Wrath of the Righteous - A Failed AP


Wrath of the Righteous

801 to 850 of 1,282 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Matrix Dragon wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

My finding so far is that the *only* really really broken part of Mythic is the damage done on a critical by a melee class. People are talking about casters doing 30d10+250 with a fireball, but I haven't seen anything like that yet.

I've seen it. The wizard in my party killed a group of four Thanatotic Titans with two heavily metamagiced augmented mythic fireballs + channel power. In a single round, with the first action the party had in the combat.

The GM hasn't bothered sending a non-mythic fight at us ever since.

Was it one of these bizarre, "I'm a dual bloodline half-arcane/half-angelic sorcerer/mystic theurge with feats grabbed from six different sourcebooks" builds, or was it a fairly vanilla build?

My group uses HeroLab, so pretty much every official Paizo book is open to them, but their builds are very very vanilla. "I am an 8th-level half-elf arcane bloodline sorceress with 3 tiers of Archmage."

As you know, I'm interested because so far WotR has been a perfectly good AP for me (I'm going to commit heresy and say both RotRL and CotCT were better through Books 1-2, but WotR hasn't been bad), but I'm starting to see the cracks everyone else is screaming about and "just add hit points" simply isn't viable when your fighter hits for 200 and the remainder of the party hits for 60 combined.
So the ability to eliminate crits looks like adjustment #1. Once I've done that, I'm hoping I won't need an adjustment #2, but I'm keeping my eyes open.

From what I know, he's just a standard wizard. No fancy multiclassing. The one thing that may have pushed it over the edge is the feat Spell Perfection(fireball).

Great! Thanks! I'll watch for that, then...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would recommend either blocking Mythic Spells from being modified with metamagic, or setting a limit. That's probably the real problem rather than spell perfection.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

You do realize that makes it pointless for a Sorcerer or Oracle (or similar casters) to take the Archmage abilities that let them cast only the spells they already know, right?

In fact, it would pretty much kill those two Mythic paths; you can take Mythic Spells with any Mythic path, including Guardian or Champion. So all you did was encourage a different line of power-gaming.

And yes, I know people who take those abilities because they don't know every spell in the book and/or don't want to waste time looking them up.

So you might go with 1 Mythic Point for level 1-5 spells and 2 Mythic Points for level 6-9 spells. It makes sense that higher-level spells are more difficult for even Mythic characters to cast.

When did I say that? One power lets you cast a spell which makes non-mythics have to roll twice on their save. The other lets you cast any spell (including those you don't know) at +2 caster level.

I was merely suggesting that a spell slot equal to the level of the spell should be expended when doing this rather than it only costing a mythic power.

You're confusing Archmage and Hierophant. Their abilities are not the same.

*snip*

Ummm, you are completely forgetting about Wild Arcana and Inspired Spell. I can't imagine a senario where a full caster wouldn't want to get one of these abilities even if I make them cost spell slots in addition to mythic power.

Also, many GMs remove the ability to rest for an hour to gain all your spells back. Adding in this additional cost works very well with getting the number of resources that mythic characters have back under control. Plus, it isn't like GMs aren't nerfing martial characters as well, so please don't take my suggestion as something I would use by itself.

Did you read what I first posted? I said that requiring casters to use spells for those Archmage and Hierophant Paths (Arcane Surge and Recalled Blessing) would negate the usefulness of those abilities, especially for Sorcerers and Oracles. I further said that some players don't want to have to look up spells and waste time, and instead use them to enhance their own specific spells that they already know about.

And yes, I have a player running a Sorcerer who went Dual Path - Archmage and Marshal. Now admittedly she uses her Martial abilities far more often than her Archmage abilities (and to great effect), but that does not negate the fact she has that ability.

Most of my players are new to Pathfinder. It is easier to use spells they have write-ups on (as I send them character write-ups using Hero Labs) than to try to look things up all the time.

My own suggestion which does a fine job of nerfing the casters is to eliminate the Swift Spell aspect of Archmage abilities (with the exception of the one that is a physical attack that sacrifices a spell for extra damage). Hierophant doesn't provide Swift Spell capability so they are already more balanced.


i might be wrong but didn't they change it from swift action to standard on the FAQ?


Tangent101 wrote:

Did you read what I first posted? I said that requiring casters to use spells for those Archmage and Hierophant Paths (Arcane Surge and Recalled Blessing) would negate the usefulness of those abilities, especially for Sorcerers and Oracles. I further said that some players don't want to have to look up spells and waste time, and instead use them to enhance their own specific spells that they already know about.

And yes, I have a player running a Sorcerer who went Dual Path - Archmage and Marshal. Now admittedly she uses her Martial abilities far more often than her Archmage abilities (and to great effect), but that does not negate the fact she has that ability.

Most of my players are new to Pathfinder. It is easier to use spells they have write-ups on (as I send them character write-ups using Hero Labs) than to try to look things up all the time.

My own suggestion which does a fine job of nerfing the casters is to eliminate the Swift Spell aspect of Archmage abilities (with the exception of the one that is a physical attack that sacrifices a spell for extra damage). Hierophant doesn't provide Swift Spell capability so they are already more balanced.

The fact that you keep mentioning sorcerers makes me believe that you're still misunderstanding me. I've been saying that it should cost a spell slot or spell use per day. Not a slot containing the exact same spell that you're casting or something.

My suggested change doesn't affect how the ability works at all, aside from the additional cost that would make it more difficult for people to cast 20+ meteor swarms per day.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@ Seannoss - I'm not saying that the opponents can't crit or anything. I just say that you figure out what the average hit point total of different classes is at various levels and have the damage output of the BBEG scale accordingly.

I'm not a number cruncher. I can't give you an exact formula for this. I'm just responding with what I "feel" things should be at.

But, the amount of damage that 4 PCs can do to one BBEG should not be able to be reciprocated from the BBEG to a single character. Which is where the hit point discrepancy comes in. Man, can I use any more $100 words?

But, trying to combine Mythic into the framework of the normal system just doesn't feel right. Mythic needs it's own framework.

And none of this kind of thinking is echoed in the AP or rulebook because they were on a strict time schedule. I believe that had they let Mythic develop organically, and over a much longer period of time, it would have come out much better.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Did you read what I first posted? I said that requiring casters to use spells for those Archmage and Hierophant Paths (Arcane Surge and Recalled Blessing) would negate the usefulness of those abilities, especially for Sorcerers and Oracles. I further said that some players don't want to have to look up spells and waste time, and instead use them to enhance their own specific spells that they already know about.

And yes, I have a player running a Sorcerer who went Dual Path - Archmage and Marshal. Now admittedly she uses her Martial abilities far more often than her Archmage abilities (and to great effect), but that does not negate the fact she has that ability.

Most of my players are new to Pathfinder. It is easier to use spells they have write-ups on (as I send them character write-ups using Hero Labs) than to try to look things up all the time.

My own suggestion which does a fine job of nerfing the casters is to eliminate the Swift Spell aspect of Archmage abilities (with the exception of the one that is a physical attack that sacrifices a spell for extra damage). Hierophant doesn't provide Swift Spell capability so they are already more balanced.

The fact that you keep mentioning sorcerers makes me believe that you're still misunderstanding me. I've been saying that it should cost a spell slot or spell use per day. Not a slot containing the exact same spell that you're casting or something.

My suggested change doesn't affect how the ability works at all, aside from the additional cost that would make it more difficult for people to cast 20+ meteor swarms per day.

Why would any Sorcerer or Oracle take the above-mentioned abilities if you remove its "cast an extra spell" ability?

Your "fix" also doesn't stop players at the 3rd Tier from resting for an hour, spending one Mythic, and regaining all their spells. All you do is provide an inconvenience that prevents certain arcane or divine classes from taking abilities that were once useful, and push them into taking abilities that are more rife with abuse.

To be honest, it's your game and you can modify Mythic as you see fit. I know that with my future games I probably won't use Mythic. But that's as much because it's one thing more to keep track of as with a system that is overpowered at higher tiers.


Tangent101 wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Did you read what I first posted? I said that requiring casters to use spells for those Archmage and Hierophant Paths (Arcane Surge and Recalled Blessing) would negate the usefulness of those abilities, especially for Sorcerers and Oracles. I further said that some players don't want to have to look up spells and waste time, and instead use them to enhance their own specific spells that they already know about.

And yes, I have a player running a Sorcerer who went Dual Path - Archmage and Marshal. Now admittedly she uses her Martial abilities far more often than her Archmage abilities (and to great effect), but that does not negate the fact she has that ability.

Most of my players are new to Pathfinder. It is easier to use spells they have write-ups on (as I send them character write-ups using Hero Labs) than to try to look things up all the time.

My own suggestion which does a fine job of nerfing the casters is to eliminate the Swift Spell aspect of Archmage abilities (with the exception of the one that is a physical attack that sacrifices a spell for extra damage). Hierophant doesn't provide Swift Spell capability so they are already more balanced.

The fact that you keep mentioning sorcerers makes me believe that you're still misunderstanding me. I've been saying that it should cost a spell slot or spell use per day. Not a slot containing the exact same spell that you're casting or something.

My suggested change doesn't affect how the ability works at all, aside from the additional cost that would make it more difficult for people to cast 20+ meteor swarms per day.

Why would any Sorcerer or Oracle take the above-mentioned abilities if you remove its "cast an extra spell" ability?

Your "fix" also doesn't stop players at the 3rd Tier from resting for an hour, spending one Mythic, and regaining all their spells. All you do is provide an inconvenience that prevents certain arcane or divine classes from taking abilities that were once...

A sorcerer or oracle would take it if they wanted to be able to spend a mythic point to cast any spell from the entire class' spell list. They would still benefit from this ability far more than wizards and clerics, who can often choose from their entire spell list at the start of the day.

Admittedly Arcane Surge and Recalled blessing would be less useful, but those were objectively bad compared to simply using Wild Arcana/Inspired Spell with free persistent metamagic in the first place.

As for the third tier ability, that is on my banned list (same as my current GM's game). ;)

But yea, I just think a few steps need to be taken to keep the resources that the players are using in a day relevant. It depends on the game you want to run.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mogloth wrote:
And none of this kind of thinking is echoed in the AP or rulebook because they were on a strict time schedule. I believe that had they let Mythic develop organically, and over a much longer period of time, it would have come out much better.

That is no excuse. At all. They are professional writers for rulebooks. They should have higher standards than "just put some stuff out there, it will smooth out over the next years". If their system breaks down almost immediately, that's on them, not on us.

At least the framework they took over from the base D20 system holds out until the mid-levels, RAW mythic falls flat on its face as soon as tier 3 is reached.


I think that's a tad harsh mate. A few simple steps can fix the majority of the rocket tag issues.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Beaky and his band wrote:
I think that's a tad harsh mate. A few simple steps can fix the majority of the rocket tag issues.

No, it is not. If I buy a car and its wheels fall off when I go faster than 30 kilometers per hour, then I am entitled to be ticked off.

If I buy a book about mathematics and the presented theorems more complex than simple multiplications are wrong, then I am entitled to be upset about that.

If I buy a book about the french language and after the most simple sentences the grammar structure and spelling of the example sentences were wrong, I would be right to be angry with the writers.

So why do we have such lower standards here for this kind of thing? Nobody would even think about recommending house rules fixing the things I enumerated above. Why are people defending bad design?

Paizo is a business which employs professional writers and game designers. Are the standards for them to be so much lower than for the rest of the writing industry? Why? Are they your family and need to be protected? No, we pay them to give us a functioning product, so I think we can expect them to deliver it.

Mythic Adventures has easily discernable flaws. Why can we, as simple players and GM's, easily spot them, while the designers apparently were not able to perceive those issues during development? Did nobody even try to do an example fight for, oh, tier 3 or 5 or 7? Did nobody put together what kind of damage gets dished out by PC's?

So, yeah, I think some harsh words are more than deserved here. Paizo has a history of putting out poorly designed sub-systems (Kingdom building in Kingmaker, caravan rules in Jade Regent, etc) and it has to stop. Either test what you are writing or don't write it.


magnuskn wrote:
has to stop. Either test what you are writing or don't write it.

Is paizo creating a product where faulty design puts someone's life at stake, like a car? Are they putting out a book on a language that has been spoken for hundreds of years such as French?

Or are they trying to be innovative and get some ideas to market like we see with video games, or even beta versions of software? Consumers continue to buy these products with their bugs and the products improve over time.

Grand Lodge

It almost feels like they are taking the Video game industry approach and they will "patch" it later, which doesn't work in this paper industry. I guess they could Patch the PDF versions but even Errata's don't work that well because people don't want to have to print pages out to fix their books.

New sub systems should be "added" to AP's and by that i mean it could be mentioned that they are developing something but not include it till they have tested it for a few years.

How do they test something so objective though? Some people will love it some will hate it. They will never have "accurate" results.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with Magnuskn as much as the next guy (more in fact sometimes) but telling him to shut his mouth and let you enjoy your game in peace is Not the answer at all, products and ideas can only improve thru public discourse and debate, but what's the point of discourse and debate when only one side is heard.

if you dont like it their are numerous countries around the world where only one side is heard but (SPOILER ALERT!) most of them dont want to hear your opinions:)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks, Cap.

See, the only way to get across that people are displeased (and I am far from the only one, so, Beaky, please stop those insinuations) is to make clear that continued behavior of this kind is unacceptable. I really feel that I have been sold a faulty product in this case, because the flaws were not hidden in the text (like kingdom building) or for a pretty inconsequential system (like caravan combat), but for a major hardcover release which also was pretty much the main system for an entire AP.


this thread is for those to show their dissatisfaction with WotR (hence the title) of which there are many (who are right too btw)

if the goal is to fix it, try contributing to Tangent101's thread on new feats and abilities and fixing the current ones, lots of good ideas over there


I have a question for everyone still debating this and I'm honestly not sure if I should make a new thread over Pathfinder RPG General or not.

What is Mythic to you? What did you want it to be and how do you see the final product sans errata and third party products?

For myself, I see Mythic as... Exalted, Greek mythology. Which is pretty much exactly what I wanted to see in the final product. How do I see the final product of Mythic, I see Pathfinder the Superhero variant, a Power Ranger take off. This is a not bad thing, but a case of mislabelling things.

Seriously, I'm idly playing around and designing a Power Rangers game with Mythic. It works a lot better then throwing several levels of Monk onto the players. ^^


captain yesterday wrote:

this thread is for those to show their dissatisfaction with WotR (hence the title) of which there are many (who are right too btw)

if the goal is to fix it, try contributing to Tangent101's thread on new feats and abilities and fixing the current ones, lots of good ideas over there

Could you provide a link to that thread? My search-fu stinks today... thanks

-- david


i have no link-fu:(
its called Fixing Mythic New Feats and spells or something similar

Grand Lodge

captain yesterday wrote:

this thread is for those to show their dissatisfaction with WotR (hence the title) of which there are many (who are right too btw)

Actually, the Original Poster said that the title was intended to refer to his own "failed" campaign, not to denigrate the AP as a whole.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lets see how my forum-foo is working. This should be the link to a fix it thread.

linky


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Did you read what I first posted? I said that requiring casters to use spells for those Archmage and Hierophant Paths (Arcane Surge and Recalled Blessing) would negate the usefulness of those abilities, especially for Sorcerers and Oracles. I further said that some players don't want to have to look up spells and waste time, and instead use them to enhance their own specific spells that they already know about.

And yes, I have a player running a Sorcerer who went Dual Path - Archmage and Marshal. Now admittedly she uses her Martial abilities far more often than her Archmage abilities (and to great effect), but that does not negate the fact she has that ability.

Most of my players are new to Pathfinder. It is easier to use spells they have write-ups on (as I send them character write-ups using Hero Labs) than to try to look things up all the time.

My own suggestion which does a fine job of nerfing the casters is to eliminate the Swift Spell aspect of Archmage abilities (with the exception of the one that is a physical attack that sacrifices a spell for extra damage). Hierophant doesn't provide Swift Spell capability so they are already more balanced.

The fact that you keep mentioning sorcerers makes me believe that you're still misunderstanding me. I've been saying that it should cost a spell slot or spell use per day. Not a slot containing the exact same spell that you're casting or something.

My suggested change doesn't affect how the ability works at all, aside from the additional cost that would make it more difficult for people to cast 20+ meteor swarms per day.

Why would any Sorcerer or Oracle take the above-mentioned abilities if you remove its "cast an extra spell" ability?

Your "fix" also doesn't stop players at the 3rd Tier from resting for an hour, spending one Mythic, and regaining all their spells. All you do is provide an inconvenience that prevents certain arcane or divine classes from

...

You are not understanding what I'm saying.

There are four Mythic "core path abilities" available for Hierophant and Archmage that involve casting spells. Two of them are "recast any spell you have memorized or have available because of your class" while the other two are "cast any spell at all that your class could cast."

Your "fix" destroys the "recast any spell" ability for the Oracle and Sorcerer. And for that matter means any Wizard or Cleric who needs to recast a spell has to sacrifice another spell to do so. In short, you destroyed Arcane Surge and Recalled Blessing. And once the players reach 3rd Tier they can rest for one hour and one Mythic, regain their spells, and continue on their merry way.

It won't work.


Seannoss wrote:

Lets see how my forum-foo is working. This should be the link to a fix it thread.

linky

Thanks !


well when so many campaigns of the same AP have such huge systemic problems that the campaign folds then its a pattern, i like wrath as much as everyone else but there are serious balance issues as written

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, I'd take Mags complaints more seriously if he'd stop trying to compare issues with Mythic and Wrath to car failures and errors in math and language books. It's a faulty comparison for product liability, as well as in scope of potential and real damages.

While I guess it does illicit an emotional response, I don't think it's the one that is intended...


i agree, the analogies need work:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As for other questions, I'm not sure I had an idea what mythic should be but I was not expecting superheroes that generally made encounters and challenges irrelevant. Its not just combat either, skill checks and saves also become automatic. And while succeeding at everything is 'mythic' there should also be challenges in a game.

Some of that is on me but the rules as presented aren't balanced.

EDIT : As for analogies, switch it to something else like a movie. If you see a movie with inconsistent logic and big plot holes (could be an equivalent to mythic rules) would you like it? Are those things you want to see in your entertainment?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sprain Ogre wrote:

You know, I'd take Mags complaints more seriously if he'd stop trying to compare issues with Mythic and Wrath to car failures and errors in math and language books. It's a faulty comparison for product liability, as well as in scope of potential and real damages.

While I guess it does illicit an emotional response, I don't think it's the one that is intended...

Alright, let's find analogies more suited to gaming.

Would it be acceptable if board game companies publish games where the entire structure of the game collapses after 30% of a normal gameplay session?

Would it even be acceptable for a video game company to publish a game which serially breaks down for most players at 30% and then keeps crashing to desktop all the time? And then refuse to patch it in a timely manner?

Do I need to go on? This is an entertainment product. Why can't we apply the same standards to Paizo that we do to the rest of the entertainment industry?


I did say it wasn't personal, and I meant that.
I do appreciate that you're far from alone its just the way you respond seems very aggressive - this is probably a misinterpretation on my part and no offense was intended.
If Ive said the wrong thing and you feel picked on I'm truly sorry.

Regards
Mel


Sprain Ogre wrote:

You know, I'd take Mags complaints more seriously if he'd stop trying to compare issues with Mythic and Wrath to car failures and errors in math and language books. It's a faulty comparison for product liability, as well as in scope of potential and real damages.

While I guess it does illicit an emotional response, I don't think it's the one that is intended...

You are free to peruse the myriad other lists of issues surrounding Mythic.

Pointing out one single post and then talking about not taking complaints seriously is pretty disingenuous.


What I'm waiting for is to hear the first stories about the new classes and if they are broken (or how broken they are). I know that currently the only reason to play a Rogue now seems to be "I want to run a trap-detector who has absolutely no magic at all" (though the anti-paladin gleefully kicking a mini-pig was absolutely hilarious (p. 248). Heck, the two archtypes for Rogue were... meh. (Though it did set up nicely for "clerics" of that fake god in one region.)

My hope is that Paizo learned its lesson from Mythic Adventures and repaired the balance issues. But we'll see - new classes shouldn't replace existing ones.

And really, that is the one hopefully-good thing about MA. Did Paizo learn from the mistakes of Mythic? That you need to listen to the playtesters and completely rework something if people are stating it's not working?

We can only hope. (Well, and perhaps if they came out with a revised Mythic Adventures book and provided anyone who bought the PDF, was subscribed, or who provided proof of purchase (ripping a specific page out of the book and mailing it in) with a free download of the revised PDF.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Beaky and his band wrote:

I did say it wasn't personal, and I meant that.

I do appreciate that you're far from alone its just the way you respond seems very aggressive - this is probably a misinterpretation on my part and no offense was intended.
If Ive said the wrong thing and you feel picked on I'm truly sorry.

Regards
Mel

Well, I am a bit at the end of my rope. I've considered abandoning my Wrath of the Righteous campaign due to the very large problems with the mythic rules. So far I've decided against it, but I will be abridging the entire thing in terms of not having those (here even moreso) completely useless mini-encounters every Paizo AP is littered with and just making a few big fights per dungeon. But we'll see, every time the party ROFLstomps another already immensely boosted encounter, it makes me less willing to put up with this.

All in all, I am pretty stressed out with Paizo about now, due to the issues with mythic affecting my campaign every week and the refusal of Paizo to do anything about the problems (with mythic, not my campaign).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
But we'll see - new classes shouldn't replace existing ones.

Eh, as far as certain classes go, I'd rather have them replaced by new classes that can keep up with most of the ones already in play, than new classes hampered by "we can't make them better than X" and thus ending up with yet another class that's exceptionally subpar. Since upgrading the troublesome classes themselves isn't on the table at this point (barring Unchained).


To be honest? The new class rulebook would have been the perfect place to present revised versions of a couple subpar classes. Upgrading the Rogue would have been one such possibility. Heck, one possibility is having rogues advance on the Fighter combat chart - they would hit more often, would see a small increase in damage from such feats as Power Attack, and would get an extra attack.

Or you could just make it so that if someone is on the other side of an opponent, a rogue can "flank" from range. You could even make it an Advanced Rogue Talent.

Ah well. Water under the bridge. I must admit some curiosity as to why Paizo seems to have abandoned Mythic, rather than doing a large-scale revamp. My idea of providing free PDFs for anyone who has a subscription or mails in a removed title page would very likely be the most effective way of disseminating the fix in such a way that fans would be least upset.


Oh I agree, I would have loved to see the ACG bring in some revisions of some of the more problematic classes, or at least some options that make them significantly less sub-par (though admittedly, the Monk kind of got a decent share of that back in the ACG - having a lot of fun with a Zen Archer in my group's Age of Worms game, first Monk I've ever played in PNP). But it seems that'll all be - hopefully/presumably - touched on in more detail with Unchained.

Anywho. =)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Other than fixing mistakes I would be surprised if there was a widespread errata like that. It would be like redesigning half of a core book.

Maybe there could be a chapter in Unchained that has extra thoughts and mythic rules as that book seems to be the place for new or unusual concepts.


I think criticism is pretty important for product developers, and I think Paizo appreciates it. I think there is a point in which though where it becomes repetitive and not useful.

Saying "Mythic has these flaws, which should be addressed, perhaps in X ways" is useful. Repeating it 100 times in a way that makes it sound like the developers went and punched your grandma instead of designing a faulty product...is probably a lot less useful.


Well I have a somewhat differing opinion of how to fix things. Add templates, class levels, HD, ect to your villains and it will help immensely. PCs are supposed to carve through lots of demons in the APs Diablo 3-style, so the lesser encounters do not need to be adjusted. The named encounters should definitely be ramped up. That's a problem in almost every adventure in almost every system, however, in that bosses are not significantly more powerful than the average party. I playtested WotR for TSP and, with a party of 6 gestalted 28 point characters, was challenged because he ramped up the difficulty immensely by increasing the number of monsters in each 'normal' encounter and ramping up the major enemies several CRs. It's all about how much work you want to put into it. I know the premise of APs is getting most of what you need to run a campaign, but the problem is not completely unfixable.


Tangent101 wrote:

To be honest? The new class rulebook would have been the perfect place to present revised versions of a couple subpar classes. Upgrading the Rogue would have been one such possibility. Heck, one possibility is having rogues advance on the Fighter combat chart - they would hit more often, would see a small increase in damage from such feats as Power Attack, and would get an extra attack.

Or you could just make it so that if someone is on the other side of an opponent, a rogue can "flank" from range. You could even make it an Advanced Rogue Talent.

Ah well. Water under the bridge. I must admit some curiosity as to why Paizo seems to have abandoned Mythic, rather than doing a large-scale revamp. My idea of providing free PDFs for anyone who has a subscription or mails in a removed title page would very likely be the most effective way of disseminating the fix in such a way that fans would be least upset.

On the rogue/monk/fighter, I think they are trying to prevent confusion from users of the APs and other products. New users would likely be confused on why there are two different rogues, one of which was in the core rulebook and one in an optional volume. Unchained is probably a better option to present something like that, since it's a whole book on "alternate systems", so alternate classes fit there.

as for a pdf Mythic revamp, as Sean Noss mentioned, it would probably amount to a pretty drastic overhaul of the book, resulting in really a whole new volume, that may have compatibility issues with other material. Most of the time/cost of making a book go into layout/editing/etc. To do a new retake on Mythic, and offer it as a free pdf for people who already purchased it, would requiring removing a hardcover product from the roster. So basically they would have to sacrifice a book that will make them money for a pdf...that won't really make them much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I consider it using the PDF as a modification of the book. Allow anyone who purchases the book in the future to get the PDF free as if they had subscribed. When you consider the product is defective, this is in fact a customer service detail and would help alleviate the problems quite a few customers have had with it.

Or to put it another way, if a company created a computer game but it is broken halfway through and the only way to prevail is to activate God Mode and waltz through the rest of the game without any real risk... why bother playing? And if the company refuses to acknowledge the defective product and refuses to provide patches... then why should customers buy future games from that company?

There is considerable disdain for Electronic Arts for just that reason, and a number of people who won't buy games from them because they keep putting out bad games and ignoring customer complaints about this.

If word-of-mouth gets out there that Mythic Adventures is broken, fewer and fewer people will buy it. It ends up sitting in the Paizo warehouses until the next Golem Sale, discounted as a loss leader, and sold to people who would be willing to get a significantly-discounted book that they could then modify.

If Paizo attaches free PDFs to the book, then there is a reason to buy the book. It is always easier to read through the book than to go through the PDF. Those pages or sections that are needed can be printed out by owners and taped over replaced sections by those users.

In short, Paizo does its customers a service and shows people that it cares about its customer base and will work to ensure its products are as good as possible - to the point of making a little bit less money on a defective product by offering the revised version's PDF free of charge when buying the print version.

And it's just for this book. Hopefully in the future Paizo won't put out a defective product like this.


Mag (and others), if you did nothing other than give the mythic dudes x 5 hit points, what would that do, in your opinion, to the book as written?

I'm trying to gauge what effect that single change would make and how much more would need to work on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Beaky and his band wrote:

Mag (and others), if you did nothing other than give the mythic dudes x 5 hit points, what would that do, in your opinion, to the book as written?

I'm trying to gauge what effect that single change would make and how much more would need to work on.

That'd give guys like Baphomet something like 3500-4000 HP. Hm. It probably would make it a two or three round fight at the point the party is fighting him. Depends on party composition.

See, I know that we GM's can houserule everything. But we shouldn't need to, given how the real game designers should have balanced this correctly. That they did overshoot the damage output versus the durability of opponents by that much and didn't notice it really does not heighten my confidence in them.

Silver Crusade

Honestly I really don’t think that we need a full overhaul of the mythic ruleset, I would argue, that a 2-3 page PDF would be sufficient for the vast majority of players and GMs.

Once you fix things like power attack, vital strike, and some of the other things, the adventure path is much more viable. Of course there is still ample opportunity to add a template here, some class levels there, to compensate for groups that have at least one rules proficient player.

Adding some more viable mythic powers and feats would be welcome, giving players the ability to increase their durability in viable ways (NOT something as weak as toughness) can persuade players to chose defense instead of crushing offense.

801 to 850 of 1,282 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Wrath of the Righteous / Wrath of the Righteous - A Failed AP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.