That are some heavy assumptions you are making, Doomed Hero. My guys are not playing optimized at all and are steamrolling everything. I'd check with your GM how much he is changing up the AP to accomodate your group.
Anyway, I've talked with two members so far, one is all for changing things up, one is so far against it, because it would make his character concept unviable. I'll see if I can find a compromise, otherwise I'll have to fold the campaign. I am not walking into a disaster with open eyes here. Could be that Shattered Star is what we are doing next, since my own homebrewn campaign is far from being ready for consumption.
Off topic but I just want to say that I am a player in Shattered Star. Currently in book 4 and it is really awesome (and challenging!) I died like 3 times this ap so far and a couple other party members died.
It also has a great old school feel to it and a nice focus on dungeons, exploration and the pathfinder society which I enjoy.
I must admit, two problems seem inherent to this. The first is critical hits. The second is the use of Meta-magic Feats in combination with Mythic Magic.
If there are no critical hits or if they were treated like non-Mythic Vital Strike, and if you can't use Meta-magic feats with Mythic spells (ie, any spell that has been enhanced because of Mythic ability), then does this not significantly diminish the damage potential of the PCs and in doing so deal with a lot of the problems?
I think theres at least one more source of damage output that DMs need to look out for in mythic games: namely, damage from ranged attacks.
In my WoTR campaign, my player's archer ranger is consistently the most dangerous: with Mythic Rapid Shot and Mythic Mulitshot, she can put 8 arrows in the air with a full attack (9 with haste, 10 if she uses a mythic power to get another std action). Coupled with Mythic Deadly Aim and a strength in the low 40s, she can dish out astounding amounts of damage. Add in a liberal use of the Instant Enemy spell and a paladin who regularly invokes Aura of Justice to share her smite, and things really go crazy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm....whoever said get rid of all the mythic feats may have been on to something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm....whoever said get rid of all the mythic feats may have been on to something.
yes they are!
edit: i was actually going to say there needs to be a limit on the detrimental effect it has on action economy:)
but doing away or minimizing mythic feats is a good first step:)
No, not particularly. Because let's be honest: Even if you cannot take Mythic Feats, the ability to have an additional standard action each round is damaging. It's the whole action economy thing.
Mind you, I used three Mythic Skeleton Champions to good effect in that these nasties went on two initiatives. Despite missing most of the time, they managed to drop three sixth-level, 2nd tier characters to half hit points. The very ABILITY to act twice in a round made these Skeletons into something effective. The ability of players to push toward acting twice a round OR MORE is also quite nasty.
Here is an example: Let us say you have a Barbarian warrior who went Guardian, and three other characters who went Marshall. All three take the ability to "puppet" someone else on their turn. They could give the Barbarian three additional attacks besides his own. And if they took Leadership for a Cohort and the Path Ability concerning leadership, each of their Cohorts also gets an extra action during that initiative.
The end result is a hard-hitting character able to mow through foes because of his three Marshall allies... who may also have ranged combatants who are able to effectively pepper enemies with arrows or bolts and prove to be a menace.
All this is doable without a single Mythic Feat.
|
I will say that yes the mythic rules are over powered. But in the final chapter I had all 3 of the players die at some point or another. When they fought the storm lord the first time he killed 2 of the 3 within the first round (damn vorpal). But he did not get to the wizard and he used mythic wishes to undo reality to bring them back to life. Once again yes it is overpowered.
I was a bit concerned about this very thing as we did the play-test mythic in our Carrion Crown game....
Given how much I am looking foreword to actually playing in WotR, I'm really concerned.
I'd rather not see mythic completely tossed out....so what suggestions would those who folded their game make if they where to attempt it again ?
Slow mythic progression down ?
Scrap mythic feats ?
I think the biggest problem with the mythic rules is not that the mythic versions of spells were that much more powerful (though they were better, they weren't THAT much better, mostly just upping damage dice a level sorts of stuff) but that it further broke action economy, which is already the weakest part of the game.
Here is one round for my high level cleric (who was a straight CRB cleric, human, healing and knowledge domains).
Free action (from Relentless Healing 1st mythic tier ability): Intensified Mythic Heal from a distance of 30 ft (using Faith's Reach 1st mythic tier ability) to get the paladin from -200 hitpoints to positive 100.
Swift action: Mythic maximized empowered persistent blade barrier (maximized using divine metamastery 3rd tier ability [taken three times] in order to maximize all spells for a minute) placed through the mass of bad guys. Remember, mythic blade barrier is an immediate not a standard. They all make their saves and avoid damage, choose to stay in front of it.
Standard action: Do another blade barrier in same spot. Same results. (note that the previous round I also did this twice in the same way)
At this point my intelligent cloak which casts as a wizard drops enervation on the one enemy who has teleported behind us.
Second standard action: (from burning a mythic point, everyone who's mythic gets this at I think 3rd tier or so). Shape Channel at the mass of bad guys in front of me, deselecting the three party members in melee with them. Regardless of whether they save against the channel, they get pushed back thirty feet. So take 10D6/2 damage from the channel, and then get thrown through 4 mythic empowered persistent maximized blade barriers. Roll your saves twice. DC 35 I think is what it was up to. This killed four of the five bad guys in the fight regardless of whether they made every single save. I think it was something like between 400 and 800 damage to all of them, which none of them were surviving even at full health.
Move action: quick channel...
how do you get Swift action: Mythic maximized empowered persistent blade barrier
and:Standard action (same spell) - as you pointed out - it's an immediate action not a standard - you can't convert those actions. I'm making the assumption you did the same mythic stuff because ... well... you say you did. This entire action is not allowed by RAW - so yeah using home rules and tabletop variation breaks stuff... news at 11.
So second standard you channel - which only damages undead - so a cleric fighting undead was super effective?
Awesome - because your channel wouldn't actually push back something that isn't damaged at all from it - so it would of course be a waste on non undead.
He only slightly bent the rules, a variation of that is possible. It is a swift action to use divine metamastery, so he couldn't do that all in a round. I would also rule that channeling is too similar to a spell and couldn't be used with an extra action. (I'm guessing that he injured them via alignment channel and an augmented blade barrier is an immediate action)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Posting mainly to dot this thread -- my group just finished Chapter 2 of Book 1, so I'm reading the "Mythic Rules break this AP" threads with great interest.
My group almost intentionally non-optimizes (they specifically chose not to have a paladin in the party at all, just because the paladin in RotRL was such a demon-killing machine) and went bard-cleric-sorcerer-fighter with no exotic races (save the tengu bard) or builds. Just straight-up, "We could have played this party in AD&D in 1982" builds.
As always, I'm writing up a campaign journal, and it will be at least a year before we start hitting seriously mythic areas, but I'll post updates as I have them as to whether my group steamrolls things as badly as everyone else says.
If a group as vanilla as mine obliterates everything (and I think they will. I have faith in the posters above) I'll post updates as they do, and ideas and suggestions as to "what went wrong".
Last night it was just, "My bad guys roll too many 1's". Not exactly a problem the AP can fix. But it was a pretty hilarious final fight for the evening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Mythic Empowered Persistent Maximized Blade Barrier needs to be a band name:)
or better yet a book title!
Mythic Empowered Persistent Maximized Blade Barrier, Came I?
Ya, its a reflexive action on my part to try and nerf anything and everything mythic. It would have been nice if they had said what supernatural and SLAs counted as for extra actions.
Like I didn't allow or strongly discouraged legendary items.
For the newer people; remember and look up what takes a swift/immediate action. Then know that a player only gets one of those around and an immediate action will use up their swift action next round. And that you can't swap move/standard into swift actions. It helps some.
Well, I've been talked out of scrapping the mythic rules, but I'll start doubling HP from now on effect immediately. Since Scoriszar is up next and I already upgraded him to max HP and +8 CON, that's 800 HP the party needs to get through and it'll be Scorpions enhanced encounter, too. We'll see how it goes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running Wrath for two different groups (6 players and 7 players, might be adding one more to each in the next month) of mostly old hand players who make a mix of fairly well optimized characters. We just finished off book 3. I've been powering up encounters based on the fact that I have 50% more players (at least) in either group that show up almost every session. It's been running pretty smoothly for me, but I'll admit that some of my mods are a bit... unorthodox.
Thursday Night Mixer of Madness
Sarina - Oracle of Life, devoted to Sarenrae (and her daughter), Hierophant, focus on channel energy trickery, just rebuilt to be an Evangelist, big on the redemption aspect of her goddess; player is a math wiz and serious role player, he taught me how to game back in high school
Xylos - Paladin of Iomedae, Champion, focus on sword and board for combat (two weapon fighter, shield basher, has rolled SO MANY CRITS!, and has given Radiance Foe Biter), using a home brewed PrC similar to dragon disciple but with a celestial transformation as the end result, has been conflicted over those who are being redeemed, especially a certain halfling and a demonic heretic; played by another old hand, and rather chaotic sort himself, who is still looking for just the right moment to fall from grace, so as to play the fall and redemption story, it' been close a few times
Rygar - Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, Guardian, heavy focus on melee with his natural attacks and has pumped his strength considerably, crafts on the side, is excellent with buff spells, carries a few remains of his kid sister who was long ago killed by demons so that he can one day bring her back to life in either safety or immortality; another guy I've been playing with for years, loves to play melee characters, and has a really good handle on the mythic action economy.
Duncan - Half-Orc Cavalier, Marshal, mounted combat specialist with a dragonne mount (as I thought that sounded as cool as he did!), vital striking power attacking build with a lance, good with teamwork feats; this player is another excellent system mechanic, and knows the ins and outs of the combat maneuver system and teamwork feats, his character is also hilarious.
Gregor - Inquisitor of Iomedae, Hierophant (and son of Iomedae), other half of the team work combo, mobility focused combat, banes at the drop of a hat; haven't played with him often but we've been friends for years, but knows the system well, big on mini's games so he knows how to set a battlefield.
Digit - Gnome Rogue, Trickster, two weapon fighter and sniper, extra move actions are her friend, has not fully maxed the two-weapon fighting but is almost there; this is her first campaign, and second or third time playing pathfinder, but she's catching on pretty quick, and has joined a second game since.
Last but not least...
Fernando the Magnificent - Evoker, Archmage, specializes in the spells that make people fall down, has a wand wielding monkey familiar and a little bit of rogue in him, turns his nose up at having to have a spell book, was a street magician until he found an evoker's spell book and taught himself REAL magic, has a rod of elemental substation [sonic], loves his mythic magic missiles and the pit themed spells; when he originally told me that he wanted to play an evoker, I cautioned him that demons have all sorts of elemental resistance/immunities, to which he responded "but the spell book Fernando found was an evokers..." Wizards are probably his favorite class, and he knows their tricks well.
The entire group works really well together on a tactics level, and will have heated in-character arguments over the nature of redemption and showing mercy in combat at the drop of a hat.
Saturday Night Special... OF DOOM!
Gentleman Barbarian - Barbarian, Guardian, strength beast, hit point monster, power attack and vital striking terror, and now both are mythic, sometimes just forgets to rage; proficient player who know his build and how to get the most out of it.
Ondrea - Paladin of Iomedae (and her daughter), Hierophant, healing focus but can front line as well, takes excellent advantage of their smite's, is beyond morality but has not stepped outside of their oaths or really LG-ness yet; a very good player and one of the few people I'll let bring an evil character to my table, as he does it so well, also does Lawful Good well. Loves high power games, and is a big fan of the mythic rules. Just started running Jade Regent and is adding mythic to it.
Aoma - Conjurer, Archmage, has shifted from summoning to other bits of trickery, specializes in denial magic and battlefield control, another fan of mythic silence; not only a really experienced player, but a clever one, I need to look twice at anything he asks to bring in, because while it will be colorful, well role played, and in character, will be very, VERY potent
Masozi - Magus, Archmage, when the barbarian is away she is the top damage dealer, solid stats, is really starting to get good at spell combat, and mixing buffs and attack spells into her combat sequences; another old hand at gaming, but this is her first magus, and her first arcane caster in awhile, has also worked out how to get her spells into the sonic area.
Gyda - Ranger/Rogue, Champion, archery focus with a lot of favored enemy demons, while she doesn't really use her spells that much, she does consistent damage, the party made sure that she had an impressive bow as soon as possible (holy and demon bane at the moment I think); the player is knew to the table, but she gets along fine, and while the build early on wasn't working, she's been feating and gearing to make it work, and it's been doing a lot better recently.
Rudel - Oracle of Battle, Marshal, originally envisioned as a battle-field medic, role has shifted as levels progressed, getting a better handle on buff spells and heavy support magics, and healing as a back up to the paladin; his player is not a big fan of the casting system, but likes the spontaneous a bit more, and wanted to try a full divine caster. His work schedule changed early campaign and stuck him on a Saturday late shift, but it's just changed back to something sane, so he's going to be back in more fully, and we'll see how Rudel looks now.
I have one, out of 13 player's who are new to the game. Most of us have been playing since 2nd ed, a few since 1st, and a few jumped in at 3rd. Everyone knows how to put together a character, and most have digested mythic rules pretty quick.
Adding more hit points is just run of the mill for me at this point. Including just adding an X to the front. They die when I feel the fight has gone enough rounds/enough time in the real world to be satisfying (typically reserved for boss fights). Luckily I'm pretty good at reading my tables, and my players have been encouraging of me just adding more HP as needed (the player of one of the paladin's asked if I'd given the last boss of book 3 1000 more hp. I hadn't, only a few hundred. He wanted to know why so few. Then the fight went an hour and a half due to his trickery. They hated him, and were glad when he was dead. And felt like it was a hell of a fight too. Didn't get the black tentacles, cloudkill, vortex of teeth (uplifted 3.5 spell, it's delightful!) combo going though. Ah well.
I'm adding levels as needed, and mythic ranks/tiers to mythic creatures as needed as well. Not too many, but a few can make a difference (access to powers or feats especially).
I haven't been making all the fights I want to be tougher mythic encounters though (although one or two have had some mythic infused into them). My solution is bonus feats, fixed bonus hit points, and "banked" actions (the foes have a collection of bonus actions that they can take, thanks to what I've called demonic cysts). Adding some mobility to a non-mythic character in the way of free move actions, means they get to bounce around the board and position more effectively. Extra standard actions let's them hit harder, and balances out action economy without having to add more moving parts to the encounter. And sometime, just double the henchmen in a room. Hell, I've used some variance on the 4E minion rules in places to just send wave after wave of 1hp badies at the vital strike/power attack (mythic both) str/con beast barbarian. While the real foes are being dastardly back on caster lane.
Wave. After. Wave.
So, yes, Mythic fouls the action economy. Having 6-7 very well built mythic characters fouls it even more. Adding 500 hp and a bank account full of extra actions that are reflected by the bursting, squirming, and oozing of vile cysts (in which strange, flawed, purple crystals are found...) has certainly leveled the playing field.
And the demon lords? Well, they're going to have 6,666 hp, and what ever other crazy drek I can think to give them. I've already told my players to think Emerald and Ruby Weapon. Optional and super tough. And I'm pretty sure that both parties are going to try for them anyway. Delightful!
While my mods have been kinda hacky, I've been busy with dreaded real life and my groups are big. But you know what? They're working pretty well so far. And on those night's when I've been down to three-four players, I've run it almost strait out of the module, with nothing more then a few extra cannon fodder baddies here, and a few extra hit points there (enough for a round more in a fight typically). I just stopped trying to CR my new creatures/foes, and just give out levels as the books suggest and by encounter count. I guess we'll have to see how things go when the players start getting into the absurd levels of power that even non-mythic D&D gets into outside of 11-12th level.
All that said, I can totally see how this stuff can spin wildly out of control. I can see how I, as a player, could spin this all wildly out of control. I can see how my players are trying to spin things out of control (I hate you mythic silence, I hate you so much). My advise is to go just as nuts. It took me a lot of time behind the cardboard curtain, and running some Exalted Games (and Mythic is WAY more Exalted than Epic Levels Handbook), but my game has certainly benefited, and my players seem to be getting a kick out of it.
So, I don't think it's a failed adventure path, I just think that it's one that takes a bit of table work to make fly. I'm getting to the point where my prep work is mostly just making copies of the stat blocks not presented in the modules, and printing them out for quick reference. Now that's I've figured out the right way to rejigger encounter's, I'm doing a lot of that on the fly.
---
TL;DR
My advise, get crazy behind the cardboard curtain! 100's more hit point, extra feats, higher stats, bonus actions, weird gear that loses power on death, extra senses, grafts, 3.5 madness (throw an initiator in there and see what happens!! oh, I have to do that...), etc.
Remember to balance challenging fights that they'll remember, and encounters that they can still roll up and smoke, because they are, after all, big damn super heroes. As DM, you are the spite-filled, wrathful god of their little world, with the aim of making a memorable story for all.
Or, ya know, don't. If that isn't your thing, put it down and move on. No need to keep playing something that isn't fun. But a failure of a path? I'm not sure about that.
Its nice that the best advise for mythic has been to ignore the rules and tell the story that you wish. Which has its point, we are telling a story and rules are just guidelines. But we could have done all of that without the rule set too.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you get down to it, who needs any rules? I don't even need to play Pathfinder, or any published game to tell a cooperative story of heroic deeds and daring do. I've been told one of the best games sessions I ever ran was with a disposable table cloth to draw a map on, a few coins, and a vaguely Rift's like setting. I just rocked a game out for a small group of people. No books. No dice. No character sheets. Hell's bells, we barely flipped the coins we had.
We don't need books to do this. Human's tell stories. It's how we role.
That said, I have a giant collection of game books (and am on subscription for more) from many different systems across multiple editions. They are a frame work. They are a guide. They are ideas. They are a way to give structure to narratives and turn them into a game.
Mythic, for me, has been great. It's been a channel for a certain type of game that some of my friends really like, and other's are okay with. I'll use them again, but not every time.
If I were to run for a smaller group (the 3-5 that is really envisioned by developers for D&D/Pathfinder), I'd make fewer modifications. Like I said, when played with 3-4 players, it's almost strait out of the book.
All I'm saying is that, if the game is going nuts, and your players are power gaming to beat the band, go crazy right back at them. Hopefully they'll appreciate the stories and fun that the rules will help them create.
And I do hope that people can find a little something useful in my mad ramblings...
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like your ramblings :)
I like pretty much any poster who gives examples of how they have adapted a story or rule to suit their group's play style rather than b!@!+ing pointlessly that the publishers aren't publishing content that suits their specific group.
Seriously people, the AP isn't perfect. None of them are. This one gets complicated, but its still a lot of fun and well written. If your group is having issues with it, that's not the AP's fault. It means there is something wrong with how you are playing the game in regards to this particular story.
I know most people don't like hearing that, but take a step back and think about it. Are your players deliberately trying to steamroll things? Is your GM really up to the task of running an AP that is this complex? Are there things you could do as a group to tailor your play style to the adventure?
There's nothing wrong with deciding that this AP isn't for your group, but coming here to complain about it isn't particularly constructive. Either come up with fixes that suit your group, or tell a different story.
To claim that the AP is a failure because it doesn't work for your group is pretty ridiculous.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the question here becomes then, do we demand the quality control from Paizo to publish a system which does not go crazy anytime with even a passing knowledge of optimization takes a swing at it? Mythic fails this test utterly.
It probably would have been better to name this thread "Mythic Adventures - A failed rule system". Wrath of the Righteous itself seems to be a perfectly fine AP. The sub system they stapled to it sucks. Which, btw., seems to be a staple of any new sub system they add to their APs (caravan rules, kingdom building rules and so on). Maybe that should tell Paizo something about what not to do with their APs.
You are very correct about rules. I play in a campaign each week that we rarely use dice or stats. However, if they sell rules I do expect them to be worth something. And mythic fails at that. Mythic doesn't add much creativity either (other than the world specific books they put out, those were interesting).
And, once again, it wasn't players playing the system. Nor was it players only ruining things. I could and did redesign encounters to face them that could drop them. It just didn't feel any different than your coin flipping scenario and I want more from a rules set than that.
At this point my intelligent cloak which casts as a wizard drops enervation on the one enemy who has teleported behind us.
Quick question Duiker, is your cloak a intelligent item out of the CRB or the Legendary Item from MA? A Legendary Item does not have an action of its own, unless you have house ruled this. I ask, not to be sniping/snarky, but because I was very disappointed to see that the LI was not like the CRB intelligent item and not able to take its own action to cast.
We just entered Drezen in our campaign, my cleric killed the Soltengrabbe in 1 round, melee combat, minimally buffed. So, yea, I agree there is substantial power creep, but if you're having fun, so be it.
Good gaming!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank's Doomed, I do what little I can.
Magnuskn, I think the most balanced, and oft updated for that end, rule system I've ever seen was 4th ed D&D. And I personally think that this quest for balance cost the game it's soul. Other's might not agree of course.
As for demanding a different course of action from a company, the best way to do that is with your money. If you don't think a book is worth buying, don't. Take a look at your FLGS, go to message boards and see what early adopters are saying. Give your purchases a few weeks.
Balance? Balance is a funny thing. Like I said above, the most "balanced" game, and the one that seemed to be under constant revision via online tools was 4e D&D. Then we see some of the other end of the spectrum with Palladium. Kevin will be the first person to tell you that a balanced game is up to the person running it, and the people playing it. Balance isn't really the domain of the creative team.
I didn't really like 4e. Palladium, as much as I really do love it, can be a hot mess that is hard to manage unless everyone is on the same level, characters and GM alike.
No rule set that will be any fun to play will survive contact with the population at large. None. I appreciate, and spend money on, those systems that try and have some idea's of "balance" (abilities and options that are diverse and don't show too overt of power creep, but allow for more interesting options, with the realization that power creep happens) with the knowledge that balance is a fleeting thing.
And personally, I think using AP's as a test bed for new sub systems is clever. Controlled, and limited environment, and later expanded on them into a more stable version after the feedback from the AP. It would slow down their production schedule ssooo much to open playtest every new little thing, and wouldn't be all that cost effective I'd imagine. And even then, no rule will survive contact with the players. It's as simple as that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sprain Ogre, you are offering a false fallacy here. Not every balanced system needs to be broken down into as much homogeneity as 4E was. And perfect balance does not need to be attained, either. If some people can break the system, that's a price of complexity.
However, if the system cannot survive even slight contact with minimal optimization (i.e. minimal as in "what feats and abilities would be natural and good for my character to take" vs. maximal as in "how can I combine feats into the most powerful mix possible"), then the designers have failed.
The writers and designers assigned hitpoints values and saves to the opposition. They decided that those values would be balanced versus what mythic player characters can do. It is clear by now that those numbers are not even near the values which would have been needed to make the opposition appear even slightly competent and dangerous.
You can't blame players of martial characters for taking obvious upgrades for the feats they obviously will take in the course of a normal game, anyway. You can't blame casters for taking upgrades to their standard repertoire of spells and feats. If taking those upgrades to those standard abilities results in the incredible damage values GM's have been reporting en masse by now and result in lots of aborted campaigns, the designers have failed.
Also, AP's are the front and center of Paizo's product line. A complete AP costs me about 150+ dollars. If the AP I buy implodes because Paizo used it as another test lab for their not well (or at all in many cases) playtested new sub systems, then I feel as if I am buying a broken car. And I am not shy about being quite vocal about this, because after running into this problem in three AP's by now (Kingmaker, Jade Regent and now Wrath of the Righteous), this is getting incredibly annoying and is eroding my trust in the company faster than a Rust Monster destroys a full plate.
|
|
Personally I think calling it a failed AP is a great disservice. Like many have said before the story is amazing, mythic truly makes my players feel uber-powerful.
It's my opinion if you allow "optimizers" to ruin the AP then you failed as a DM. You have to reign stuff in at times. If you let people go all willy nilly then you're going to have problems. I started off the AP at 20 point buy, had 5 players. Inquisitor, Rogue, Druid(Pig Farmer), Ranger, and Magus.
I let my party do their focusing but then I throw things at their weaknesses. The Farmer turns boar form and vital strikes, using a mythic power to go twice. He drops 160pts of damage easy... know what else he does well? Nothing LOL. The Ranger is ridiculous when it comes to shooting demons...but when it is a non-demon he isn't nearly as effective. You can change things up easy and make things more challenging. My party was great at beating things down, but they struggled with will saves and enervation. One Nabasu messed one player up, when I had them encounter 5 of them the party needed a change of pants.
You want the AP to work perfectly you should run it as suggested. And since I have never seen anyone on these forums post a 4 player party, 15pt buy, base race and classes. You are going to have issues. But a good DM is going to be able to overcome them without taking to much away from the AP.
I would understand more where people who complain about mythic are coming from if this were a video game. But I have always viewed the APs as a sort of pre-written guide that I can weave into an adventure for my players. And if something appears to not work properly I can tweak it without my players knowing.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's my opinion if you allow "optimizers" to ruin the AP then you failed as a DM.
Dude, stop. Just stop. You and the other people who have no idea what they are talking about when accusing us of failing as GM's. >.<
We are not talking about optimizers in the usual sense of the word, where people combine obscure abilities to suddenly get results no one could have predicted before. We are talking about taking obvious feats everybody would take in their non-mythic form and which as such are the obvious upgrades for the most normal characters, like Mythic Power Attack, Mythic Improved Critical, Mythic Improved Initiative.
Stop conjuring some illusory "optimizers". We are talking about normal players taking the obvious upgrades for their characters, because to take a mythic feat, in most cases you can only upgrade feats you already possess. And about every martial will have Power Attack and Improved Critical, about most casters will have Improved Initiative and so on.
Seriously, stop it with the insulting and false "you failed as a GM" claims. These are way too powerful abilities which were put by Paizo into their new rulebook and for which they haven't accounted in their game and encounter design. It's not our fault. They failed as designers.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, I should be better at presenting my thought better than that. My bad, let me try this again.
I simply meant to show an example of a range of opinions/applications of the balance idea, drawn from my personal experience. From an overly extreme sense of balance (D&D 4e's application of the concept) compared to a less rigorous philosophy on balance (Kevin Siembieda's opinions on balance, which is actually an interesting take on them, even if I don't exactly agree. I think it was presented in Rifts GM Guide or Rifts Adventure Guide. If you want a citation, let me know, I think I can dig up the book).
However, you're taking your own experiences with the game and it's application and projecting that onto all others. My own examples of actions taken to balance my game are similar to actions I take in most of my Pathfinder games with that many players, and were developed as the end result of running a lot of games for large tables. When I run for smaller tables, I've found that I haven't needed to make such extreme actions. I present them as tools for other GM's who might be in similar situations, or have power gaming players that are running rough shed. I don't know if there is wisdom in what I've done, but it's worked for me.
I have not yet had the chance to run Mythic long term for a smaller table, but I've run several pivotal encounters with smaller groups of experienced characters, and I've had to add a few extra hit points or some more warm bodies. Which I consider to be nothing much for modifications. But, that's just me. If you want to run them flat out from the book exactly as written, well I don't know what to say. In fact, I seem to recall the Big T-Rex commenting that adventure paths are designed with groups not that long to the game in mind, and as such I consider those basic mods I've made (with smaller groups) to be well within the design parameters. The rest is my own breed of madness. ^_^
As for aborted campaigns, ahh, I've been playing for about 20 years, and have had campaigns implode in a wide variety of systems, for a staggering number of reasons all throughout my gaming history, and the history of those I play with. (I think I've been a part of 2, maybe 3 long term games that have wrapped where it was originally intended; and some day, with Sarenrae as my witness, I will get a Cybergen campaign all the way through the rEvolution!) I present this to you as a personal experience, and the shared experience of others, as way of commentary that this is not a unique issue to this adventure path, but to the hobby in general. I've lately come to the opinion that stories that are shorter in length might be a better way of managing that in my own games. My reasons for even running a path while I'm as busy as I have been are convoluted.
Also how many is en masse? Who all is reporting? What percentage of the total number of people who are playing Wrath are putting it down as their games fall apart on them due to something as simple as damage output? Or for larger, more systemic, reasons. That it's happening is not in question. That is obvious from the message boards. And it always sucks when a campaign implodes. And if it is happening in a truly high percentage of all tables running this campaign, not just those that are coming to the boards, I'll be happy to join the request that more rigorous play testing be performed.
They are pricey to go all the way through. Not going to deny that. And I think that saying what problems you've had with them IS helpful. The blanket accusations that the whole campaign is a failure is a bit much, in my opinion, however. And, like I said, I think using the AP's as a test bed is clever. But I thought that they were going to stop using the various theme sub-mechanics (base camp rules, kingdom rules, caravan rules, etc.) in the AP's? Mythic is it's own big book. It had an open play test even. That's a pretty good preview of what's going to be going on in the rule set, and that was free. So, yes, I do totally get the financial argument, and I feel you on that, this particular one could have been avoided (the mythic adventure path) with material that Paizo provided free. With material that Paizo asked people to give feedback and playtest on so as to make it better. And, again, three paths out of how many? With all of there other books, and supplements, and support. Three adventure paths that are going pear shaped is what it takes? If that's what it is, that's what it is. You need to do what you need to do, but like I said, it's working okay for me with modifications I've made for almost every D&D game I've run (more hit points, more cannon fodder). The bags of extra goodies is just to compensate for my larger groups, and because I don't want to rewrite monster blocks for what I think would make it more fun for me to run.
The Kingdom rules worked pretty well for my group with one hitch, the way it was making money hand over fist for us, but that's actually been plugged in the Ultimate Campaign Guide. Next time I have a big table rotation, I might try running that one myself. It was fun to play in.
I do really want to know how did the caravan system eroded your ability to play Jade? I'm just getting started in playing a Jade campaign, and have been looking forward to playing with that very thing for years. It looks fun, and a bit silly, but broken? Pointers I can pass along to my GM for this one, and things to be aware of?
(Dear gods, I'm long winded, and apologize for it. This people, this is the result of too many papers and word vomit based tests! ARGH!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kevin Mack: Nobody has said that they can run the AP "just fine". Everybody has said that they need to make extensive adjustments. Some GM's here obviously see that as less of a problem than others.
And there is a difference between accusing some of us of being bad GM's and me (and others) criticising the designers.
We as GM's are not doing this commercially and we are using rules provided to us by the designers of Paizo. An AP purports to be playable out of the box, with minor adjustments due to the composition of individual groups. Nobody here has said that they are unwilling to adjust their own campaigns as needed and most of us have done so for normal AP's for many years now. Calling us "bad GM's" is an insult, plain and simple and one borne out of ignorance of how we are dealing with problems in our groups.
What I and others have been doing in criticising the design of the mythic rules is critiqueing professional game design, which appears to have failed to even take into account the natural combination of the most basic abilities of their new rule system, while building an AP (a comercially sold product which should be playable out of the box) which is full of encounters which cannot stand up even to those basic abilities.
Again, we are players and GM's, we should expect to get a product which at least works in its most basic mode. We are not the people selling this game. That are the designers and they appear to have delivered a deeply flawed product.
|
|
Okay, Mags, I for one absolutely don't think anyone who needs to walk away from this path failed as a DM. I hope I never came across as such. I'm happy to engage in argument with you over it because, well, internet and different point of view and all.
I also don't think the designers failed. There are certainly some spots that I don't agree with, and might see some houseruling in future games, but that, for me, is not a systematic design fail, just something that didn't go off like was expected. Systemic design fail is what I'd call 4e (to kick a that dog while it's down...) and at times Rifts (as much I love it, sigh, it hurts me so...)
Oh, and please, call me Ogre.
@Sprain Ogre: If the majority of people who have participated on the Wrath of the Righteous message board (and in a constructive way, Seannoss and Aldarionn for example are people giving advice and discussing mechanics and encounters) are giving negative feedback and that negative feedback is about 95% related to the mythic rules, then I take away that there is a problem. Sure, you can always say "Oh, but there are unseen masses whom don't complain", but as long as somebody doesn't manage to make an official poll, I take the reports from the appropiate message board as the best indicator of how this AP (and the mythic rules) are being received.
The "you don't know what the silent majority thinks" argument cuts both ways, btw.
As for sub systems, if I play three adventure paths with them in it and they all end up as being badly designed and detrimental to the entire experience, I want them expunged from further AP's, until Paizo gets to a point where they can playtest them better.
In regards to the mythic playtest, in another thread a playtester said that they did bring the concerns over inflated damage numbers forward to the designers and the designers chose to not follow up on that.
And as towards Jade Regent, the caravan combat rules don't work. At all. They weren't playtested and should be avoided at all rules, otherwise the caravan will simply explode in their first or second encounter in The Hungry Storm. The relationship rules are (this is a more subjective complaint, though) rife with number crunching abuse potential and also really the worst mechanic Paizo could have tried to steal from BioWare. Give presents, max diplomacy, get adoration. Yaaay.
Except that you are playing with a group of 5 (or 6?) PCs and 20-point buy, magnuskn, aren't you?
@Ogre: Well, I disagree about the design failure of Mythic Adventures. Making a simple calculation how Mythic Power Attack + Mythic Improved Critical with a decent weapon will turn out, especially on a critical hit and then comparing that to the HP values of the monsters you put into the AP really doesn't require great skills, it's just simple mathematics.
I am not really sure why the designers thought that even their mythic opponents getting regularly one-shotted by a lucky roll should be regarded as good game design. That seems to be to me a very basic design failure. And we aren't even getting into the advanced stuff, like the combination of abilities Duiker pointed out (which is only one example of many possibilities).
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Gn8, y'all.
I am amazed that people could run this AP as printed and feel its a challenge. That could be the purpose of mythic rules, to create sets of powers so nothing can stand against the players. Maybe they don't mind PCs obliterating the enemies in one round. My PCs actually felt guilty over the ease of the opposition presented and would volunteer to remove their abilities.
Most people, nearly everyone, are radically changing the power level of this AP to cope with the mythic rules. That does imply more fault with the designers. Look at scorpion's design block and all of the positive responses to it and compare that to what's written. There is an obvious big difference.
Except that you are playing with a group of 5 (or 6?) PCs and 20-point buy, magnuskn, aren't you?
And that has what to do with the problem of mythic basic feat combinations producing insane damage values, to which the given HP of monsters can't measure up? That's not a problem of too many characters or a slightly higher point buy, that is a problem of the basic design of damage output and HP values not adding up.
|
Christ. Even if magnus is playing with that large of a group, it's still valid.
I run for a group of 4 with a 25 point buy. At level 13/tier 5 they've trounced a CR 23 titan. At tier 6, they handled a Glabrezu Oracle 14/Heirophant 7 (which works out to roughly CR 22/23) when they were already half burned out of spells and mythic power.
None of my players are overly optimized.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I think many people are failing as DMs, just like many think the AP is a fail. Its my opinion, just as much as it is yours.
There are many different types of players and there are many different types of dms. That alone tells you no AP will ever be perfect.
You can either rise to the challenge and present a great adventure for your players that they will remember or you can fold up, quit, and pout about it on the forums.
Personally I think we all understand by now that some folks don't like the mechanics, and I'm sure Paizo is more then aware of their unhappiness and the problems present. That being said, lets all focus on finding ways to make the adventures more enjoyable, instead of boo hooing on the forums about it.
I am having fun running the game, my party is having fun playing in it. That alone means the AP didn't fail. And I know we cant possibly be the only ones who are having fun. You should never let the mechanics of the system ruin the fun of the game. This is a game based on imagination...use some.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And going by the obituaries if you have to throw your 10th level PCs against a marilith to challenge them then you're helping to prove our point.
Since we've already given Paizo our money, these boards are for us expressing our displeasure at this product. How else would they know?
And I will offer advice to help others go through this, and not just complain. Each to their own, and if people are having fun that is important.
As for sub systems, if I play three adventure paths with them in it and they all end up as being badly designed and detrimental to the entire experience, I want them expunged from further AP's, until Paizo gets to a point where they can playtest them better.
Yeah, IME the less I use the subsystems, the better. Frankly the less I use any rules from Paizo when running an AP, the better - my AD&D/OSRIC version of Rise of the Runelords (0% Paizo rules) seems to run much smoother than my Pathfinderised Curse of the Crimson Throne (mostly Paizo rules).
I don't think this (broken rules) makes Wrath of the Righteous itself a failure; by all accounts it's a solid AP if you leave aside the rules elements. As a demon prince killing epic it sounds as if it might work well in 4e D&D (if you don't mind 4-hour battles) or 1e AD&D as in Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Christ. Even if magnus is playing with that large of a group, it's still valid.
I run for a group of 4 with a 25 point buy. At level 13/tier 5 they've trounced a CR 23 titan. At tier 6, they handled a Glabrezu Oracle 14/Heirophant 7 (which works out to roughly CR 22/23) when they were already half burned out of spells and mythic power.
None of my players are overly optimized.
This sadly has been my experience as well. The balance of power is just completely off.
At level 12/tier 2 (so in theory, approximately APL 13), my Mythic Kingmaker party took on a level-15 Fetchling Cleric with superior stats and gear (so roughly CR 16) and her Dread Skeleton Old Silver Dragon (a CR 18 foe), and three Shae Rogues (approx. CR 14 each, so a CR 17 challenge with the three of them). The dragon alone should have been just beyond an Epic (+4 APL) challenge, and been nigh-undefeatable, and that's without the cleric. Knock off one or two CR points for being a lone target, if you want, and heck for argument's sake let's knock 2 CR off the Shae for being Rogues. That's still a CR 16 Cleric, a CR 16 or 17 dragon skeleton, and a trio of annoying enemy minions who as a group make a CR 15 challenge.
The Shae the party pretty much ignored, and when they finally did choose to deal with them, they one-rounded each of them. They barely could hit a thing.
The Cleric was, predictably, the toughest challenge, throwing out blasphemy in the first round and casting spells from the safety of dragonback throughout the entire fight. She had to be hit by a critical ranged attack before she was put down.
The dragon the party trounced once she was gone. They ignored or overpowered most of its spells and its AC was negligible - everyone who was rolling to hit it at all could do so on a 2, and they powered through its DR.
Fast forward two levels and we get to the next chapter-end boss - a Cyclops Lich Wizard (Necromancer) 15/Archmage 4, roughly CR20, with a second CR20 minion. So roughly a CR 22 fight. The party is level 14/tier 2. This is an APL +6 fight, bare minimum, using the "tier = 1/2 level" CR calculations.
The PCs take a loss in the first round, one player failing two major saves well beyond Mythic Surge saving range and dying, but the rest of the party takes minimal losses the entirety of the fight. They drive the Lich to retreat, he casts up a Mythic summon and sends it back at the party, they one-round it. The lich himself is dead two rounds later.
We've been having a blast, and I think I'm only still enjoying it because I went in with the mindset that "I'm going to tailor the fights to be as powerful as the PCs, adjusting and reworking things on the fly as needed, rather than relying on the system as-written." But I can definitely see why some people have had issues with taking things the way they're presented, and it's definitely far more of a power boost than the mere +1/2 tier that's been thus far recommended.
Here is my concern. Mythic Adventures went through playtesting. While some changes were made (such as fixed Mythic Points rather than having it dependent on one specific stat), there were some significant flaws left in the rules, and some broken areas that were overlooked.
We now have a new Ruleset coming out for 10 new classes come August. The playtest was... entirely too short. We saw a significant rewrite of one class, true, and some partial rewrites of some others... but there were problems reported going into this.
How broken will the Advanced Class Guide be? Will I be banning specific classes because I don't want to let classes that are overpowered into the AP? (Alternatively, will I be having specific classes advancing with the Slow Advancement rules while the rest advance under Medium Advancement (and perhaps let Rogues go to the Fast Advancement) so to "balance" overpowered classes like they did in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D?)
Paizo may very well need to extend the time for playtesting new rules. If we had the Mythic Rules for an extra two months, we might have seen more of how broken the rules are... and they could have been fixed better. Likewise, we could have better balanced the 10 classes in the upcoming rulebook if we'd had more time to playtest the classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magnuskin, you seem like a nice dude, but I find the exploits of your group of 6 experienced players, who are playing heavily optimized characters with 25 pt builds, to be almost useless when gauging the balance of mythic rules. I have experienced players who are at least as familiar with the rules as I am, and have had little difficulty adjusting things to provide a challenge.
@Sprain Ogre: If the majority of people who have participated on the Wrath of the Righteous message board (and in a constructive way, Seannoss and Aldarionn for example are people giving advice and discussing mechanics and encounters) are giving negative feedback and that negative feedback is about 95% related to the mythic rules, then I take away that there is a problem. Sure, you can always say "Oh, but there are unseen masses whom don't complain", but as long as somebody doesn't manage to make an official poll, I take the reports from the appropiate message board as the best indicator of how this AP (and the mythic rules) are being received.
I love that this is basically his means of justifying to himself and others the fact that numerous people have offered their own take on the problems or lack-there-of in the AP - and that many of those people have not agreed with him.
You heard it here first: If you don't agree, you are not participating constructively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't see how two extra players or 10 extra points for a build matter when he doubled the hit points on one monster only to have a Paladin one-shot kill said Mythic Monster that was supposed to be a Mythic Trial.
You don't one-shot Mythic Trials. If you one-shot it, then it was not a trial.
Magnuskin, you seem like a nice dude, but I find the exploits of your group of 6 experienced players, who are playing heavily optimized characters with 25 pt builds, to be almost useless when gauging the balance of mythic rules. I have experienced players who are at least as familiar with the rules as I am, and have had little difficulty adjusting things to provide a challenge.
magnuskn's points would seem more valid if he was playing with a 15 point-buy, 4 character party, this is true.
But keep in mind that he is also operating using encounters that have been modified to be much more difficult, and if I'm not mistaken, he has also nerfed some of the power gains his PCs get from the Mythic rules. Yet his party is still destroying encounters.
The problem with WoTR seems to be two-fold. Not only do the Mythic rules give PCs much more power than it seems was intended, but the AP itself also does not appear to be very difficult. There's a thread somewhere around this forum where a person ran a non-mythic level 17-19 party through Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth and easily beat it, even killing Baphomet, a CR 27 creature with a modified, smarter strategy without a single casualty. What's interesting is that book 5 suggests that non-mythic characters should be level 20 before heading into the labyrinth too. So not only did this person defeat the optional, supposedly impossible encounter that was using an unofficial, smarter strategy, but it also was done at a lower level than the book intended.
So really, WoTR does not appear to be mechanically difficult at all. Which is a shame since the story is great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just thought I would post an update here. I've been DMing Wrath of the Rigteous for some time now and we made it through book 3 and partway into book 4. The campaign started out great, with cool challenges, fun NPC's and a relatively well balanced set of encounters.
I got tired of it, and last night I made the decision to fold the campaign and chock it up to a failed AP. I verbally told them how the AP concluded and next week we will begin Mummy's Mask with a different DM.
I think a point needs to be made - the AP is absolutely not a failure, its the Mythic rules that are a failure and they've drug down the AP for most everyone I've heard from due to their being incorporated as an integral part of both the mechanics and the story.
It was kind of obvious (to us at least) that the Mythic rules were unnecessary bloat that would not end well, even from the beginning, so we chose to go without them, using some very simple home-brew rules instead which I've detailed on other threads. We just finished book 5 and thus far its worked out splendidly, only further enforcing my belief that the company line that this was a story that 'could only be told using Mythic rules' was bs. Its a great story and a great AP with a wonderful cast of characters and plenty of climactic moments both in and out of combat... just junk the Mythic ruleset rather than let it bring everything down.
(almost) Everybody liked Mythic when it came out, but that's pretty much only because it was shiny and new and it made them more powerful... but more, bigger, higher, greater, etc. isn't always better, and nowhere is that more on display than in the Wrath of the Righteous.
I'm going to start doing some game journals because I'd hate to dissuade anyone from enjoying this AP and people need to see how playable it is without Mythic - if nothing else, players deserve the chance to actually get and USE their capstone abilities for once.