Epic and / or Mythic in PF2e

[Starsunder]

So I know it's more important to make sure we have a stable and playable 1-20 levels in the base PF2e, but I sure hope that some thought is being dedicated future-proofing the system, and that (those of us that want it; we do exist!) we get some kind of epic or mythic equivalent. I know it's not for everyone, but man I enjoy it.

[Bardess]

I would have BOTH.

[Benjamin Medrano]

I'd like to see this as well.

[NetoD20]

Bardess wrote:

I would have BOTH.

YES. I didn't like the mythic system very much, mainly because it pales if compared to the Epic Levels system with Epic Spells and Automatic Quickened Spells. Mythic spells were totally boring if compared to Epic Spells. But I never said anything because the fun part is I can use both together with some adaptation. It works not only because the mechanics are distinct, but also because the fluff of them is distinct. Having mythic tiers at any level is like being Heracles or Achiles, while being level 21+ is having gone through all the mud of an adventuring life and unlikeling coming alive on the other side after years of experience. And people could be both. I don't like the mechanic of everybody having the same pool of mythic points that they spend in mythic abilities, just like Starfinder's Resolve. But in the end I think it works with the fluff of the mythic source and all, as long as I could use Epic levels alongside it, it's ok.

Creating both systems would be more work to the devs, but I'd buy both hardcovers, and I totally want them.

However, it's a bit early for that discussion.

[GreyWolfLord]

Well, the good thing with mythic was that it was very adaptable. If you wanted to do epic, you could include mythic and only allow it to start up once characters get past level 20.

If you wanted it differently, you could have it start with them at level 1 instead.

I liked the adaptability of Mythic, but it had some problems that you needed a good GM to houserule at times once you had more than one or two levels of it.

This isn't so much a problem if you use it like an epic ruleset, but had serious problems if you started giving mythic levels at level 1.

[The NPC]

I would very much like mythic to return in PF2.

[wraithstrike]

Starsunder wrote:

So I know it's more important to make sure we have a stable and playable 1-20 levels in the base PF2e, but I sure hope that some thought is being dedicated future-proofing the system, and that (those of us that want it; we do exist!) we get some kind of epic or mythic equivalent. I know it's not for everyone, but man I enjoy it.

They can't really make sure mythic or epic will be stable without making sure the core game is stable. Since that is a main goal of the playtest we will likely get it if things pan out, but I don't think mythic or epic is an immediate concern even if it is an important concern since they know we'll ask for it.

I want it to, but I also want it to be workable and that means 1 to 20 have to be workable.

[Charlie Brooks]

All I know is that my perfect world features a good, solid revision of the mythic rules and a hardcover compilation of Wrath of the Righteous about 3-4 years down the road.

[Voss]

Can't help but think of it as a later, optional problem beyond the scope of the basics playtest.

[Igwilly]

I don't think this is a concern now. They must establish the core game in solid grounds first, then work at that.
If you ask me, they should learn from both versions. However, I would vote for Mythic, but I have one suggestion:
No limits for both mythic ranks (monsters) and mythic tiers (PCs). In that way, characters would end level progression at level 20, monsters at level 30, but the mythic rules could extend the power increase indefinitely.
Also, it would be useful to give defensive abilities for both sides, in order to avoid the "Rocket Tag" problem. No matter the system used, I think this problem needs to be addressed completely. It seems to be a plague among high-level D&D adventures...

[kyrt-ryder]

I vote no personally.

There's absolutely nothing you can do in Mythic that doesn't fit just fine into the current narrative of 1-20.

Now if PF2 scales back the end-game power and scope of spells and wants to put that into Mythic alongside comparable martial power, that's totally cool [although still not something I would favor. 20 levels is more than enough gameplay in my book]..... but with 10 levels of true spells [beyond cantrips] coming down the pike I don't see that happening.

[MR. H]

Epic levels and deity tiers

[CorvusMask]

I definitely want CR 26-30 monsters to come back(Starfinder's Alien Archive had only CR 1-25), but Mythic Ranks for monsters would be cool too since they were cool way to buff monsters easily.

[Phantasmist]

Epic only, no mythic.

[QuidEst]

I imagine they’ll be... cautious on rolling out Mythic or similar, given the response last time.

[Anguish]

Gee, and I was saving this topic for the day I saw something in a PF2 preview that really irked me, to strike back.

I would like to see the base rules designed with a slight thought for "turn it up to 11" future products. But mythic rules shouldn't come out for a few years. We need to get used to the base math... the base limitations... the base power-level. At that point, inclusion of over-the-top rules that break the assumptions, that allow truly exceptional PCs could happen.

Of course, I don't think it'll happen because of the vocal minority that not only didn't like the rules, but saw to it that the topic became a bitter, poop-smoothie by making sure their voices were really, really loud. You know... because it's not okay for some products to be for other people.

[Anguish]

Phantasmist wrote:

Epic only, no mythic.

Oh, yeah, and...

No epic until and unless mythic happens. If you want to keep going past 20, multiclassing works very well for almost every class. It's time to round out what you can do, not time to just have 11th-level spells and Ultrarage!

Although, now that I think about it, Ultrarage would make a great mythic ability.

[MMCJawa]

It's not needed right away, but I would like to see something equivalent to mythic. I think a stronger system would be a lot more likely having already gone through mythic.

[Arachnofiend]

I'd rather the game be designed with the ability to do mythical things as a baseline assumption rather than lock it behind a side system.

[Elorebaen]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I'd rather the game be designed with the ability to do mythical things as a baseline assumption rather than lock it behind a side system.

The way you are using "mythic" would have to solidified a bit more, but in light of a pre-conversation about that, I have always thought PF characters could do pretty amazing things, and by about 5th level could be considered to be doing "mythic" things.

The Mythic ruleset, for me, was always about something new, and different. It was versatile, not simply "high level." So, if you wanted that new and different early on in a PCs career, you could do so with Mythic.

For all of its warts, I think the mythic ruleset was a major innovation, and hope to see it at some point in the future for 2.0

[Charabdos, The Tidal King]

I like both because they do different things but I think PF should stick to only one. My vote is Mythic only as a result because they already have that in the lore.

Not saying they shouldn't have leveling past 20, but I feel like it shouldn't have its own rules and instead just keep normal leveling progression.

[Dark Midian]

QuidEst wrote:

I imagine they’ll be... cautious on rolling out Mythic or similar, given the response last time.

No public playtesting on a brand new power system PLUS doubling down with an entire AP based on said untested power system. The response they got was entirely their own fault.

[kyrt-ryder]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I'd rather the game be designed with the ability to do mythical things as a baseline assumption rather than lock it behind a side system.

Very much this.

Want a Mythic campaign? Run your game at higher levels.

[Thedmstrikes]

I do not agree it is "too early" for this type of thread as it can give the developers insights into the additional content past the basic content with which to keep an eye on for development. Likewise, if it turns out to be a truly unpopular concept, they can switch focus away from an idea. That said...

I happen to agree with a poster that Mythic was innovative. I also happen to like the system (even with its many flaws, which can be improved upon for the next edition). The way it is templated and could co-exist with current advancement makes it supremely modular. As the DM, I can now mix accumulated advancement with story advancement.
In a new edition, this can be parsed out each year with a role-up publication showing what could and is augmented with mythic each year so that it keeps pace with current offerings without chewing up space in the publications geared toward the base game.

Epic on the other hand, I am not as fond of. In my opinion, regular level advancement past level 20 would be a better solution. As I have yet to have a group last long enough to reach such levels, my opinion in this matter is somewhat skewed as if from that of an armchair quarterback (I had to move around a lot for work). What I would like to see is a logical way to integrate kingdom building as an option that does not detract from a character's standard level advancement (similar to the mythic templates). Maybe integrate it as a logical progression of the Leadership feat, but one which does not continue to tax a character further from their party role. I am kind of spit-balling on this as it is still a half baked idea in my mind.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject and I truly hope 2E is a reboot as opposed to a reinvention.

[TolkienBard]

The most important thing that the devs need to focus on is creating a solid, stable set of core rules. If these rules are balanced and stable and pay attention to flexibility with unexpected interactions, it shouldn't really be a problem to add mythic/epic/post-20 content.

The foundation is the most important thing. If the power creep is out of control in levels 15-20, then anything beyond 20 is going to be exponentially more broken. If, however, the scaling works, the interactions of abilities remains somewhat balanced, and the end-game content remains on the established power curve for each class, then adding new post-20 content is not difficult.

I DO THINK it is a mistake for the devs to not consider the community desire for post-20 content when creating this new set of core rules. If all the rules are designed to top out at level 20 (or at any specific level really), then power curves and ability interactions are going to be be adjusted with that in mind, making any future additional abilities and powers problematic.

Many people I know claim that 20 levels is plenty of time to develop a character and to become immensely powerful. The thing is, that puts an almost definitive end on the adventuring careers of some PCs. OPen-ended campaigns that exist in a thriving setting could find themselves filled with level 20 PCs after a considerable time playing. Heck, I personally have had four different PC that lasted in excess of five years in ongoing campaigns. Even the slow leveller eventually hit the point where post-20 content became essential.

I'd much rather there be at least the skeleton of a system in place, built on a solid foundation that addresses these PCs rather than getting to the point where it's simple, "Whelp, you've become so powerful that it's time to retire your awesome PC that we all love and start a new one."

[Rysky]

Dark Midian wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

I imagine they’ll be... cautious on rolling out Mythic or similar, given the response last time.

No public playtesting on a brand new power system PLUS doubling down with an entire AP based on said untested power system. The response they got was entirely their own fault.

Mythic did have a playtest.

[kyrt-ryder]

TolkienBard wrote:

I DO THINK it is a mistake for the devs to not consider the community desire for post-20 content

Or you know...

... Give us more 17-20 content.

[Morgen]

Well considering how few groups actually adventure in the 15+ level ranges it's got about the right amount of support. >.>

[kyrt-ryder]

So few groups adventure in that range...

...and people are clamoring for post-20 content?

[Gorbacz]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

So few groups adventure in that range...

...and people are clamoring for post-20 content?

The good old "what people wish for is not what they want" problem, exemplified.

[glass]

QuidEst wrote:

I imagine they’ll be... cautious on rolling out Mythic or similar, given the response last time.

I think the response was mostly due to the implementation, rather than the idea. That said, while while I quite liked the idea at the time, how much mechanical design space is left for such a things will depend on the implementation of the core rules (and I don't want them deliberately leaving space for it - that will just lead to martials not having nice things).

So on balance, I would be more interested in Epic rules.

Although I have been reading the ELH Let's Read over at RPGnet and Tales of Wyre recently, so I may be a little biased.

Links if anyone is interested:

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?821924-Let-s-Read-The-Epic-Level-Handb ook

www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?58227-Tales-of-Wyre

_
glass.

[edduardco]

I'll like to see Epic levels and Divine ranks, but considering Paizo history I highly doubt that is going to ever happen, and I've always suspected that Mythic was they attempt to combine both.

[CorvusMask]

Yeah, no epic of divine ranks please. Epic seems kind of boring "Oh, okay, you just become gestalt class with really really slow exp amount" and divine seems to be "lol you did million damage". Mythic had great idea since it was something that could be used since start of campaign, it needed to be more balanced(though to be honest, judging from my group's playtest, only champion and archmage are really broken and even then its mostly because of certain mythic feats and mythic spells)

[Ched Greyfell]

I have loved epic level play for years. I agree with some of the folks here that Mythic was cool if you waited until 20 to allow it. It made it the PF version of Epic. I certainly hope they put some thought into an epic or mythic system (once the core rules are nice and set, of course).

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

CorvusMask wrote:

Yeah, no epic of divine ranks please. Epic seems kind of boring "Oh, okay, you just become gestalt class with really really slow exp amount" and divine seems to be "lol you did million damage".

Divine ranks need a good mechanistic basis for stuff that Pathfinder as is intentionally leaves unspecified (deliberately not statting gods and so on) but it can be done; I'm rather partial to the Immortals Handbook from Eternity Publishing as an example of how to do this for 3.x, it's about 70% of a really excellent game IMO. (Plus it has neutronium golems.)

Quote:

Mythic had great idea since it was something that could be used since start of campaign,

And that's exactly what makes it not work as a substitute for epic, to my mind. I don't want a parallel track that plugs in anywhere along the regular advancement mechanic, I want clearly defined next steps beyond the current capstone.

[David knott 242]

The whole unified proficiency system looks like it has the advantage of making the Epic Level Handbook patch to BAB and base saves beyond 20th level unnecessary. It may turn out that levels beyond 20th can be extrapolated easily from the new core rulebook material.