Mythic Adventures and Epic DR - FAQ candidate


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ughbash, how do you justify that considering this:

Mythic Adventures Glossary wrote:
DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 299). Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.

?

Silver Crusade

Your understanding WAS correct... before the Mythic Adventures book was published and they put in a caveat that to overcome DR/Epic you total the enhancment bonus and the properties. I don't agree with it, nor will I utilize it as such as it is silly.

The Block Knight pointed out an example earlier of a weapon that could use it's enchantments to bypass Epic... but not Adamantine. Thus, it couldn't hurt an Iron Golem but it would slice through an Adamantine Golem like a hot knife through butter. See the silly?

Silver Crusade

Chemlak wrote:

Ughbash, how do you justify that considering this:

Mythic Adventures Glossary wrote:
DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 299). Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.
?

Just because it is written in the book doesn't automaticaly mean it makes sense. Allowing the special abilities to count toward the weapon overcoming DR/Epic is, quite simply, absurd.

See the example above of a +2 Sword of Dancing (+2 enhancment bonus, +4 special ability bonus) that bypasses the DR of an Adamantine Golem (DR/Epic), but can't scratch any other golem (DR/Adamantine).

It makes absolutely no sense. Nor was there a reason to add the caveat for DR/Epic. If anything DR/Epic should be nigh impossible to overcome, not ludicrously easy.

But, that being said, this is one of the few things in the book I have come across that made me go, "What?". Overall I have been rather happy with the outcome of the way Mythic is presented. I will just do what I have always done. Use what works and ignore what is silly. This change to overcoming DR is silly and will be ignored.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree that it's a bit... strange, shall we say, and leads to some odd situations, but the post I responded to from Ughbash said that his understanding was that it was enhancement bonus alone that factors into overcoming DR/Epic, which the section of Mythic Adventures in question contradicts - I wasn't asking "what do you think the rules should be?", I was asking "given that the rules say this, how have you reached the conclusion that it doesn't work that way?"

I'm all up for a debate on how it should work, but let's not get confused about what the rules actually say.

Silver Crusade

Which is why I told him that his understanding WAS (past tense) correct, but that with the specific rule for DR/Epic in the Mythic Adventures book this has changed.

I then went on to say that I would be ignoring said change based on my assertion that it is silly.

So, no confusion on my part. I never indicated that it doesn't say what it says. I know what Mythic Adventurs says about overcoming DR/Epic. I know what the CRB says about overcoming DR/Epic. I know they are in disagreement with each other (specific vs. general if you will).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Starsunder wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

I suspect the reason behind it is "computers make things easy". Of course I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Jason added a new check to the "stat block spreadsheet" that works something like:

IF: subtype = mythic
ANDIF: DR exists
DR = Epic and (existing)
ELSE: DR = Epic
ELSE: ""

Yeah, this occurred to me as well, but it seems pretty sloppy so I was trying to ignore this possibility. :p

One of the compendious for the 2nd edition (I think the 4 volumes Encyclopedia Magica, but I am not sure, they are in a box in the basement) had the infamous dawizard.

Someone had run a list of magic items in a word processor and instructed it to replace every instance of "mage" with "wizard" but hadn't limited that to whole word and hadn't checked the result.
So, instead of doing or healing damage, a lot of magic items did or healed dawizard.

It was pretty startling the first time we encountered one of the item with the changed text.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nakteo wrote:
Entertainingly, the wording on DR/Epic being overcome by +6 total enhancement bonus means that a +5 [Insert +1 ability] [Insert weapon of choice] overcomes most, if not all, DR. Up to and including Cold-Iron, Silver, Adamantine, and Alignment, in addition to Epic.

And maguses and inquisitor can now routinely overcome it.

137ben wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Keep in mind folks, that before this book, there was NO way of breaching DR epic.

There was +5 Bane weapons. And there were epic weapons from 3.0/3.5, which are easy to adapt to PF.

I'd actually like it if only bane weapons could break DR/Epic, because as it is, both bane weapons and flat enhancement bonuses are quite underpowered compared to a lot of other abilities, and giving bane its own special niche is IMO a good thing. Whether its niche should be breaking epic DR or something else is a more difficult question.

Most artifact weapons were capable to overcome Epic DR and that was a good way to differentiate a Artifact weapon from a "normal" weapon with a high enhancement total. Paladins were and are capable to overcome all DR, epic included; inquisitors or maguses with the right arcana can make a weapon bane against a specific creature, allowing them to overcome the non mythic rules version of DR/epic.

Barbarians with furious weapons can get a total enhancement of +7.
Quite a bit of way to overcome the old DR/epic.

magnuskn wrote:
Quite honestly, with the insane amount of damage high level characters can produce and mythic really not helping to reduce that, having DR/Epic be almost unsurmountable would feel much better to me than it being one of the easily bypassed types of damage reduction.

Signed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Corollary and follow-up to the first question: Let's say I have a +1 nunchaku of shocking burst and somebody uses greater magic weapon to give it temporary "+4" status. Though it functions the same as a +4 nunchaku of shocking burst, neither the innate weapon quality ("+3") nor the spell ("+4") are breaking the Epic barrier. Does it qualify?
PRD wrote:

Magic Weapon, Greater

....
This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

It don't function as a +4 nunchaku of shocking burst, it function as a +1 nunchaku of shocking burst, with a +3 to hit and damage that don't increase its capacity to bypass specific DR.


Chemlak wrote:

Ughbash, how do you justify that considering this:

Mythic Adventures Glossary wrote:
DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 299). Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.
?

I consider it poorly written....

But if the total bonus value of all their abilities... I interpret that (and this may be a stretch) to the Total Bonus to Hit and Damage.

Basically Vorpal to use it as an example adds nothing to the total bonus value.

If you have a +5 Vorpal longsword it does 1d8 +5 (With 5 being the bonus).

If you have a +5 Goblin bane Longsword is does 1d8 +5 on normal creatures and 1d8 +7 vs goblins with 7 being the total bonus added to it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

I imagine I will be ignoring this change. Generally, a creature that would have DR/epic would be a legendary beast (or part of a family of legendary beasts, or a legendary creation), with those elite heroes tasked with hunting them down needing to craft or uncover either truly powerful weaponry or weaponry specifically designed as a (literal) bane against said creature.

(Not to mention the absurdity of the golem example.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shinmizu wrote:

I imagine I will be ignoring this change. Generally, a creature that would have DR/epic would be a legendary beast (or part of a family of legendary beasts, or a legendary creation), with those elite heroes tasked with hunting them down needing to craft or uncover either truly powerful weaponry or weaponry specifically designed as a (literal) bane against said creature.

(Not to mention the absurdity of the golem example.)

Yeah, planning on ignoring it, too. Nonetheless, it'd be nice if a dev could give an explanation of their reasoning for going this way.

The Exchange

Diego Rossi wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
...say I have a +1 nunchaku of shocking burst and somebody uses greater magic weapon to give it temporary "+4" status... Does it qualify?
PRD wrote:
...This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.
It doesn't function as a +4 nunchaku of shocking burst, it function as a +1 nunchaku of shocking burst, with a +3 to hit and damage that doesn't increase its capacity to bypass specific DR.

Thanks, Diego! Good to know that's how it worked before Mythic Adventures came out: I'm just wondering if that rule got changed, too. Mere academic curiosity; I'm neither running nor anticipate participation in any upcoming Mythic stuff.


This doesn't really feel like an FAQ, more than "I don't like this rule, change it!" There's nothing unclear about this rule.

I'm honestly glad they put that in. I had always played it this way and honestly though it was silly that you couldn't have a +5 flaming sword
beat through a tarrasque's DR. Besides, at least with keeping in line with WBL, you won't really get beyond a +5 until you're well into your teens. Which at that point, there are so many things that can kill a monster without caring about DR, it seems odd to get hung up over this.

The Exchange

I think what people are lamenting was that the old DR/epic really was hard to get past. (Sure, there are spells and so forth, but critters with DR/epic generally have other abilities that provide defenses there - antimagic fields, spell and elemental immunities, SR, etc.) There were ways to hurt the epic critters, but they were rare enough to be numbered. Kinda like confronting an AD&D-era demilich: it's a Challenge, not just a matter of bringing a sufficiently large axe. ;)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Tempestorm wrote:

See the example above of a +2 Sword of Dancing (+2 enhancment bonus, +4 special ability bonus) that bypasses the DR of an Adamantine Golem (DR/Epic), but can't scratch any other golem (DR/Adamantine).

Actually, based on the mini-bestiary in MA, I think that Adamantine Golem should have DR/ Epic and Adamantine. The pattern appear to be that if normal version of the creature had no DR, then the mythic version gets DR/Epic. If the normal version has a pre-existing type of DR, the mythic version gets DR/Epic and whatever it had before. The exception appears to be elementals, which logically keep DR/-. I think this pattern is why you see the silly result of having DR/Epic and Magic on the dragons(You know, just in case someone had a +0 Weapon of Ultimate Badass).

I'm mulling it over and am not sure if I like it. DR/Epic seems to be the new DR/magic in the sense that it is a somewhat trivial form of DR.

Edit: On an unrelated note, is anyone else slightly disappointed that the Mythic Blue Dragon does not have the ability to turn the blood of adventurers TO SAAAAAAND?

Silver Crusade

Odraude, I don't think this needs an FAQ either. There is nothing unclear about the rule. I also have not said that they should change it... I merely stated that I would ignore it.

I assert that DR/Epic should be EPIC. Not so easily overcome.

@The Hanged Man:
That is a good point about the Adamantine Golem. It would eliminate the silly Adamantine Golem/All other Golem example that has been mentioned above as you would still need the +5 enchancment bonus to overcome the DR/Adamantine (barring having an Adamantine weapon of course). Thus, a +2 Dancing toothpick wouldn't work because even though it would, according to the Mythic Adventures book, overcome the Epic it would not overcome the Adamantine requirment. Would need to be a +5 Dancing toothpick... or a +2 Dancing Adamantine toothpick! ;)


I think that this piece of text meant to clarify* that (for example) a +4 giantbane longsword would bypass the DR 10/Epic of a giant and not to change the rule and have a +2 dancing longsword bypass the DR 10/Epic of said giant.

*i am saying clarify because (as was shown in the early days of the playtest of the mythic rules), it was very clear if bane, furious etc. could bypass the DR X/Epic.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:

I think that this piece of text meant to clarify* that (for example) a +4 giantbane longsword would bypass the DR 10/Epic of a giant and not to change the rule and have a +2 dancing longsword bypass the DR 10/Epic of said giant.

*i am saying clarify because (as was shown in the early days of the playtest of the mythic rules), it was very clear if bane, furious etc. could bypass the DR X/Epic.

that would be a good reason, but its not worded in a way that meets its purpose, if that's the intent. They might have been paving the way for +4 bane weapons and +4 furious weapons. but they've let +2 dancing swords in the door too, and now everyone wants to play.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

I think that this piece of text meant to clarify* that (for example) a +4 giantbane longsword would bypass the DR 10/Epic of a giant and not to change the rule and have a +2 dancing longsword bypass the DR 10/Epic of said giant.

*i am saying clarify because (as was shown in the early days of the playtest of the mythic rules), it was very clear if bane, furious etc. could bypass the DR X/Epic.

that would be a good reason, but its not worded in a way that meets its purpose, if that's the intent. They might have been paving the way for +4 bane weapons and +4 furious weapons. but they've let +2 dancing swords in the door too, and now everyone wants to play.

Hey it would not be the first that due to wordcount or editing a botch happens. That is why we need a FAQ.


The_Hanged_Man wrote:
Tempestorm wrote:

See the example above of a +2 Sword of Dancing (+2 enhancment bonus, +4 special ability bonus) that bypasses the DR of an Adamantine Golem (DR/Epic), but can't scratch any other golem (DR/Adamantine).

Actually, based on the mini-bestiary in MA, I think that Adamantine Golem should have DR/ Epic and Adamantine. The pattern appear to be that if normal version of the creature had no DR, then the mythic version gets DR/Epic. If the normal version has a pre-existing type of DR, the mythic version gets DR/Epic and whatever it had before. The exception appears to be elementals, which logically keep DR/-. I think this pattern is why you see the silly result of having DR/Epic and Magic on the dragons(You know, just in case someone had a +0 Weapon of Ultimate Badass).

I'm mulling it over and am not sure if I like it. DR/Epic seems to be the new DR/magic in the sense that it is a somewhat trivial form of DR.

That could be a solution. Though then, the errata now required would be to reprint certain creatures in Bestiary 2 and 3. The Adamantine Golem isn't a Mythic upgraded creature (like all the creatures in the back of Mythic Adventures) but simply a very powerful creature from Bestiary 2.


I've come to the conclusion that they need to invent terminology to differentiate between enhancement bonus (+X to hit/damage) and enhancement bonus (everything). I'm a fan of simple enhancement bonus versus total enhancement bonus.


Im somewhat horrified by some of the conclusions here. Yes, an artifact can breach DR/Epic if it's +6. Yes, a magus/inquisitor can bane whatever with a +4 weapon. Yes, Bane can let you do these things for one specific creature. Furious was one that I didn't know about so thank you.

All of this is completely irrelevant.

You know why?

Because DR/Epic can start showing up from the very beginning now. Before most heroes even have access to a +6 weapon. Before most folks even have a +4 weapon. Bumping into a creature with a high natural dr on top of mythic tiers giving it even more DR, you could be facing something with DR 20/Epic and Silver/magic/cold iron etc. And we're talking early into the game. Before 10th, probably even 8th comes around.

In fact, the artifact +6 weapon, besides those already made, can't be made(RAW). There are not (very good) rules for games past level 20.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GhanjRho wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that they need to invent terminology to differentiate between enhancement bonus (+X to hit/damage) and enhancement bonus (everything). I'm a fan of simple enhancement bonus versus total enhancement bonus.

It already exist:

+x is an enhancement
Special abilities is what you get when you are adding flaming or vorpal toa weapon

PRD wrote:
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.

And that paragraph is what was broken by this rule, at least for Epic DR.


I'm just going to assume that the mythic bit was an oversight, and unless the enhancement bonus is +7 or higher, or the weapon is an artifact, or you have one of the 8,000,000,000 ways to overcome all DR, you're not overcoming it.


FlySkyHigh wrote:
I'm just going to assume that the mythic bit was an oversight, and unless the enhancement bonus is +7 or higher, or the weapon is an artifact, or you have one of the 8,000,000,000 ways to overcome all DR, you're not overcoming it.

The mythic adventures book is optional. If you incorporate any of it's rules, I would advise you to rethink your position. As it stands if you incorporate the rules and run a mythic game. You can throw a Mythic Barghest with DR/10 Epic and Magic at them as a CR 5 encounter. It also has like 80 hit points.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
FlySkyHigh wrote:
I'm just going to assume that the mythic bit was an oversight, and unless the enhancement bonus is +7 or higher, or the weapon is an artifact, or you have one of the 8,000,000,000 ways to overcome all DR, you're not overcoming it.
The mythic adventures book is optional. If you incorporate any of it's rules, I would advise you to rethink your position. As it stands if you incorporate the rules and run a mythic game. You can throw a Mythic Barghest with DR/10 Epic and Magic at them as a CR 5 encounter. It also has like 80 hit points.

Your point there is? That sounds like an actually interesting single target encounter, instead of the usual player-on-monster curbstomp we'd get from most CR 5.

Also, I don't see many CR 5 appropiate parties having a way to get even a single weapon with a combined +6 bonus, anyway.


Im just trying to illustrate that perhaps because DR Epic can happen much sooner than most DR in a mythic game it makes somewhat sense for it to be surmounted sooner eh?

As a difficult encounter for a party of level 3 PCs, I cant see any of the martials doing more than 4 or 5 points of damage a round.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Scavion wrote:
FlySkyHigh wrote:
I'm just going to assume that the mythic bit was an oversight, and unless the enhancement bonus is +7 or higher, or the weapon is an artifact, or you have one of the 8,000,000,000 ways to overcome all DR, you're not overcoming it.
The mythic adventures book is optional. If you incorporate any of it's rules, I would advise you to rethink your position. As it stands if you incorporate the rules and run a mythic game. You can throw a Mythic Barghest with DR/10 Epic and Magic at them as a CR 5 encounter. It also has like 80 hit points.

Your point there is? That sounds like an actually interesting single target encounter, instead of the usual player-on-monster curbstomp we'd get from most CR 5.

Also, I don't see many CR 5 appropiate parties having a way to get even a single weapon with a combined +6 bonus, anyway.

You overcome DR/epic the usual way: Paladin. Smite evil is available from level 1.

Scavion wrote:

Im just trying to illustrate that perhaps because DR Epic can happen much sooner than most DR in a mythic game it makes somewhat sense for it to be surmounted sooner eh?

As a difficult encounter for a party of level 3 PCs, I cant see any of the martials doing more than 4 or 5 points of damage a round.

Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
You overcome DR/epic the usual way: Paladin. Smite evil is available from level 1.

Unless you can buy a Paladin at the magic item shop, that is quite a gamble, given the average party size of four player characters and currently 19 classes in the game. :p

Diego Rossi wrote:

Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Not much I can add to this and entirely correct.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
You overcome DR/epic the usual way: Paladin. Smite evil is available from level 1.

Unless you can buy a Paladin at the magic item shop, that is quite a gamble, given the average party size of four player characters and currently 19 classes in the game. :p

Diego Rossi wrote:

Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Not much I can add to this and entirely correct.

You can add Bull strength for a +2 to hit and +3 damage, it would be accepted with gratitude.

:-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And bardic music and so on. :p


Diego Rossi wrote:


Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Okay, yes. You've got me there. But what about the martials who don't have a massive str or are relying on two weapon fighting or archery?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Okay, yes. You've got me there. But what about the martials who don't have a massive str or are relying on two weapon fighting or archery?

As was pointed out they're not going to have +6 equivalent weapons at 5th level regardless, much less have 2 +6 equivalent weapons at 5th level. If they can't manage to do > 10 points of damage per hit then they're pretty screwed and perhaps the DM should sandbag encounters for such a suboptimal group.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Okay, yes. You've got me there. But what about the martials who don't have a massive str or are relying on two weapon fighting or archery?
As was pointed out they're not going to have +6 equivalent weapons at 5th level regardless, much less have 2 +6 equivalent weapons at 5th level. If they can't manage to do > 10 points of damage per hit then they're pretty screwed and perhaps the DM should sandbag encounters for such a suboptimal group.

Okay but herein lies my point that I stated earlier. Because DR epic can show up just as soon as the rest, should it not be surmounted sooner, considering the plethora of monsters that could use it? If the designers didn't want us to be able to penetrate DR easier, would they not have just made it DR/-?

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Okay, yes. You've got me there. But what about the martials who don't have a massive str or are relying on two weapon fighting or archery?
As was pointed out they're not going to have +6 equivalent weapons at 5th level regardless, much less have 2 +6 equivalent weapons at 5th level. If they can't manage to do > 10 points of damage per hit then they're pretty screwed and perhaps the DM should sandbag encounters for such a suboptimal group.
Okay but herein lies my point that I stated earlier. Because DR epic can show up just as soon as the rest, should it not be surmounted sooner, considering the plethora of monsters that could use it? If the designers didn't want us to be able to penetrate DR easier, would they not have just made it DR/-?

There is a difference between having 2 - 3 methods of penetrating DR / epic in the game and having every Tom, Dick, and Harry able to penetrate it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scavion wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Level 3, str 20, +1 two handed sword, power attack:

2d6+7+1+3= 2d6+11

Each successful hit would deal 2d6+1 hp of damage to the barghest.

A epic encounter for sure, but not impossible.

Okay, yes. You've got me there. But what about the martials who don't have a massive str or are relying on two weapon fighting or archery?

My str 16 magus with a +1 scimitar at level 2 was capable to overcome hardness 10. It was hair rising, but it worked.

There are plenty of damage enhancing spells and effects available at 3rd level. Bull strength, enlarge person, barbarian rage, a bard inspire courage. You need to pile all on one single person and keep him going, but it can be done.


I think there is one simple reason why they made DR epic not that hard to overcome: otherwise the guardian ability that gives you DR/epic would be OP (as would be the smite ignore DR part etc.). Not because it would be defensively strong, but because it would let certain builds easily overcome the new "super" DR, while that would be almost impossible for certain other builds (rogues...).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seriously, the staff response is "no reply required"? Disappointing. Kinda sounds like SKR having a snit. Again.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They are right, magnusk.
Today I have opened my recently delivered copy of Mythic Adventures and read the passage in print instead of a citation on the forum. As it often happen reading it on a page put me in a different prospective and maed me realize where we were mistaken.

The text is:

Mythic Adventures wrote:


DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 299). Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.

Note the "bonus part I bolded. it has a specific meaning in Pathfinder:

DRB wrote:


Bonus
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

Only numerical values, not the total of enhancement and special abilities as several people surmised (I don't know if that was your idea, as your first post speak of +4 and bane or furious weapons, so weapons that will reach a total bonus of +6 in the right conditions).

That weapons with a conditional bonus of +6 or more were capable of piercing epic damage reduction was already established by this:

FAQ wrote:


Weapon Bonuses: Can weapon special abilities (such as bane) or class abilities (such as a paladin's divine bond) allow you to exceed the +5 enhancement bonus limit and the +10 bonus-equivalent limitation?

For the enhancement bonus limitation, it depends on the specific effect or ability that's altering the weapon.

Bane: This allows the weapon to exceed the +5 limit, but only against the designated creature type. For example, a +5 dragon-bane longsword is normally a +5 weapon, but has a +7 enhancement bonus against dragons and deals +2d6 points of damage against dragons.

Paladin: The divine bond ability says "These [enhancement] bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5." That means if a paladin has a +5 longsword, she can't use her divine bond to increate the enhancement bonus to +6 or higher (but she could use her bonuses to add abilities such as flaming to the weapon).

The +10 bonus-equivalent limitation is a hard cap for all weapons; you can't exceed that even with class abilities or other unusual abilities.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13

and this:

PRD wrote:


A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures' natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Mythic Adventures hasn't changed anything.

- * -

This post make me think that you embraced the more extensive interpretation:

magnuskn wrote:

At first glance it seems that with this new interpretation DR/Epic will be far less useful to monsters than it will be to players, especially at the later levels.

And another question which crops up is if this new interpretation only is valid for DR/Epic, or if a +4 Flaming Weapon now also counts as +5 to pass through DR/alignment (and so on with the other types of DR).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I actually hoped that it would be the explanation you are taking as granted, which is why I started this thread to get a good explanation of what exactly is the real intent. "No reply required" sounds like the usual dismissive tone of non-answering a question a certain person on the Paizo staff likes to give to us clueless rubes, but I really do think that some clarification is necessary to make sure that the correct intent of the rule is properly conveyed.

Believe me, I'd prefer to believe that only enhancement bonuses (however accumulated to go over +5) count to the combination required to defeat DR/Epic. But I still am quite sure that the ruling in Mythic Adventures is worded so badly that it will continue for a long time to make people unsure of its real intent. It has to be clarified by someone on the development staff, so I really don't see why there is "no reply required". And that is completley aside from the dismissive tone such a phrase contains. :-/

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I've removed a post. The Paizo message boards rules say "don't be a jerk."

Edit: I've unremoved the post so people can see what I'm talking about.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Great. It would help if you were to give a more extensive answer then "no reply required", because clearly the rule is not clear to everybody, as evidenced by the 71 people clicking this as a FAQ candidate. And the other thread started in the other sub-forum independently of this one, which basically asked the same question.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Great. It would help if you were to give a more extensive answer then "no reply required", because clearly the rule is not clear to everybody, as evidenced by the 71 people clicking this as a FAQ candidate. And the other thread started in the other sub-forum independently of this one, which basically asked the same question.

magnuskn, I have clicked the FAQ, but as I posted above, I have found the reply.

It seem clear to me after re-reading what a bonus is.
You disagree from how I read it?


I'm not at all convinced by Diego's interpretation...

Quote:
Quote:
DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 299). Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.
Note the "bonus part I bolded. ...Only numerical values, not the total of enhancement and special abilities as several people surmised

If his interpretation is right, then the DR/Epic definition only needs the first sentence.

But the second sentence is not actually superfluous, because it is explicitly talking about weapon special abilities and their "bonus value", not enhancement bonus per se. Notice that it says "if the total bonus value (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater". In other words, "enhancement bonus" is not the be-all-end-all of "total bonus value" (that overcomes DR/Epic), but only one component. It's clear that weapon special abilities that have some bonus value (e.g. flaming) but aren't enhancement bonus per se are directly mentioned precisely because they are supposed to overcome DR/Epic, even though they aren't 'enhancement bonus' per se.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Great. It would help if you were to give a more extensive answer then "no reply required", because clearly the rule is not clear to everybody, as evidenced by the 71 people clicking this as a FAQ candidate. And the other thread started in the other sub-forum independently of this one, which basically asked the same question.

magnuskn, I have clicked the FAQ, but as I posted above, I have found the reply.

It seem clear to me after re-reading what a bonus is.
You disagree from how I read it?

No, I personally agree with your reading and I thought it from the start to be the correct one.

However, as I pointed out a few minutes ago before Sean deleted the post, the wording of the new ruling in Mythic Adventures is muddy and gives the impression, shared by a lot of people so far, that special bonuses, like flaming, holy and so on, contribute to the total bonus needed to defeat DR/Epic. As this continues to be the case, simply saying "no reply required" completely misses the point and there should be a ruling which clarifies the point. Not necessarily in the FAQ, but at least in this thread. Just saying "no reply required" gives exactly zero information why exactly no reply is required.

Unless of course people want another rule topic which will inevitably come up every few months when the last threads about it having fallen off the first sub-forum page. It's not as if we enough of those already, right?


What I don't get is if this is effectively Errata to the normal Bestiary rules, shouldn't they put that in a provisionary FAQ until they print a new Bestiary and release official Errata? Otherwise they have conflicting rules. How are people without Mythic Adventures but who have an encounter with a creature with DR/Mythic supposed to play? I don't see how whoever wrote that new definition of DR/Mythic in this book wasn't aware that it was a rules change, so why did they think it was adequate to just put that in the book, and not put out a FAQ for other products where DR/Mythic is defined?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is a recurring problem with the enhancements/special abilities of the weapons.
It is easy to confuse the two and the terminology is not so clear. I think that solving the quandary of the DR/epic note in a permanent way would require rewriting the chapter about magic weapons enhancements first.

@Quandary. The magic item section about magic weapons uses the therms "enhancement bonus" and "special ability", it call the special ability bonus only once:
"Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted)."

I think that the reasonable interpretation is that the enhancement bonus, plus the increase from special abilities that give a further bonus, are what matter.

It could have been worded better? Yes.
In the same space? Not so sure.

I started playing with boardgames and still play them. They are way simpler than Pathfinder (even those with several hundred pages of rules), but even there you find pieces of rules where the development team had an idea and was sure to have transmitted it to the public, but a large section of the public read the rule in a completely different way.
Sometime, when you know how something should work, it is hard to express it in a clear way. You end using a kind of shorthand that is perfectly comprehensible only if you start with the same basic assumptions.

I think I have got the right assumptions about this rule, now.

Quandary wrote:
What I don't get is if this is effectively Errata to the normal Bestiary rules, shouldn't they put that in a provisionary FAQ until they print a new Bestiary and release official Errata? Otherwise they have conflicting rules. How are people without Mythic Adventures but who have an encounter with a creature with DR/Mythic supposed to play? I don't see how whoever wrote that new definition of DR/Mythic in this book wasn't aware that it was a rules change, so why did they think it was adequate to just put that in the book, and not put out a FAQ for other products where DR/Mythic is defined?

I don't think it is a rule change, I think it was an attempt to put in a book the explanation we already have in the FAQ that a +5 bane weapon

cont as a +7 weapon when used against the right creature and that +7 is a valid way to bypass DR/epic.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

The original question in the OP was, "Was this intended as such, or are there other factors to take into account?"

The text about overcoming DR/epic is quite clear in that it says plus-equivalent abilities count toward the +6 required to overcome DR/epic. That is the intent of the rule you quoted in your original post.

When responding to a FAQ thread in the FAQ interface, we have four options:

1) "Question unclear." The question isn't unclear, so that's not the option for us to use to clear the thread.

2) "Answered in FAQ." Do we need a FAQ that says, "Q: Does the book saying X actually mean X? A: Yes, it does." No, we don't, so that's not the option for us to use to clear the thread.

3) "Answered in errata." Do we need to errata Mythic Adventures about this? No. Do we need to errata the Bestiary about this so the two books are in agreement? Perhaps... but we're not going to leave the thread open for months until the next Bestiary reprint, and we can't mark it "answered in errata" until it's actually been answered in errata. So that's not the option for us to use to clear the thread.

4) "No reply required." The rule works like it says it works. Do we need to reply, "yes, it works the way it says it works?" No. Do we need to also say, "Yes, you have to take Power Attack before you can take Cleave, just like Cleave and the feat prerequisite rules work?" No, we don't. So "no reply required" is the correct response to this thread.

You keep asserting that it's unclear. It's not.

Just because you don't agree with that doesn't mean the text is unclear.

Just because you want to know the reasoning behind it doesn't mean the text is unclear.

Just because we didn't explain the reasoning for this decision doesn't mean the text is unclear.

Just because you think clarification is necessary (when the text is clear, even though you obviously disagree with it) doesn't mean that the text is unclear or that we need to write out a specific response about this question.

And when you say, "I still am quite sure that the ruling in Mythic Adventures is worded so badly that it will continue for a long time to make people unsure of its real intent" (as you asserted in the post I removed), that is simply false. The text is clear. You disagree with that text, you don't understand the reasoning behind it, but the text is clear: "Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater."

And just because you think, "it has to be clarified by someone on the development staff" (as you stated in the post I removed) doesn't mean it actually has to be clarified.

And saying this "gives the impression, shared by a lot of people so far, that special bonuses, like flaming, holy and so on, contribute to the total bonus needed to defeat DR/Epic," is astute, because that impression is correct. As explicitly stated by the text.

The text is clear. Stating, in effect, "I disagree with this and I really can't believe this is what they intend" doesn't change that the text says and means exactly what the lead designer wanted it to say and mean.

And you are being rude when you say, "'No reply required' sounds like the usual dismissive tone of non-answering a question a certain person on the Paizo staff likes to give to us clueless rubes." The design team had a ten-minute discussion about this topic on Friday. The question was not taken lightly.


Diego wrote:

I don't think it is a rule change, I think it was an attempt to put in a book the explanation we already have in the FAQ that a +5 bane weapon

cont as a +7 weapon when used against the right creature and that +7 is a valid way to bypass DR/epic.

I wasn't aware of any FAQ on DR otherwise...?

Bane is actually increasing the enhancement bonus, while most abilities aren't even though they are costed (and count towards +10 limit) as such.
This change is irrelevant to Bane because Bane's 'equivalency' is +1 while it actually increases the enhancement bonus by +2 (when it applies vs target).
(although a true follower of Asmodeus would point out that a Bane weapon should now penetrate DR/Epic as +3 above enhancement bonus)

But yeah, it would be clearer to state "total bonus value (as used to calculate item value and +10 total limit)" but that just starts to make the whole sentence unwieldy. And unwieldy sentences start to become hard to understand, maybe not for everybody but certainly for some. Since it's clear that enhancement bonus is not the entirety of "total bonus value", and "total bonus value" is used in only one part of the rules that anybody using special weapon abilities should be aware of, I think the wording is clear enough for the RAW itself.

Although since alot of people were confused and had different interpretations, I don't think a FAQ is uncalled for that gives a specific example to make it clear (e.g. flaming). If we never had FAQs for cases that the RAW was technically 100% clear on, then an awful lot of FAQ entries would just not exist... The FAQ exists for people who aren't able to easily understand the RAW, whether because they are biased or illiterate, or what ever. That clarification/example could be integrated with a FAQ/Pre-Announcement of Errata on the definition of DR/Epic in earlier products, which just on it's own should probably be issued until real Errata is ready.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough, Quandary. I'll make sure we add a FAQ with an example on Monday, as bane does make the issue weird (a +2 enhancement bonus increase for a +1-equivalent property), can give another example with flaming as part of that FAQ, and can talk about consistency with the Bestiary.

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mythic Adventures and Epic DR - FAQ candidate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.