You could also ask why even bother making backgrounds for a character if they may just die. It's part of the character creation process and this is a Mythic campaign. The presumption is that the characters were 'chosen' to be Mythic long before the moment of ascension really happens so perhaps that should be accounted for in their backstory.
Creative Director
|
Actually? I don't see WHY a player would need to know the Mythic Rules while creating their character. The Mythic Rules do not come into play until the end of Book 1. So really, you don't need to read up on those rules 'til that point.
Why craft a character around rules that might not matter? We've 1st level characters witnessing a Silver Dragon being beheaded by a Balor first thing. Then they have to go through a catacombs that is undoubtedly going to have nasty hazards that could kill one or more of those characters. New characters may thus be needed... and entire backgrounds may end up tossed in the scrapheap because of early deaths.
Or to put it another way: why prepare for a way before you even come into sight of the bridge? You may end up not taking the bridge at the end... or even seeing that bridge.
The only reason a player would need to know the Mythic Rules while creating a character is if they prefer to know their entire character's course of development from 1st to 20th level, which would include from tier 1 to tier 10.
I know some players who have their entire character's level progression worked out on paper up to 20th level before the first game session of the campaign even starts. Those players will DEFINITELY want to know the mythic rules before they make their characters.
Other players... (like me, to a certain extent)... aren't 100% sure what level they'll be taking until they take it, and prefer to grow their characters in a more organic way, waiting until they level up to start making those decisions. That type of player won't need to glance at Mythic Adventures until their character hits tier 1.
Depends on what kind of player you are.
There are plenty of groups that don't bother with character backgrounds. There are players who don't see the point of having a background, especially if their character may just die. Heck, one GM is awarding a version of hero points for any player who created a background and is writing a journal (which are posted online here in the forums), undoubtedly as a method of encouraging background generation.
And to be honest? I can see their points. There are quite a few GMs who seem to take great glee in massacring entire parties. Total Party Kills are almost a gloating point it seems and I've gotten into arguments with people on the forums about this tendency.
Also, there is the saying: No plan survives contact with the enemy. Why map out your entire character, from level 1 to level 20 (or whatever level you reach), if that may change because you realize you need X Feat instead to compensate for Y foe? Similarly, someone may start out as a Paladin or Cleric in this game and switch to Rogue because he or she realizes a Rogue is desperately needed. What Mythic Path is best suited for this Holy Rogue who still retains some of that early Paladin training? And hey, all at once your Trait, forcing you to be a Champion or Guardian, is going to force you to take a Mythic Path ill-suited for the character because you ended up going Rogue instead... and Trickster would have been a better choice.
Edit: And I was just ninjaed by Mr. Jacobs himself. :)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The traits are way too specific and basically straitjacket players into coming from Mendev and also tying themselves to a mythic path, which, at this point, nobody really knows if that will be the best path to go for them. It's very probable that I'll have to replace them with more generic traits ( or add additional ones ).
Sorry, but from an RP point, so far these are the worst thought-out traits from all player's guides I've seen. Railroading to the max for character generation is not good.
While it's true that the traits are specific... that's on purpose. As I've mentioned elsewhere, [spoiler]we're trying something new with the traits—we're using them to "program" specific quests (one per trait) into the third adventure, so that players will have a personal involvement with their character along the way when they get to that quest.
If you feel that the traits are way too specific... work with your GM to rephrase, rework, or even replace the traits with something that works better for your character. Your GM will need to make a few adjustments to how things pan out for a single quest for your character in the 3rd adventure, which shouldn't be TOO much work.
If you DO do that, I really REALLY strongly recommend waiting to start your Wrath of the Righteous game until you or the GM who's running the game has a chance to check out "Demon's Heresy," the 3rd part of the adventure path.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And one more note about what's coming in the third adventure... The following contains some minor spoilers to the nature of that adventure, so if you're a player... you've been warned!
There are several detailed encounter areas in this portion, all of which push forward the themes of the Worldwound, but don't particularly push forward the AP's actual and central plot. They're flavor building encounters.
Among these non-plot-essential encounters, and among a couple of plot-essential encounters as well, the mysteries introduced in the Campaign Traits have resolutions.
So if you, the GM, want to change the traits, or if you have players who want to change the traits to suit the background that fits their character better... you'll either want to rework and rephrase some of the flavor around the associated quest in "Demon's Heresy" so that it more closely matches what your player ended up creating for their character's background, or you'll want to build an entire new encounter that's custom built for that character. Or frankly, you can simply ignore it—the AP works fine without these quests, and the encounters they're tied to work fine as just encounters the PCs come across during the course of a sandbox exploration of a region.
|
Creative Director
|
Sorry, I deeply disagree. Nobody in my group has any idea of how the mythic rules even work at this time. Forcing a choice of their mythic path on them at character creation is very likely to lead to wrong choices. And tying the very, very specific roleplaying scenarios to the mythic paths is also extremely railroady. Not even to mention that "if you want the same trait, you need to have experienced the same event". Choo-choo, railroad!
I am quite okay with events in an AP itself being the same for every player, but trying to force even character creation to be the same story for everyone of the same role persuasion ( FYI: I got 2 melee Paladins, 1 melee Barbarian, 1 Melee-heavy Cleric of Asmodeus and one other melee character in the group I am GM'ing this for. And one Merfolk Bard from our resident "I must crunch da numbahs!" player, le sigh ) is bad for roleplaying diversity.
I hear you on most of the traits allowing people from outside of Mendev (although I think they very strongly "encourage" player characters to come from there ), but these traits are bad for free character generation, much more so than any other group of traits I've seen from past player's guides. I'm very disappointed and this is not an encouraging start to the AP.
I'm certainly sorry you're disappointed. That was absolutely NOT my intention here.
You can absolutely ignore these Campaign Traits if it makes your game better, and makes the character creation part better for your players.
It sounds like your players have their characters and histories already well in hand.
And since you'll know much more what makes your PCs tick, you're in a MUCH better position than anyone else to adjust and adapt the adventure path to match those backgrounds.
we're trying something new with the traits—we're using them to "program" specific quests (one per trait) into the third adventure, so that players will have a personal involvement with their character along the way when they get to that quest.
As Tangent101 says, however, what if the starting PCs are dead and/or replaced by the third adventure? You bring in a new arcanist, and he's suddenly a never-before-mentioned brother of the wizard who died?
While I don't like campaign traits dictating PCs' backgrounds, I don't like even more that each trait is hardwired to one Mythic Path. If I want to play a descendent of generations of crusaders, I have to be a fighter of some kind because that particular trait is tied to the Champion path. When replacement characters come in, they're forced to be near carbon-copies of the old PCs, if they're filling the same party niche, like that pile of identical bards in Dorkness Rising.
|
Creative Director
|
we're trying something new with the traits—we're using them to "program" specific quests (one per trait) into the third adventure, so that players will have a personal involvement with their character along the way when they get to that quest.As Tangent101 says, however, what if the starting PCs are dead and/or replaced by the third adventure? You bring in a new arcanist, and he's suddenly a never-before-mentioned brother of the wizard who died?
While I don't like campaign traits dictating PCs' backgrounds, I don't like even more that each trait is hardwired to one Mythic Path. If I want to play a descendent of generations of crusaders, I have to be a fighter of some kind because that particular trait is tied to the Champion path. When replacement characters come in, they're forced to be near carbon-copies of the old PCs, if they're filling the same party niche, like that pile of identical bards in Dorkness Rising.
If a starting PC dies and they're not brought back, and the player decides to make a new character that doesn't pick up the old character's story in any way... then that's no different than ANY PC who dies in an AP. That storyline is done.
The quests that tie into the campaign traits do not REQUIRE the traits to occur. They can still happen—they're essentially locations the PCs can discover during the course of a sandbox-style hexploration section of the 3rd adventure—but they won't also have the added ties to a PC's history.
Unless the GM adjusts the encounter as appropriate to tie them in to the replace PC's history.
It certainly won't "break" the adventure path, nor will it make the plot of the AP stop or anything like that.
Put another way, the Campaign Traits aren't "load bearing" plot elements that are crucial to make the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path work.
|
Creative Director
|
One thing I have learned though... it's possible to go too far with Campaign Traits.
From day one, Campaign Traits make assumptions about player character backgrounds. ALL traits do. In fact, that's what traits were specifically DESIGNED to do.
Until now, I've never seen any real amount of push-back in how much character history is assumed in a trait, and frankly, I hadn't even considered that could even be a thing.
It obviously is.
Going forward, I'll try to take more care in not making that assumption, I suppose... although I'm still curious to see how this one plays out when folks see how the elements in the Campaign Traits play out in the 3rd adventure.
If you're going to have traits hardwired to the path, you should have more than one trait per path.
You know where a perfect place to put those would have been? In the two pages from the Demon Hunter's Handbook that are going to be a reprint of these traits!
...I'm sorry, but the new habit of wasting pages of two simultaneously released player products by putting identical information in each one has been making me steadily angrier with the beginning of each AP.
|
Creative Director
|
If you're going to have traits hardwired to the path, you should have more than one trait per path.
You know where a perfect place to put those would have been? In the two pages from the Demon Hunter's Handbook that are going to be a reprint of these traits!
...I'm sorry, but the new habit of wasting pages of two simultaneously released player products by putting identical information in each one has been making me steadily angrier with the beginning of each AP.
That's important information for us to know.
After all... the reason we're doing that is to help us on our end to actually manage the content—by tying the campaign traits to a player's guide, that helps us get them done more efficiently for a lot of reasons that are too complex to go into in a post here. And further, it helps put the traits in front of more eyes than if they're just online.
Having more than one trait per path would certainly have been a good idea, but we were constrained by the space requirements to keep the traits to 2 pages in the Demon Hunter's Handbook. That's also information that's good to know.
I'll be keeping this feedback on hand when it comes to the next Player's Companion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having more than one trait per path would certainly have been a good idea, but we were constrained by the space requirements to keep the traits to 2 pages in the Demon Hunter's Handbook. That's also information that's good to know.
How about tying each trait to two Mythic paths? Something like...
Child of the Crusade marshal, guardian
Exposed to Awfulness guardian, archmage
Riftwarden Orphan archmage, champion
Stolen Fury champion, hierophant
Touched by Divinity hierophant, trickster
This would allow multiple characters who have experienced the same life-changing event to pursue different Mythic paths, and would also allow characters who experienced different life-changing events to pursue the same Mythic path. All without taking up any additional space (well, maybe a line or two, six at most).
|
Creative Director
|
That's also a good solution.
One thing folks might not be realizing too is that the 6 mythic paths are NOT "just good for one class."
There are actually multiple path choices for each class, and in fact ALL SIX can make for cool paths for any class.
A trickster wizard would be pretty cool, for example.
That said, I believe the archmage and hierophant are pretty tied to a character being able to cast spells... but I suspect you could make a archmage fighter if you wanted and it'd still work.
Intellectually, I know that not all customers are going to have access to both a print-published player companion and the online-only player's guide; heck, not everyone is going to have access to a computer, never mind the internet.
Viscerally, it's difficult for me to pull back and not see wasted space.
I think it's made a little worse by the other reprinted material in this particular PG, even though again I can see why it was done.
...And on the gripping hand, any more background mysteries would with this setup require additional potential encounters in book 3 if not elsewhere as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose it depends on the Trait and the Player. I am still completely amused by the fact one of my players running a Barbarian in my Runelords game took the Thassilonian Lore Trait... thus becoming a Scholarly Barbarian. Though when you look at Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian, he was not an illiterate idiot. So the well-read scholarly barbarian actually is suitable for a character. :)
My primary push-back was the suggestion of Mythic paths for these Traits. While it's obvious these are just suggestions, it still suggests certain directions for these story-plots which I'm not sure works. For instance, why should the Chance Encounter be only for rogues? I could see a youngster who was inspired to become a Paladin of Desna because of this beautiful lady who saved him or her. So why become a Trickster because of it?
But that's just me.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance, why should the Chance Encounter be only for rogues? I could see a youngster who was inspired to become a Paladin of Desna because of this beautiful lady who saved him or her. So why become a Trickster because of it?
But that's just me.
As could I. But Trickster is NOT "only for rogues."
That said... lifting the associations between mythic path and campaign trait won't hurt anything, and is in fact an easy way to give the traits more versatility without really doing much work.
Well, I for one, print out the Player's Guides for the games I run. I did it with Carrion Crown and even though I'm playing in WotR, I printed the PG and gave it to the GM that will be running it.
Same here. I've already printed out a copy for each of the five players. Player six doesn't speak English, so she'll get her information from the others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No more than normal IMO. Do you go into a campaign not knowing what class you're playing until after you create the character? No? Then in a Mythic game, you should probably have an idea of what path you are going for as well. I understand that some people are going to be running this right out of the gate, without having time to allow the players to absorb the mythic rules, but then you shouldn't complain that the campaign that has been toted as the "MYTHIC" campaign requires you to have some knowledge of Mythic and an idea of where you're going with it when you start the campaign. Again this is just my opinion, but I truly don't like the idea of running a game as it comes out, I'd much prefer as a GM to absorb all the material (and by proxy be able to have things like the Map Folio, the Face and Item cards, the Pawns, by the time I start the game)
I know a lot of players who don't plan their character beyond one or two levels into the future, because they want their roleplaying to decide what they do. Given how I am much the opposite in that regard ( I have a detailed character concept from the start, with at least one full page of backstory, and I plan my characters out to at least level 15 ), we often clash in discussions about that, but we both respect each others position. I personally would not have a problem with those traits predetermination, but I think they very well might do so.
|
If you're going to have traits hardwired to the path, you should have more than one trait per path.
You know where a perfect place to put those would have been? In the two pages from the Demon Hunter's Handbook that are going to be a reprint of these traits!
...I'm sorry, but the new habit of wasting pages of two simultaneously released player products by putting identical information in each one has been making me steadily angrier with the beginning of each AP.
That's important information for us to know.
After all... the reason we're doing that is to help us on our end to actually manage the content—by tying the campaign traits to a player's guide, that helps us get them done more efficiently for a lot of reasons that are too complex to go into in a post here. And further, it helps put the traits in front of more eyes than if they're just online.
Having more than one trait per path would certainly have been a good idea, but we were constrained by the space requirements to keep the traits to 2 pages in the Demon Hunter's Handbook. That's also information that's good to know.
I'll be keeping this feedback on hand when it comes to the next Player's Companion.
Just a random thought but instead of having the same reprint traits have instead 6 or so alternative traits for the Ap if people dont want to buy whichever companion book there in they can just use the ones in the free players guide.
I'm certainly sorry you're disappointed. That was absolutely NOT my intention here.
You can absolutely ignore these Campaign Traits if it makes your game better, and makes the character creation part better for your players.
It sounds like your players have their characters and histories already well in hand.
And since you'll know much more what makes your PCs tick, you're in a MUCH better position than anyone else to adjust and adapt the adventure path to match those backgrounds.
I will see what the players got to say about those traits, if they will fit with their particular backstories. I'd like to integrate their backstories with those sidequests and this sounds like a cool concept to help make backstories relevant to the AP, but I think this should have been communicated a bit before, so that we would have had some time to adjust.
Linking the traits with the mythic paths still seems like a bad idea and predetermines too much character development for the kind of player who likes to decide on the fly how to advance their characters, though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect a lot of the push-back is tied to people not knowing how things will play out. Not knowing how much will be lost by not having your character tied to a trait. Not knowing how much the GM would have to alter things to make different traits work. Not knowing how significant the later boost for having your trait tied to your Mythic path will be.
Not wanting to miss out on things, maybe people are assuming they have to stick closer to the letter of these than is really necessary?
I suspect so too.
Which is why, as always, it's best to wait until you have all 6 parts of an AP before you begin. Barring that... it's best to wait until you at least have part 1 before making decisions.
But yeah... the GM has to be able and willing to adapt what we write for EVERY GROUP so that the thing works best for their group. That's not gonna change until we change the game so that it doesn't require a GM. Which isn't gonna happen.
There are plenty of groups that don't bother with character backgrounds. There are players who don't see the point of having a background, especially if their character may just die. Heck, one GM is awarding a version of hero points for any player who created a background and is writing a journal (which are posted online here in the forums), undoubtedly as a method of encouraging background generation.
And to be honest? I can see their points. There are quite a few GMs who seem to take great glee in massacring entire parties. Total Party Kills are almost a gloating point it seems and I've gotten into arguments with people on the forums about this tendency.
Also, there is the saying: No plan survives contact with the enemy. Why map out your entire character, from level 1 to level 20 (or whatever level you reach), if that may change because you realize you need X Feat instead to compensate for Y foe? Similarly, someone may start out as a Paladin or Cleric in this game and switch to Rogue because he or she realizes a Rogue is desperately needed. What Mythic Path is best suited for this Holy Rogue who still retains some of that early Paladin training? And hey, all at once your Trait, forcing you to be a Champion or Guardian, is going to force you to take a Mythic Path ill-suited for the character because you ended up going Rogue instead... and Trickster would have been a better choice.
Edit: And I was just ninjaed by Mr. Jacobs himself. :)
Perhaps I'm just spoiled in that my entire group always comes up with a backstory for their characters. :3
That and there's no gloating points for TPKs or even PC kills in our group. It's understood that it takes no skill at all to kill a PC as a GM. It's incredibly easy. From overwhelming odds to just saying "You die!" the GM can pretty much do whatever. Not to say that PCs don't die in our games, it's just generally not seen as the point of playing for either GM or player.
When the group becomes so arrogant that they in-character say that they will use their usual modus operandi of storming in and killing everything which opposes them, it feels quite satisfying to put them on their ass every once in a while.
Personally it depends on the game... and the level. I will try to take it easier on players until they are either high enough level to cast Raise Dead or have the money to afford a Raise Dead scroll. And even then, if I'm running a no-Resurrection game, I'll not allow random die rolls to kill someone. Stupid actions, sure. But not a flubbed save or a villain getting a nat. 20 and then maximum damage.
To me, the amount of time a player puts into their character is more important than adhering to die-rolls. And when someone has gotten used to their character, forcing them to reroll a new character just kills the fun for the player. And for me... as I may very well have plans for those characters.
Mind you, I've used character deaths in games before... one game, each time the character died, he woke up in a new body. Different class, different stats... but he was the same character otherwise. Three times he died. After the third... Bill and I came up with a plot twist where he would play a Rakshasa who'd been spying on the group. Walked in, one player immediately assumed he was the reincarnated player... and the Rakshasa never lied. He just let them assume.
The game ended though after an encounter with a second Rakshasa who'd been hunting the first... and no one could hurt it. I could have wiped out the entire group but I didn't have the heart. Instead soon after the Rakshasa got bored and walked away from the group, I ended that game.
So to me, death should have a thematic purpose in the game. I've killed NPCs (or more properly GMPCs) as part of a storyline (and after disintegrating a GMPC I witnessed the never-before-seen full retreat by the PC group - definitely not expected by me!) but there were story reasons for the deaths. It wasn't just bad die rolls.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have learned though... it's possible to go too far with Campaign Traits.
From day one, Campaign Traits make assumptions about player character backgrounds. ALL traits do. In fact, that's what traits were specifically DESIGNED to do.
Until now, I've never seen any real amount of push-back in how much character history is assumed in a trait, and frankly, I hadn't even considered that could even be a thing.
It obviously is.
Going forward, I'll try to take more care in not making that assumption, I suppose... although I'm still curious to see how this one plays out when folks see how the elements in the Campaign Traits play out in the 3rd adventure.
Just to give some balancing feedback, I feel that what the traits are doing in this AP - which is being linked directly to specific quests, characters and locations that will appear late in the story - is better than what traits did up until now. I feel that they REALLY give the GM something he/she would have had a hard time designing alone.
As a GM who plays with his friends, it's rather easy for me to come up with a related character background to an adventure, when I'm talking about it with my players. However the traits in this player's guide take this to the next level.
A GM can present the traits as optional to the players, making it clear that those traits are hardwired into the AP and would work great, but if a player prefers another trait that is more than possible. Any player can make as much a use of the trait as he/she wants. The more the traits in the player's guide are tied to the campaign, the better they are at doing their job of providing a willing player an easy way to weave his backstory into that of the campaign.
I hope to see similar use of traits in upcoming player's guides, and I believe most of the problem people have with these traits hails from the mythic paths that are tied with them, anyway.
Actually, looking back, there are two primary concerns I have with these specific Traits. The first was tying them directly to specific Mythic paths (which was later clarified to be suggestions instead of specific rules). The second was the potency and power of these Traits. To me, they feel more like an actual Feat than a Trait.
I have no problem with the storytelling aspect of the Traits that integrate the Trait into the character's background. In fact, I think that these elements are quite useful for Traits and help better in crafting a character's background. So please, continue with the extensive storytelling aspect for the Traits in the future! :)
Yes. I know it's intentional. I still disliked it. I know players who don't bother taking campaign traits; if some players take campaign traits now and others do not, then the do-nots are now at a disadvantage compared to those who chose these pseudo-feats.
But I suppose a player who wants to have a couple non-Campaign Traits could always take the Extra Traits feat at 1st level. Or when I eventually run this AP, I may offer one extra Trait for any player not taking the bonuses from the Campaign Trait (ie, they could integrate that background for the story aspect while not taking the bonus that comes with it).
|
The mythic upgrades to the traits are... pretty hefty. Feat-level plus. Not taking one of them is going to be noticeable. As far as that goes, I suppose you could develop similarly-power mythic upgrades to other traits your player's pick and go with it from there. That still leaves the character hook from the later adventures out, though, and I think you'd miss that element too... if possible, see if you can get them to take the campaign traits.
I actually came up with an alternative thought. If a player takes a Mythic Trait, they are forced to take a Drawback. That provides some balance.
I actually came up with an alternative thought. If a player takes a Mythic Trait, they are forced to take a Drawback. That provides some balance.
Not being snarky, I'm honestly curious.
If player A takes Improved Initiative, and player B takes Skill Focus, do you penalize player A? By the same token, if player A chooses Cleric, and player B chooses Rogue, do you penalize player A?
When I run games, if a player chooses to take a sub-optimal choice - like not taking a campaign trait - then that's on them.
I a barbarian decides to take Skill Focus (basket weaving) instead of Power Attack, they don't get a bonus feat or trait for their sub-optimal choice do they? If most of your players aren't interested in the ueber traits, that's fine for them though it shouldn't mean that the one who is gets penalized because the others opted out on something that's better.
Skill Focus isn't a lesser Feat than Improved Initiative. Nor is a Cleric better than a Rogue.
These Traits are not Traits. They're a bonus Feat. And I find it rather bemusing how "high base stats" are disliked on the forums and yet these uber-Traits are being defended.
While it is nice to see a Trait that is more closely tied into the storyline of the player (mind you, other Traits can be used like this - one of my players took the Merchant Trait in Runelords and wrote up that he was the bastard son of Titus Scarnetti and given enough gold to start up a business when he was "of age" and told not to bug the Scarnettis - thus he has a bit of a hate-on against that family), the bonuses which only grow in time seem... excessive.
Skill Focus isn't a lesser Feat than Improved Initiative. Nor is a Cleric better than a Rogue.
??? Its possible I may be playing a different game then :)
Having a +3 to one skill can be quite effective, especially if a character has a skill that isn't a class skill, like Stealth. And when you have 10 points in that skill, the bonus goes from +3 to +6. That is quite handy.
For a rogue, for instance, you can put that into Bluff. If you take the Improved Feint Feat, then you will be having a significant bonus to your Feint attempts... that will be +6 once you're 10th level (assuming you add a point in Bluff every level). This will help the Feint become far more effective against most foes... and allow the Rogue to have a sneak attack each round. So with a short sword or rapier, at 10th level he's doing 6d6 damage with a successful feint and attack. Or 7d6 if he also took Vital Strike.
So tell me again how that is lesser than a +4 to initiative?
|
|
I actually came up with an alternative thought. If a player takes a Mythic Trait, they are forced to take a Drawback. That provides some balance.
Hey, dude, it's your game and you do what you think is best, but personally, I think disincentivizing the traits that are specifically designed to hook the PCs into the overall storyline of the AP is a terrible plan.
|
|
The mythic upgrades to the traits are... pretty hefty. Feat-level plus. Not taking one of them is going to be noticeable.What's the upgrade to Touched by Divinity and/or Riftwarden?
The upgrade for Touched by Divinity allows you to choose a second domain's 1st level spell as a spell-like ability, and use both spells tier/day rather than 1/day. You also get the ability to spend a use of mythic power to cast any spell off those two domains as a spell-like, as long as the spell level is equal to your tier or lower.
Riftwarden Orphan adds a +4 bonus to penetrate a demon's spell resistance, and the ability to recharge any charged magic item 1/day by spending a use of mythic power - this adds 1d10+tier charges to the item.
Like I said, pretty hefty.
Tossing in my paired pennies on this one…
I like the fact that Paizo is willing to experiment in their APs. Frankly, it’s the main reason I subscribe. The concept of the traits that matter for more than an immediate mechanical benefit and will later tie into the AP is an intriguing one for me. I’m curious to see how it works out so that I can utilize a similar model in one of my home games.
While multiple traits per path might be preferable, this establishes a template that a GM can use to model other traits on and convert when it comes up, and space is ever an issue in APs (well, and in pretty much every book, I would imagine). I can even see an “alternate campaign traits” thread possibly popping up on the WotR campaign message boards. Different strokes for different folks and all, but part of the art of GMing is adapting things when your games go sideways from the expectations of written adventures. That said, I find the varying gaming styles incredibly interesting, so thanks for bringing it up so I can add it to my list of gaming cultural expectations to be on the lookout for when playing with new folks.
I’m eager to see what Paizo is going to do with Mythic in this AP, but their willingness to experiment also means I’m starting to wonder what clever new things they may have in store for us in the next AP as it pertains to the meta art of game mastering rather than just the world of Golarion.
-TimD
Skill Focus isn't a lesser Feat than Improved Initiative. Nor is a Cleric better than a Rogue.
I'd argue that Improved Initiative is a tad more optimized than Skill Focus (Craft [basket weaving]). ;)
Couldn't you just give the mechanical benefits to whoever takes the indicated path rather than forcing the mage to be an orphan, etc.? I don't have a problem with the mechanics, but I hate being told what my character's backstory has to be if I want her to be effective.
The mythic upgrades to the traits are... pretty hefty. Feat-level plus. Not taking one of them is going to be noticeable.What's the upgrade to Touched by Divinity and/or Riftwarden?The upgrade for Touched by Divinity allows you to choose a second domain's 1st level spell as a spell-like ability, and use both spells tier/day rather than 1/day. You also get the ability to spend a use of mythic power to cast any spell off those two domains as a spell-like, as long as the spell level is equal to your tier or lower.
Riftwarden Orphan adds a +4 bonus to penetrate a demon's spell resistance, and the ability to recharge any charged magic item 1/day by spending a use of mythic power - this adds 1d10+tier charges to the item.
Like I said, pretty hefty.
Woah, wait. Where did you find the mythic upgrade to the traits?
Couldn't you just give the mechanical benefits to whoever takes the indicated path rather than forcing the mage to be an orphan, etc.? I don't have a problem with the mechanics, but I hate being told what my character's backstory has to be if I want her to be effective.
Sorry to reply to myself, but this would also solve the problem of people not knowing at level 1 which Mythic Path they'll end up taking.
Couldn't you just give the mechanical benefits to whoever takes the indicated path rather than forcing the mage to be an orphan, etc.? I don't have a problem with the mechanics, but I hate being told what my character's backstory has to be if I want her to be effective.
But Joana, you're taking the descriptive text of the trait way too much to heart. You should feel free to either change the backstory of the trait and keep the mechanical benefit, or work something similiar out with your GM.
James would be the first one to tell you to feel free to do that. I suspect the reason he encourages people to wait for some chapters to come out is so that they can see the story aspect of the traits and adjust them to your backstory consistently throughout the chapters. It is not something a GM couldn't do with a little imagination (and a look ahead at future chapters).
If the Development Team provided only the mechanics and not any sort of backstory, then too many groups would reduce traits to another character feature that is just independent of class. It would be one more thing to optimize, and I don't want to derail this thread with an editorial on optimizing, but the game doesn't need that. That's not the point of a trait. A trait is meant to engender and encourage roleplaying. If it doesn't do that (by means of providing backstory) then traits should be dropped from the game altogether.
I hope this didn't come across as snarky, because that was not my intent. :)
The thing is, Jim, this is more than just a trait. A trait is Vagabond Child, where I'm playing an archaologist bard and it would sure be nice to get Disable Device as a class skill, but since my backstory is being raised in a family of minor nobility, I pass up on the +3 to preserve the sanctity of my backstory.
Two domain powers as a SLA multiple times per day and the option to use resources to cast more spells per day is way more than "+1 to Sense Motive and Sense Motive is always a class skill for you." It seems unfair to penalize someone for playing who they want to play instead of buying into the pregenerated backstory.
Plus, as an archaologist bard, I don't know what Mythic Path I'm going to take. I could take Marshal, but the whole reason I took the archaologist archetype is because nothing bores me more than standing around and handing out bonuses to other PCs so they can be awesome. I could take Trickster. I could even go casty and take Archmage. Before I've started playing the PC, I don't know. Why force me to lock in at level one and have to choose between missing out on superpowers or taking one path when I discover I'd really rather go another way?
(P.S. Nothing against Inspire Courage bards. I love having them in the party. I just personally get bored playing them.)