Foe biting doubles everything. If you're dealing 1k+ damage a round without foe biting, for one mythic power point, you're now dealing 2k+ damage a round, at least.
I've had a busier weekend than I expected. I'll get some work done on Razan's mechanics, but I doubt I'll be finished soon.
Seb, as I suggested earlier, I strongly recommend banning foe-biting. It's way too powerful, especially when every PC gets a legendary item. Most martial PCs will make their weapon their legendary item, and there's literally no reason not to take foe-biting. It's just far too good to pass up.
Just in case people were wondering, the person who wrote the mythic solutions that include banning foe-biting was Jason Nelson of Legendary Games. Among his credentials to speak on such matters mythic include being one of the main writers for Mythic Adventures from Paizo as well as a literal slew of mythic books from LG.
One of the main reasons he took the time to explore these fixes is because one of the biggest complaints about the Wrath of the Righteous AP was that mythic PCs were generally able to destroy most challenges thrown their way.
I'm fine with banning foe-biting due to the issues which Monkeygod raises.
I enjoyed making ideas for this game but I think I'll bow out of recruitment. Managing the very high power level and complexity will be a bit more book-keeping than fun for me personally, I think. Have fun, all!
That's understandable. Take care!
I'm struggling to find the post -- I'm still working on some notes on familiars and other companions. I agree the familiar archetype should take the place of a stacking class archetype. The other details I'm still considering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Foe biting doubles everything. If you're dealing 1k+ damage a round without foe biting, for one mythic power point, you're now dealing 2k+ damage a round, at least.
Just a reminder folks that I haven't made a ruling on this issue yet. Thank you for the link, monkey, I will have a look at those suggestions and make a decision about them, including foe-biting.
Ah, no. Not at all.
I'm not sure how you keep missing this. Foe-biting doubles everything.
Let's say you have Improved Vital Strike, 6d6 sneak attack, Flaming and Shock on a +3 longsword, and +43 base damage(+20 strength, +10 dex, +10 int via mythic weapon finesse).
If you then add in foe biting, that becomes 6d8 weapon damage(3d8 for IMV, then doubled), 12d6 sneak attack, 2d6 fire, 2d6 electricity, and +86 base damage.
If you then score a crit, that's 9d8 weapon damage, 18d6 sneak attack, 3d6 fire, 3d6 electricity, and +129 base damage.
This gets even more ridiculous if you add in Mythic Vital Strike, and higher than x2 weapon.
This isn't including any other more complicated bonuses to damage, buffs from self/allies, and anything else I might be missing.
That doesn't even go into the fact that Foe-Biting specifically states it works on "normal" attacks, which a Vital Strike is not, so it could be argued that it wouldn't work there.
Not that I particularly care either way, but I think I should point out that if you are to apply that logic to Foe-Biter, you wouldn't be able to use anything that modified a "basic" attack on it, including sneak attack, power attack, vital strike, two-weapon fighting, etc. I don't think that's the intent based on reading the ability and I kinda doubt that is the interpretation of the ability you'd want to argue for, but I could be wrong.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight either way, but I think it is important to note that "normal attack" really isn't defined anywhere in the rules, which is why I tend to go with RAW of RAI, because I've always felt that it's presumptuous that I would know what someone else's implied intent would be.
I would also point out, however, that mythic spells trump what foebiter can do quiet easily.
In general, I tend adopt the most permissive interpretation between RAI vs RAW depending on the context (in other words, if you can justify it through either method, I'll probably allow it).
I'm giving more than double health points to all the characters -- that's another issue with this -- you can just increase the durability of the characters and foes.
In any event, I'll look through things and try to give a ruling on this and a few other issues tomorrow.
Vrog, note that your item's number of Legendary abilities are equal to your tier -- you don't get all 10 at once. ;)
That doesn't even go into the fact that Foe-Biting specifically states it works on "normal" attacks, which a Vital Strike is not, so it could be argued that it wouldn't work there.
A normal attack in this instance means a non critical hit. This is confirmed to be the definition by the next sentence, where it says that if the attack is a critical hit, you must spend two mythic power points. That's because you're multiplying all the damage first by the critical hit(x2 usually), and then doubling that via foe biting.
Note, foe biting is not limited to an attack action(like vital strike), a standard action or a full round action. It is possible that you need to spend a mythic power point per successful hit, but I'm not positive.
How about this? I'll message Jason Nelson on Facebook, and see if he can tell me exactly how foe biting is supposed to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do, you just can't access them all at once.
If the legendary item has more legendary abilities than the bonded creature has tiers, the creature can select which abilities it gains access to when it first wields, wears, or possesses the item, but must select all of the persistent abilities first, after which it can select nonpersistent abilities.
OK -- I've taken a look at the page Monkeygod recommended on Mythic Solutions. Here are my thoughts and ruling:
*Many of the concerns in regard to the action economy and resource management are based on the idea that the party is fighting one main villain, or a group of villains smaller than the party. I've already concluded that doesn't work well for these sorts of games, and wasn't planning on that sort of set up for combats. I'm assuming any combat will start with a group of opponents of about the same number as the party. If I do work with a single opponent, it would be a creature like a hydra with enough attacks that their one turn is equivalent to the rest of the party combined.
*Some of these assumptions are based on the existing rules for hit points, AC, and other combat statistics. However, I've altered the rules for this game in line with the model of 13th Age rule set to raise the health calculations to fit the higher damage output. The monsters are going to have 1,000s of Vigor and Wounds so you can't one-shot them even doing 500 damage a round.
*The opponents are going to have access to these same stacking abilities and buffs. I'm designing the opponents based on character abilities. If the party average of AC is 60, that's about what the opponents will have too (at least for things that aren't supposed to basically be obstacles or canon fodder, but foes that will last 3-5 rounds). If the party average BAB is +50, same. If the players can deal 1,000 damage with a hit, so will the monsters.
*These rules are assuming you're taking monsters as they are out of the book. That's not how I design opponents for these games. Instead, I use the Starfinder/4e approach of just giving them whatever stats they need to serve their game function. In other words, I'm not going to sit down and slowly build an NPC Bukharan heavy cavalry karakadann rider by doing the character creation process. I'm going to look at the PC abilities and just give them the stats they need to be a reasonable challenge. I do a lot of mashing up abilities from 2-4 different monsters to create new stat blocks or just adding 100 or 1,000 on to a number like hit points. I don't even try to calculate CR, I look at values like AC, BAB+, damage output, and so forth, and I just make the stats what I think they need to be for their game function.
*In light of these considerations, I don't want to use any of the proposed modifications. That's going to make using the mythic rules even more confusing for me if we're also using all these additional qualifications and alterations. I also feel like it's addressing issues I'm otherwise accounting for above.
The only thing I might use from the Mythic Solutions is this, but I think there's already a Hero/Villain points power that does the same thing:
Rocket Tag, Or There Is No Kill Like Overkill
There are some elements in a mythic game where the sheer numbers just stop mattering, and offense so far outstrips defense that there is almost no point in even rolling the dice. Defense is often more difficult to improve than offense, and is often static while offense is dynamic, and the stacking modifiers to offense overwhelm whatever stands in front of them. Many of these issues can be solved by applying the alternative rules in this section, but there also a point at which ludicrous numbers can still happen. An encounter with a mythic foe should be special and awesome, and nothing says anticlimax like a one-punch knockout. You can consider the following rules to help fortify your mythic bad guys, or if you are generous to your mythic heroes as well.
Defensive Surge (Su): A mythic creature can expend a mythic surge as a swift action to add a sacred (if good), profane (if evil), or luck (if neutral) bonus to its AC equal to the result of its surge die. If the creature has damage reduction or hardness, it also adds the result of its surge die to its damage reduction or hardness (as well as the hardness of any items it carries). If the creature has energy resistance, it adds twice the result of its surge die to each type of energy resistance it possesses. This bonus lasts until the beginning of the character’s next turn; if you expend two uses of mythic power, it lasts for a number of rounds equal to one-half your mythic rank or tier (minimum 1 round).
I Will Survive (Ex): When the actions taken by a creature during its turn would reduce you below 0 hit points, you can expend one or more uses of mythic power to survive with 10% of your current hit points (before that creature began its turn) for each use of mythic power you spend. All damage dealt as part of a full attack action is considered a single effect for this purpose.
There is an ability that let's mythic creatures act twice in a round. That might be something as well.
It's part of Amazing Initiative, which all Mythic characters get at like Tier 2 or 3.
We didn't use that yet in any game. It might be a wise idea to limit this to the foes.
I'm still finalizing the rules for familiars and other 'buddies' -- I'll try to post that in the next day or so.
Did you see the campaign page I linked too?
I also was compiling all of this in an independent srd, but the other players said they didn't want a long doc, so I quit working on it.
I have files for the Wounds, Hero Points, etc. systems, but I got complaints when I posted that, so I just turned into the summary points contained in the above link.
I think treating familiars, cohorts, animal companions etc. as full characters and then having several of them is completely out of line and crowds the game.
Also, a horse with levels in 2 classes that can do magics? Please....
And even though i prefer other mounts, mounts should probably be horses or oxen or "normal" animals. A tiger would be kinda out of line as well already probably.
And as far as the build rules are concerned, i think the overall tone was everybody wants that document, just don't make it a new full rules book with a ton of redundant stuff to the normal Pathfinder rules with some exceptions and differences in between. Just summarize what's actually different.
I created a summary in the build rules -- is that not what I've just done?
I'm still finalizing the rules for familiars and other 'buddies' -- I'll try to post that in the next day or so.What's the issue with the "buddy" rules as of now?
stuff like telepathic bond and other things that rely on the character's stats.
I think treating familiars, cohorts, animal companions etc. as full characters and then having several of them is completely out of line and crowds the game.
Also, a horse with levels in 2 classes that can do magics? Please....And even though i prefer other mounts, mounts should probably be horses or oxen or "normal" animals. A tiger would be kinda out of line as well already probably.
And as far as the build rules are concerned, i think the overall tone was everybody wants that document, just don't make it a new full rules book with a ton of redundant stuff to the normal Pathfinder rules with some exceptions and differences in between. Just summarize what's actually different.
I'm open to coming up with a different set of parameters that would apply across the board that would make them strong enough for this kind of game.
What I'm absolutely not going to do is have everyone suggest different sets of power-ups/accommodations for each of their animal companions or whatever and then have dozens of subsidiary questions about how those unique packages interact with all kinds of different rules, and then have other players question whether this or that was fair and whether they could have this or that instead, and so and and so forth.
I'd rather just outlaw them than do that.
In my opinion, most mounts, companions etc. (even eidolons probably) should be normal animals like horses, camels, etc.
After all, that's what the game is about in parts.
Familiars could be other small animals which fit the scenario.
I think it would be very weird to have a horse cast spells.
But that's only my opinion.
So maybe we can give them class levels, but not casting, and some feats.
Everything would have to stay in the animal line though, what makes sense.
Familiars could perhaps cast, related to the original character.
I think treating familiars, cohorts, animal companions etc. as full characters and then having several of them is completely out of line and crowds the game.
Also, a horse with levels in 2 classes that can do magics? Please....
And even though i prefer other mounts, mounts should probably be horses or oxen or "normal" animals. A tiger would be kinda out of line as well already probably.
... yyyeah, no. Sebecloki was pretty solid on what he wanted to do -- and a lot of people are avoiding the familiar/animal companion thing because of the paperwork (per se) required. That doesn't make what he intended from the first any less valid; it's what he wants in the game. I have to confess that your phrasing conveys scorn at the idea -- and yes, included in the ideas you're scorning are the extremely-cool ranks of rhino-unicorn riders that we'll be facing off against -- and while in arguments I don't speak against a player, in this case the argument is the player.
Both my eagle and my horse will have full levels in at least one spellcasting class; someone having a winter wolf or a siberian tiger (if they have the feats, etc.) is Definitely Cool, which appears to be exactly what Rule Sebeclocki is working under.
'Completely out of line', the use of 'Please...' as contemptuous dismissal -- as a player, I get the sense that you think what the game's GM wants to run is ludicrous or, I don't know, beneath you or something. My advice, one potential player to another, is to either reconcile yourself to the fact that Sebecloki wants to run a Very Powerful Rule of Cool Game, or else ... well, not play in the aforementioned Very Powerful Rule of Cool Game.
Displaying derision and contempt, however, are out of line.
I'm open to coming up with a different set of parameters that would apply across the board that would make them strong enough for this kind of game.
I will confess that I've realized that between the classes and everything else, my sidekicks (at least) really don't need familiar/animal companion archetypes. So I'm good with just saying 'dude, forget the archetypes' and forging on ahead.
Fluff wise, my thought is that the familiars are an expression of the soul of the character, something like the eidolons from Dark Materials.
This is a very common idea in lots of shamanaic traditions that the sky horse or similar creature represents the spiritual journey of the ritual master. There's a similar idea in the Kalevala in a curious passage about one of the hero-deities riding a horse made out of straw or some similar phraseology.
I think it is also necessary to clarify some of the assumptions here -- I'm including cryptoids and megafauna in the bestiary of this setting. The thing I don't want is DnD monsters like black dragons and owl bears. If we were going to go 100% historical, we could exclude all the magic using classes, but that's not what this game is going to be -- I'm trying to come up with a sort of alternative earth hypothesis that makes the setting coherent. My concept is that the Ice Age is somehow tied to a mana field which is the source of magic. The Ice Age persisted longer than in our time line, along with the associated megafauna, so I'm not just throwing those in without any thought, but giving an in-setting explanation for why they exist and why the magic level is different than our parallel dimension version of Earth.
The legendary monsters are largely going to be kinds of megafauna -- the simurgh birds are going to be some kind of terror bird or other large avian species. The karkadann are probably going to be one of the rhinocerous-like megafauna from the Ice Age.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite combos for self-buffing is Bard | Inquisitor, especially something like an Archeologist bard. It takes a couple of rounds to come fully online, but it's pretty brutal.
I think treating familiars, cohorts, animal companions etc. as full characters and then having several of them is completely out of line and crowds the game.
Also, a horse with levels in 2 classes that can do magics? Please....
And even though i prefer other mounts, mounts should probably be horses or oxen or "normal" animals. A tiger would be kinda out of line as well already probably.
... yyyeah, no. Sebecloki was pretty solid on what he wanted to do -- and a lot of people are avoiding the familiar/animal companion thing because of the paperwork (per se) required. That doesn't make what he intended from the first any less valid; it's what he wants in the game. I have to confess that your phrasing conveys scorn at the idea -- and yes, included in the ideas you're scorning are the extremely-cool ranks of rhino-unicorn riders that we'll be facing off against -- and while in arguments I don't speak against a player, in this case the argument is the player.
Both my eagle and my horse will have full levels in at least one spellcasting class; someone having a winter wolf or a siberian tiger (if they have the feats, etc.) is Definitely Cool, which appears to be exactly what Rule Sebeclocki is working under.
'Completely out of line', the use of 'Please...' as contemptuous dismissal -- as a player, I get the sense that you think what the game's GM wants to run is ludicrous or, I don't know, beneath you or something. My advice, one potential player to another, is to either reconcile yourself to the fact that Sebecloki wants to run a Very Powerful Rule of Cool Game, or else ... well, not play in the aforementioned Very Powerful Rule of Cool Game.
Displaying derision and contempt, however, are out of line.
I'm open to coming up with a different set of parameters that would apply across the board that would make them strong enough for this kind of game.I will confess that I've realized that between the...
You're free to read and do whatever you want.
I just added my comment, when that hurts your feelings, i apoligize.You should however know that i'm not a native speaker and to me nothing what i wrote reads like you phrased it.
On the other hand i'm in Sebeclokis games for a long time and have a lot more experience there than you with these rulessets and games it seems.
Rhino Cavalry is fine as are quite a lot of other animals.
What i said has 2 sides:
-first i personaly feel that a talking horse who can cast spells is very much on the comedy side of gaming. Can be fine, would be new for me here.
-combat balancing was a struggle from the start on and it's not only the GMs job. It's a group effort to have a working group and play together nicely. In this setup single characters are already powerful and can do a lot of stuff. Now if several characters field 3 of them, individual roles get that much thinner and it's a lot more to do for the GM.
Also combats will probably be heavily influenced and stretched by that.
But hey, go ahead if you think you have more experience and whatever.
You already made it clear that you want to have a casting eagle and a horse next to your character no matter the side effects.
And between coming up with something making them strong enough for this game and them beeing full gestalt characters is a lot of room...
Honestly, I'm okay with the way the buddy rules are right now.
What I do think we should do is have a gentleperson's agreement that we won't have more than one such buddy for this game.
With how complex they all are, and how many PCs there might be, I don't think we want to add in a lot of extra minions as well.
Other games Seb's running might be okay with PCs possibly have multiple minions, but this game seems to have a high number of players, and I think too many buddies will just crowd the game unnecessarily.
Worst case, if we drop really low on active PCs, and aren't able to replace them, players can make extra minions later on.
Honestly, I've barely had time to sit down on focus on finishing off Razan let alone a buddy. One reason that I'm looking forward to Christmas. Assuming I go with a buddy, it'll be a maximum of one.
There's no rush -- we're definitely not starting until at least a few weeks after xmas. I work in a high volume 24/7 clinical lab, and I'm going in for about 70hrs. next week to cover some other people's holidays, so I'm not going to have time to start this game until after the 1st anyway.
Fair!
I should have more free time overall from here till the new year.
Shuurga (Storm) and Ukhaantai (Intelligence) are themselves intrinsic to the character of Num; their stats, rather less so. I would prefer the second 'buddy' (which for me would be Ukhaantai) to still have a touch of the 'buddy' abilities; I'm specifically thinking about the attributes and up to +6 in templates, because a 'stock' golden eagle suddenly gaining the templates it's 'destined' to have would ... be a little jarring for me. In any case.
For those with language needs, and having culled through Wikipedia and paying attention to the major languages in each area, I figured I'd share the partial list of what's active back in 1200. This is centered (mostly) around the Mongol-controlled areas and the Khwarezmian Empire:
Middle Mongol
Tangut
Jurchen
Khitan
Middle Chinese (Qieyun)
Tibetan
Persian
Kichak Turkic
Oghuz Turkic
Kurdish
Arabic
Aramaic
Punjabi
Hindi
Urdu
Pashto
Sindhi
Good list, Num.
I'll add Syriac as Razan would know it as a devout Nestorian descended from Syrians.
Along with Latin and Greek, Syriac became one of "the three most important Christian languages in the early centuries" of the Common Era.[23] From the 1st century AD, Syriac became the vehicle of Syriac Christianity and culture, and the liturgical language of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Maronite Church, and the Church of the East, along with its descendants: the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church,[24] the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Pentecostal Church.
Syriac Christianity and language spread throughout Asia as far as the Indian Malabar Coast[24] and Eastern China,[25] and was the medium of communication and cultural dissemination for the later Arabs and, to a lesser extent, the Parthian Empire and Sasanian Empire. Primarily a Christian medium of expression, Syriac had a fundamental cultural and literary influence on the development of Arabic,[26] which largely replaced it towards the 14th century.[5] Syriac remains the sacred language of Syriac Christianity to this day.
Ouachitonian's character would likely speak either Old Norse or one of the North Germanic languages such as Swedish and Norwegian.
The Proto-Norse language developed into Old Norse by the 8th century, and Old Norse began to develop into the modern North Germanic languages in the mid- to late 14th century, ending the language phase known as Old Norse. These dates, however, are not absolute, since written Old Norse is found well into the 15th century.[2]
Old Norse was divided into three dialects: Old West Norse, Old East Norse, and Old Gutnish. Old West and East Norse formed a dialect continuum, with no clear geographical boundary between them. For example, Old East Norse traits were found in eastern Norway, although Old Norwegian is classified as Old West Norse, and Old West Norse traits were found in western Sweden. Most speakers spoke Old East Norse in what is present-day Denmark and Sweden. Old Gutnish, the more obscure dialectal branch, is sometimes included in the Old East Norse dialect due to geographical associations. It developed its own unique features and shared in changes to both other branches.
The 12th-century Icelandic Gray Goose Laws state that Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders, and Danes spoke the same language, dǫnsk tunga ("Danish tongue"; speakers of Old East Norse would have said dansk tunga). Another term, used especially commonly with reference to West Norse, was norrœnt mál or norrǿnt mál ("Nordic/Northern speech"). Today Old Norse has developed into the modern North Germanic languages Icelandic, Faroese (both inherited cases from the language), Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish, of which Norwegian, Danish and Swedish retain considerable mutual intelligibility.
Zoroastrian characters might know middle persian, as well as pahlavi and or avestan.
Indian characters might know Pali or Prakrit, as well as Sanskrit.
Sogdian is a persian language that also was used on the Silk Road.
Uighur is another turkic language that has some materials in it from around this period.
Thanks for that list of languages, that's pretty interesting.
I'm possibly interested, though it will depend on whether the other campaigns I am in settle down once the current rebuild is complete. Characters this complex get pretty difficult to actively create multiple at one time.
I'd be interested in running an evangalist cleric archer of some kind, riding a winter wolf or a horse if that fits better. Inspire courage to the group and lots of arrows in the air.
I'm possibly interested, though it will depend on whether the other campaigns I am in settle down once the current rebuild is complete. Characters this complex get pretty difficult to actively create multiple at one time.
I'd be interested in running an evangalist cleric archer of some kind, riding a winter wolf or a horse if that fits better. Inspire courage to the group and lots of arrows in the air.
What culture would he/she be from? I think it'd be interesting to have a buddhist, hindu, or taoist character in the mix if you haven't decided yet.