| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't make any assumptions regarding if something like mythic in the new ruleset will exist, based on what we have now.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Corvus, howzabout playtesting the game 'stead of trying to divine the contents of its 5th bestiary or throwing yourself into a well of dread and insecurity over whether unicorns will be Medium or Large? ;-)
Feedback of how the rules read and feedback from people who are invested in 1st edition and are curious about how changes we make might impact 2nd edition is as important as is feedback from playtesting.
The internet is big enough for all of that feedback, and it's all MUCH more valuable than spending time trying to tell other people how to post. Please keep this in mind.
To answer the OP's question... the role played by "Mythic" content in 1st edition is not decided in 2nd, but we HAVE deliberately put in a few mythic creatures in the Playtest who were, in 1st edition, mythic. They are not mythic in 2nd edition; they're just more powerful.
Is that good? Or does having a category of "mythic" attached to some monsters give us more to work with?
This is the point to let us know what you think. We can't really answer questions like "Will mythic come back?" at this point because, in part, we want to know what everyone would prefer first. That's part of the playtest process, which covers more than just "do the numbers work."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that good? Or does having a category of "mythic" attached to some monsters give us more to work with?This is the point to let us know what you think. We can't really answer questions like "Will mythic come back?" at this point because, in part, we want to know what everyone would prefer first. That's part of the playtest process, which covers more than just "do the numbers work."
I was always a huge fan of epic in 3.0, then mythic in PF1.
I think the idea of, "Yea, you got to 20th and are fighting Karzoug or a huge dragon" is great. But... there's a whole multiverse out there.I want the option to keep going. Fight demigods. Explore the planes beyond.
Mythic is definitely something I'd want.
|
Hey Corvus, howzabout playtesting the game 'stead of trying to divine the contents of its 5th bestiary or throwing yourself into a well of dread and insecurity over whether unicorns will be Medium or Large? ;-)
Well I better get my silly questions out of the way :D I mean, its not like I can playtest before players are also ready for playtest.(I already read through doomsday dawn and bestiary and core rulebook, but I haven't internalized all of them)
Also, are you saying I shouldn't make thread based on how I want nascent demon lords and such in 2e first bestiary? :D That is a feedback of sorts!
But yeah, glad to hear from James Jacobs that these threads I made haven't been bother ^^; I was actually bit worried if I went over board with them
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Corvus, howzabout playtesting the game 'stead of trying to divine the contents of its 5th bestiary or throwing yourself into a well of dread and insecurity over whether unicorns will be Medium or Large? ;-)To answer the OP's question... the role played by "Mythic" content in 1st edition is not decided in 2nd, but we HAVE deliberately put in a few mythic creatures in the Playtest who were, in 1st edition, mythic. They are not mythic in 2nd edition; they're just more powerful.
Is that good? Or does having a category of "mythic" attached to some monsters give us more to work with?
This is the point to let us know what you think. We can't really answer questions like "Will mythic come back?" at this point because, in part, we want to know what everyone would prefer first. That's part of the playtest process, which covers more than just "do the numbers work."
To me, Mythic subtype was marker that creature wasn't just powerful, it was also special somehow. While it was confusing how CR 21-25 quasi gods and 26-30 demigods were mythic without being mythic(at least in their own realm), I did like how mythic subtype creatures felt like they almost belonged to same category as them, in sense that if you are in presence of mythic creature it is special moment somehow.
That said, I do realize that mechanical part of mythic subtype doesn't really require the flavor nor do you need mythic to easy upgrade monsters into stronger ones. Duel initiative and other mythic monster abilities were fun, but nothing about them says in 2e they couldn't just be regular powerful monster abilities. Flavor of mythic subtype itself was the weakest part since "this creature is infused with mythic power and is capable of awe inspiring feats" is rather ambiguous especially since mythic tier abilities were often more over the top than mythic rank monster abilities and cool monsters tend to be already awe inspiring.
Sooo yeah, my favourite part of mythic subtype was honestly the mechanics which I guess can come back even without the subtype itself, but I wouldn't mind if mythic subtype itself came back with different name or flavor because I really did like the "This creature is somehow ridiculously badass" implication. Maybe it would help if it was clearer what mythic power is, like how exactly is mythic troll special compared to normal troll? Was it blessed by a god or what.
(note that I do hope mythic makes some sort of comeback for PCs since I like Idea of PCs having potential to face demigods, but I'd rather not have previous cr 26-30 demigods to become level 21-25 creatures. Plus what would happen to nascent demon lords and such if that happened?)
But yeah, sorry for rambling there, Too Long To Read version: I did actually like the mythic subtype and felt it made monsters special, but I admit it was in 1e rather arbitrary since it was just mechanics saying "This creature is somehow more special because it was MR after CR", but so I guess I don't mind too much if it doesn't come back as long mechanical parts of it stay. I would still love to see new take on flavor part of it though
No, „mythic subtype“ will not come back, because this game does not have creature subtypes, or even creature types.
I like fighting demigods, and becoming demigods, but what is the point of bolting on a subsystem solely for that purpose? It’s more elegant to have that function happen within the bounds of the game as-is. I enjoyed Mythic, but more for the narrative space, not for the mechanical.
Mythic did get mentioned as an aside at UK games expo, whwn Jason Buhlmam off said words to the effect of "maybe for mythic" when asked about getting more actions per round. It was very much a "who knkws thats in the future and we're still working out the base game" kinda thing. But it does appear the concept of mythic is possible, if not assured.
I hope we'll get mythic. I really liked it, despite the flaws
Not biting on that one. There's been zero support for Mythic from Paizo. I don't see them sullying their pretty shiny new and simpler game with mythic options.
|
|
Just to note since I don't think I said it before, if 2e has its own version of mythic rules, I'd kinda prefer it doesn't apply to npcs/monsters if they are going to adapt mythic monsters as non mythic monsters. Because it'd be really messy to have mythic rules for monsters while having non mythic mythic monsters
Not biting on that one. There's been zero support for Mythic from Paizo. I don't see them sullying their pretty shiny new and simpler game with mythic options.
A new system though gives them a chance to redo the underlying mechanics and make it work correctly. The ability to fix shortcomings in the existing playset is one of strongest arguments for a new edition at all.