the hell out of the mythic rules just for that. And if a level 20/tier 10 game is substantially more complicated than a level 20 game... ugh...

I certainly think they should cram as much Myth as possible into each and every combat ability they include, but... at the end of the day, I don't see how adding things to Pathfinder's combat system could make it Mythic.

If I had to sketch a path forward, I'd suggest a focus on passive abilities that let you ignore rules. Precise Shot is a good example on the non-mythic side. It's handy, but its real value is stripping a complex rule out of the game.

Then, once those rules are peeled off, add a tiny number of active abilities but make them huge and ridiculous...

^ 100% this.

Also this. This is what Mythic is. Do this please.

Dark Archive

I love the mythic rules so far, it solves some issues for my current group. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for in my games. That's not to say it's perfect, but I do trust Paizo and the wonderful people taking part in the playtest to churn out some amazing work.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The concerns here echo my concerns when I read through the rules, but I long ago gave up on depending on the rule set to make my 3.5e game epic.

That's why my single favorite rule out of all the 3.5e epic rules was the rules for mythals. They were basically ways to create virtually anything, and to give it crazy weaknesses and great powers. A close favorite was the Weapons of Legacy rules. Not the example weapons, those were useless, but the rules for building your own legacy. Now that was something to build a plot around.

That's also why my favorite part of the current mythic rules is the weaknesses, even though they could be a min-maxer's dream - because the weaknesses are the single part of that document that best defines what mythic should be - things that help create a story.

The second best is the mythic vampire, another example of what makes something mythic - being cool. That's why I liked the Omens from Elder Evils, and that's why I liked the Omen Feats for mooncalves from that article in The Dragon ages ago.

Sure, mythic vampires are far weaker mechanically than they ought to be, but it's the concept that matters (now personally, I'd ignore the thought that you can't have a mythic NPC that's a mythic vampire, since that's an arbitrary and unhelpful rule - and I can do that because I'm the GM even though I won't during this playtest).

The hardest part of any epic adventure is creating something that feels epic. Substituting mythic for epic, the problem is the same. I've created crazy opponents and battles in the past five years or so, but crazy opponents aren't the things that are memorable.

Stories are epic or mythic, not dice rolling. The dice rolling has to support the story, not vice versa.

I feel the same way about the mythic rules that I do about the 3.5e epic rules - if a campaign is simply a series of ever crazier battles against ever more powerful opponents, it will only last so long before it becomes dull. There has to be an equally mythic plot to go along with the mythic opponents, and there has to be plenty of non-mythic plot that makes the mythic plot elements seem all the more mythical.

Every once in a while the PCs need to use their great power to do something mundane. Find a lost child. Help repair a fence. Get rid of the goblins threatening the townsfolk - these things will ground the campaign and will make that battle against elder vampire released after being entombed for 2700 years seem all the more fantastic.

Sovereign Court

Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think in my games I'll simulate the entire "you need to do awesome but difficult to repeat things to be mythic" situation by just using hero points. Want to do something which should be impossible? Use a hero point and mythic power at the same time.

This is the view I take on them as well. There's already a rules system for doing things that you can't normally do. I thought of having something to tie hero points into mythic points, but have them share a system. Trade three hero points for one mythic (hero point feats new have value), or rolling a nat 20 on a hero point usage grant a mythic point. Being limited, they don't just become an all the time power boost that doesn't feel mythic. Invulnerable? Spend a point to gain fast healing x for y/level. Agile? Spend a point to charge through enemy lines, denying every AoO along the way. Fast? Spend a point to dodge 'magic missile' a la the Picard maneuver. Build the flaws into the use. Invulnerable? When it ends, temporary con damage since you've greatly overtaxed your natural healing ability. Agile? Dazed because you just bent and twisted your body in so many different directions and configurations in do sorry an amount of time. Fast? Speed is reduced to 5' because you basically just tore everything in you're legs. I was thinking maybe something along the lines of starvation for the serious calorie burn, but can't recall if that's something that really exists in game terms.

Obviously these are just ideas and may not hold any semblance of balance, nor is the list exhaustive, but it's just some thoughts I had about what would actually feel mythic to me, as well as keep those things infrequent to be able to keep the myth about them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have participated in one whole session with mythic rules added on top of our normal PCs, and I must say that, so far, I am not exactly jazzed on the current mythic concept either. Something is missing, IMO.

We are playing 15 point build characters with Hero Points in our Carrion Crown adventure path, and we have six players -a witch, a paladin, an oracle, an alchemist and a synthesist summoner (me).

I had a diffucult time shoehorning my character into a mythic path since none of them were really appealing to my low skill point, poor in combat on his own, not really a full caster character. I found some of the abilities of the heirophant to be appealing, but the fact that it's a divine caster path was discouraging to my arcane casting summoner, so I just went with Guardian to make him nigh-invulnerable (his Iron Man suit is just super tough with epic DR).

That was fine, I guess, but the only thing I really used my mythic points for in game was for boosting my mediocre skill checks and saving throws by 1d6, which is basically IMO the same thing as burning a Hero Point or having a slightly higher point build.

I think that, rather than building a complex pseudo-class on top of my character, I would rather have a simple mythic template or something that I could just add to my existing character. I like the idea of giving mythic characters the ability to ignore the complicating factors of the basic rules. Ignoring combat modifiers from cover or flanking, being able to take 10 or 20 any time, not always failing attack rolls or saves on a "1" etc.

As for making a game "feel" mythic, I think that you need to have specially written adventures with a mythic theme, rather than just playing a normal module with suped up characters and monsters. The stakes need to be higher, the plots grander, and the rewards rewardyer.

So, to sum up: Crunch needs to be more appealing and simpler, fluff needs to be more carefully crafted. Not against the idea of mythic/epic play, just not sold on the current idea.


Honestly, I don't know if cribbing from other games is either suggested, frowned upon, strictly disallowed or what, but I think what Exalted does with Charms is a good starting point for mythic abilities. It's been said and said, but mythic needs to make you different, not better. Charms in Exalted sometimes make you better, but usually they have unique effects that couldn't be accomplished with skill checks.

Maybe spells, supernatural abilities, and extraordinary abilities are the way to think about mythic abilities. These things present those who have them with new options, which is exactly what mythic needs. Maybe the mythic marshal can use rally to negate any and all fear effects from everyone around him. Through Shot and Wall Smasher are steps in the right direction.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorry but I think Mythic needs to make you different AND better.

Silver Crusade

I would like to ask something of you guys who have play tested the Mythic rules.

I have only recently started to read the material, but for those of you who have a solid grasp of them, let me ask this:

As far as the feel of Mythic is concerned, is there anything in the rules similar to an old movie called Jason and the Argonauts that translates to a specific scene between Hera and Zeus. Zeus ordained that Hera could only help Jason a limited number of times over the course of his entire adventure to recover the Golden Fleece.

So in game mechanics, the GM deducts a use of Mythic power from the party leader or something to that effect to gain divine insite to a current dilema. The help could be in the form of a animal or creature native to the area or appear as an apparition in a pool of water, flavor effect of course.

Or how about something like the old version of Clash of the Titans where Zeus commands, forgive me i don't remember the name of the goddess, she who had a pet owl and Haephestus created a mechanical version to help the hero. Or even something like a piece of gear like what Persius discovered at the outdoor theater with contact from a divine agent or even a god to add background to where the character's roots come from.

Those are some of the ideas that come to mind when i think of Mythic or Epic.

I hope i didn't confuse anyone with this. I guess i'm asking if there are mechanics that allow for that kind of mystery and awe behind their destinies or is everything i type one of those GM has to provide flavor for kind of things?


Rocket Surgeon wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
some very insightful stuff

I would love to make a clever post about how wrong you are, but I agree completely :)

Now that raises another issue though: If all we need for mythic games is narrative; why should we have a mythic rulebook? Wouldn't a 64 page compendium about running myths be enough?

And if we really can't get around having rewards for doing mythic things, shouldn't it be enough with a table saying that doing X gives Y bonus XP and then leave it at that?

I'm sorry. I follow you completely, but your point only makes me see the mythic rules as even less nessessary than I already did.

I totally agree. A good gm doesn't need a whole new book of mechanics to produce the 'mythic' feel, and said rules won't help a bad gm capture that feeling either. I find slapping [mythic] onto every combat feat in the book rather uninspired, and uninspiring.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Vestrial wrote:
I totally agree. A good gm doesn't need a whole new book of mechanics to produce the 'mythic' feel, and said rules won't help a bad gm capture that feeling either. I find slapping [mythic] onto every combat feat in the book rather uninspired, and uninspiring.

Very true. But a GM does want a toolbox that lets the rare and dangerous creatures that inhabit the forgotten corners of the world do frightening and mythic things. Slapping on another 10 HD doesn't do that, it just gives it +5 to +10 to hit, some extra HP, makes its saves and DCs higher, etc.

I'm looking for more things like mythic creature templates, mythic powers and weaknesses, and even crazier spells that make people go "huh?" Those are things that I can use to make a foe unique, in other words, rather than just a troll with some extra HD.

However, there's another concern I have, which is that virtually everything I've seen is focused on mechanics. Granted, a sourcebook doesn't have to be mythic to discuss story, but a mythic sourcebook that doesn't discuss plot, story and pacing is just more mechanical goodies with no soul.

So, please, follow through on weaknesses. Add something like the ARG's race point system for unique powers. Include a Weapons of Legacy-like system for powering up artifacts and creatures (few people remember that Weapons of Legacy also included rules for creatures of legacy). Put in material that breaks the rules just because it can. Because in my mind, that's part of being mythic - being able to break the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

I think this is an interesting discussion and one that we are having internally as well to ensure that this book is more than just a few numbers tossed around. I personally have the feeling that too much of the playtest ended up being a simple mechanical bonus without the added "oomph" to make it mythic. There is a difference between auto confirming crits.. which is certainly useful, and jumping up in the air, grabbing a dragon and slamming it into the ground. The first is probably more mechanically valuable, but the second is much more "mythic".

Suffice to say, we are working to add more of the later to the rules. Much of the rest that is described here as an issue deals with tone and setting. The text dealing with that was not included in the playtest for a number of reasons, but primarily because it just was not ready yet. There is going to be a significant section of the book talking about how to build mythic games and how to make it more of a impactful change in your game than just some numbers. We are getting there.. but for now, the playtest needed to focus on the mechanical. Its hard to playtest background info.

At any rate, thanks for all the feedback folks.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I think Mythic would be better served by NOT pitting the heroes against enhanced threats, and by getting rid of static abilities. The heroes of myth are often known for performing great deeds, but RARELY for repeating those great deeds. Repetition necessarily is anathema to myth. Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound, but after you've seen him do it a few times, it becomes less impressive.

Hero points, action points, force points, destiny points...these are the fuel for mythic abilities--occasionally do something phenomenal! The task would be codifying what can be done with such a resource, or how to create new things with that resource. That's not especially thrilling from a developer standpoint, I should think, because it's probably no more than a chapter to be added to existing rules than a whole new book or outlook.

Mythic "classes" seems even more contrived, though a mythic template that is applied to a character and that conveys the resource to be spent and maybe some special usages for the resource could work.

I mean, here are a couple of the most "mythic" things I've done with characters:
--In a Star Wars Saga Edition game, my companions and I were trying to escape or rescue someone (I can't recall) and found an Imperial shuttle on the landing pad we were making for with a whole squadron of Stormtroopers armed and waiting for us. They dropped a couple of my companions with blaster fire, and things were looking dire. So my force wizard spent a Destiny point and rolled very well with Move Object to grab the Imperial shuttle and slam it into the entire squadron of Stormtroopers, clearing the way for us, saving my companions, and giving us our means of escape. If I did that all the time, it would feel less epic, but because it was a unique and outlandish circumstance, it was pretty memorable.

--In a Pathfinder game, my party finally reached the BBEG devil who was fairly powerful. I charged in, he missed his AoO thanks to my AC, and on scored a critical hit on my first attack as a smite evil, and had the feat that allows a free shield bash on a crit. A crit from my main weapon on a double-smite and the resulting shield bash smite killed him. Essentially, one-hit. That was pretty awesome. If the campaign had gone on, and I did that a few times, everyone would be rather unimpressed, myself included.

Mythic should allow characters to do things like THAT occasionally. Not just make them more powerful than the average guy, and capable of taking of crazy monsters--characters in PF already do that simply by virtue of leveling up, unless you have level 10 librarians and and fisherman just hanging out around your world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the problem is that I'm not sure Pathfinder (3.X) is defined well enough to answer mechanically what is Epic and what is Mythic.

Background. In my opinion, 3.X/PF has four distinct flavors of play based on levels. 1-5 is Apprentice or Grim & Gritty, 6-10 is Heroic, 11-15 is Paragon or Super heroic and 16-20 is Epic. Each of the tiers of play will play differently. In the apprentice tier, things are very swingy by the die rolls. A lucky damage roll by the orc or even goblin can take down a character. Or multiple lucky hits in a row by the monsters but average damage.

Heroic tier, as I defined it, is where the numbers come together well. There aren't a lot of save or die effects, characters can take several hits and can dish it out and the spells are fun.

Super heroic, then, is when things get swingy again but because of high damage dealing spells or save or die effects, such as finger of death, death spell or the like. Too much hinges, again, on a single die roll that can kill a character.

Epic, then, is a tier where the characters are able to travel vast distances in the blink of an eye, battle terrifying monsters and destroy armies. It still has save or die effects but the spells and items the characters have help mitigate those effects somewhat.

All of these can be fun! But I think they play differently. So, I am going to use those as a basis of my ideas, going forward.

(A lot of the above depends on the world used and the DM. If most DMs use NPC classes and keep NPCs with PC levels less than 10, then Super Heroic could easily seem like Epic and Epic could seem godlike in terms of what the PCs can do. On the other hand, if the DM or world scales with the PCs, then it might be tough for them to see how powerful they have become. Some of that is because it might not be fun for DM or players to run a battle of 12th level characters against an orc horde but another group may love it. Again, none of those are bad and it's up to the group for what they do. But depending on the style of play, layering Mythic on top of that might not work well for the group, depending on their style of play.)

So now what's happening is that we are adding mythic on top of that. What does Mythic Apprentice mean? A spell casting prodigy? The scion of a god? Are we actually shifting the apprentice up to heroic level but with some limitations of apprentice level? What about Mythic Heroes or Mythic Epic characters? Again, does it just mean higher numbers? Or should it look beyond the numbers?

I think there is too much happening here to simplify it. On the one hand, I do think we need some specific mechanics to tell us what a Mythic hero can do, perhaps broken down further by the tiers as I described. However, in other instances, maybe all we need are good ideas of how to describe, as a player or DM, a mythic action or adventure and let it be done in role playing, judged by the DM.

One thing I do agree with, whole heartedly, though, is that we should NOT be using real myths as our guidelines. As many have pointed out, the demi-gods or heroes of myth didn't do something twice. While that makes for a good story, it doesn't make for a good game. So, maybe instead, we need to define niches in which the mythic heroes fall and use that as our guidelines?

The Scion RPG has nine ability scores and has epic abilities tied to them. But it also has degrees of success and I don't think I have seen a good implementation of 3.X/PF that has degrees of success. I think that's because once you add it into skills, there is no reason not to add it into combat rolls. But then all it does it complicate things. Anyway, back to Scion. In Scion, a character with Epic STR is able to gain automatic successes on any STR checks, which includes damage in combat. Scion has three tiers of play, called Hero, Demi-God and God. Heroic level STR checks are picking up a car and throwing it at someone two blocks away. Demi-God level STR checks are picking up a car and throwing it across town to stop the car bomb from reaching its destination. God level STR checks are throwing a car to knock a satellite out of orbit. These levels are mostly well defined, although the system is hardly perfect! But it gives good guidelines about what is meant at each level of play.

And so maybe that's what we need from PF? Maybe they first need to define the levels of play, similar to what I did above and what a character in those levels is able to do. And then step it up and define what a Mythic character in that level can do. But having said that, I think people here have also hit on the problem. If all we had was apprentice level, then Mythic apprentice would mean something. But having heroic level muddies our classification ability. Is Mythic apprentice merely heroic? Heroic++? Is Mythic Heroic level Super heroic? Epic? Something else? So, I think in defining these things for us, PF is going to have to answer those questions as well, both in terms of mechanics as well as role playing definitions. At least, if they want to satisfy both sides of the discussion I'm seeing here.

I'm hopeful they can do it and look forward to more updates to the document!

JG

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / General Discussion / Missing the Myth All Messageboards