mythic rules confirmed!!! discuss!

[TheGentlemanDM]

There's two approaches, and it gets tricky because you have two largely opposing camps in terms of what they want Mythic to be.

Option 1 is that Mythic increases narrative power through abilities that increase your ability to interact with the world. You can gain followers, shape nations, and parley with gods. The fundamental math of the system is untouched and the balance remains.

Option 2 is that Mythic (as it did in 1st Edition) increases mechanical power. You'd have Mythic archetypes that unlock proficiency increases at certain points which would stack with those from your class - which eventually scales up to the Mythic (Lvl +10) proficiency at higher levels.

The math around which proficiencies get increased would need to be carefully calculated, but the end result could be PCs with an effective power of around level 21.5.

As much as some people don't like this, there's no denying that there is a sizeable contingent of players who really want for their characters to have the numbers to back up their narrative position.

The thing is, I believe you could appease both camps by making the numerical increases an optional addendum - a "Mythic Plus", so to speak.

You'd have your Mythic Archetypes with your Mythic Feats that have these grand world-shaping abilities, and then on a subsequent page you could flesh out how each archetype boosts your proficiencies if your table actually want to play with the higher power level and accepts that the balance will get a bit wonky.

[Aenigma]

It seems that many people hate the First Edition mythic rules very much due to flavor or balance issue. I actually quite liked the flavor of the First Edition mythic rules. I must confess that I have not actually played the mythic campaign in First Edition. So I have no idea whether it has the serious balance issue or not.

I'm curious, if First Edition introduced epic level rules instead of mythic tier rules, would it have no flavor or balance issue at all?

[Rysky]

Yeah sure why not.

[Calliope5431]

The issue with 1e mythic was in my opinion twofold:

1. It didn't actually make you feel more mythic

This was sort of the issue for me. It was just a pile of pluses. If I wanted to deal 200 damage with every attack, I could build that already with Power Attack and paladin Smite Evil, and if I wanted someone to autofail my saves...I already had that option with no-save-just-lose PCs anyway (looking at you, solid fog and wall of force ).

The narrative power however was pretty much irrelevant. Yes, you can now punch balors out with one swing or one spell, but you have basically the same power to fix climate change, invading armies from the north, or planar gateways to the Abyss like the Worldwound as you did before - which is to say, about as much power as your GM was willing to give you. If your GM was willing to let you solve the problem of the invading northmen or the Worldwound by hitting the Viking King or Deskari with a plank of wood really hard, then great. If your GM didn't want the solution to climate change to be "you hit [insert relevant NPC here] with a stick for 500 points of damage" then you're sort of out of luck.

I'd have liked to have seen abilities like "you divert a river", "you plunge a country into eternal winter" or "you raise a mountain from the sea" as abilities, basically, and hold back on the piles of pluses.

2. The flavor was extremely generic

Playing a generic "archmage" was sort of dull. I mean, don't get me wrong, the pluses were neat as were some of the things you could do with spells. But I associate mythic/epic more with 4th Edition's Epic Destinies, and vibe less with "you're a super powerful wizard who can ignore spell resistance". That should be an option for people who really want it...but I'd focus more on "you are the Lord of Flame" or "you are an archangel" since they're much more narratively impactful and can really augment roleplay more than "pile of pluses" ever could.

The pile of pluses aren't mutually exclusive with good RP, to be clear. But the "you are a mighty wizard" mythic path does nothing on its own to help develop roleplaying that being a 20th level wizard didn't already do, whereas "you become an archangel and here's how we model that mechanically" actually does.

[The Raven Black]

Aenigma wrote:

It seems that many people hate the First Edition mythic rules very much due to flavor or balance issue. I actually quite liked the flavor of the First Edition mythic rules. I must confess that I have not actually played the mythic campaign in First Edition. So I have no idea whether it has the serious balance issue or not.

I'm curious, if First Edition introduced epic level rules instead of mythic tier rules, would it have no flavor or balance issue at all?

The problem was not the Mythic AP, which I heard was pretty good on its own.

The problem was the PF1 Mythic rules. They were basically amplificators.

They amplified the power levels.

And they amplified the issues of the PF1/3.x rules system. Geometrically.

So, the problems of high-level PF1 play were exponentialy more present in high-level Mythic PF1 play.

[Squiggit]

PF1 was a jank system to begin with and adding anything extra on top of that only amplified the jank to the point of breaking (although PF1 arguably was that alerady).

But like... at the same time, if we avoided every rule or mechanic that was badly balanced in PF1, PF2 wouldn't have any content at all. So I'm not sure how much "it was broken in PF1" should actually matter.

[The Raven Black]

Squiggit wrote:

PF1 was a jank system to begin with and adding anything extra on top of that only amplified the jank to the point of breaking (although PF1 arguably was that alerady).

But like... at the same time, if we avoided every rule or mechanic that was badly balanced in PF1, PF2 wouldn't have any content at all. So I'm not sure how much "it was broken in PF1" should actually matter.

The worst issues of PF1 have been dealt with by PF2. It was one of PF2's design goals.

[Dexter Coffee]

I want something that makes you around level 25 in power at the top end and with 2e balance it will work well unlike 1e. You have a mythic archetype that would be a separate archetype path so you could still do free archetype if you really wanted to.

You could fight the likes of Deskari, Pazuzu, Cthulhu or any of the other level 30 threats and it will still be a challenge unlike 1e, heck with shenanigans (maybe not even then) you could clown them at level 20.

I actually didn’t really like the way it was more specific in the CRPG for WotR and liked the more generalized paths in tabletop better. It would be fine as an optional choice to do them like that in the new rules for those that want it, but for me it’s not something I personally like and wouldn’t want as a player.

My biggest disappointment would be making it something intrinsically intertwined with the gods or outer planes unless you choose it to be so as a player, but I trust Paizo enough that it wouldn’t be the case. So it’s a small fear and unlikely.

[Calliope5431]

Dexter Coffee wrote:

I want something that makes you around level 25 in power at the top end and with 2e balance it will work well unlike 1e. You have a mythic archetype that would be a separate archetype path so you could still do free archetype if you really wanted to.

You could fight the likes of Deskari, Pazuzu, Cthulhu or any of the other level 30 threats and it will still be a challenge unlike 1e, heck with shenanigans (maybe not even then) you could clown them at level 20.

I actually didn’t really like the way it was more specific in the CRPG for WotR and liked the more generalized paths in tabletop better. It would be fine as an optional choice to do them like that in the new rules for those that want it, but for me it’s not something I personally like and wouldn’t want as a player.

My biggest disappointment would be making it something intrinsically intertwined with the gods or outer planes unless you choose it to be so as a player, but I trust Paizo enough that it wouldn’t be the case. So it’s a small fear and unlikely.

Myself? I've always had concerns about setting believability with the generic mythic paths that don't eventually promote you off-planet to godhood, demonhood, or something else. Golarion already sort of has this issue by dint of being host to so many APs and ideas.

The planet (at least in 1e) had at least 20-odd level 25+ creatures running around it simultaneously. Some runelords, Geb, Arazni, Tar-Baphon, all the kaiju, formerly Areelu Vorlesh, Osoyo, the Great Old Ones Mhar and Xhamen-Dor, Treerazer, every single member of your party after the conclusion of Wrath of the Righteous, etc. This led to the bizarre situation where this one little planet had like five times the number of ultrapowerful beings as the entire plane of Abaddon. You're more likely to bump into a level 27 creature wandering down the street in New Thassilon than you are exploring the Midnight Isles.

Which is more than a little bizarre. It massively undermines the threat of world-conquering fiendish horrors like Deskari or Szuriel, since they're not actually any more threatening than Tar-Baphon and if they ever showed up on Golarion and started going a-conquering, it's plausible they'd just get trampled by King Mogaru, blown up by an irritated Geb, stabbed by a random level 20/mythic 10 adventurer still kicking around after Wrath is over, or ensorcelled by a bored Sorshen.

Same sort of thing happens in PF 2e modules already, such as Against the Scarlet Triad throwing platoons of level 14 guards at the party if they try to break the law in Katapesh. If level 14 creatures are that common, then why on Earth do we need the PCs to solve our problems?

So yeah, I'm strongly in favor of making it so that high level PCs have to tie themselves to extraplanar factions and LEAVE once their time has come rather than contributing to the already-dense clutter of mythic beings wandering around Golarion. Same is true of homebrew settings. The default assumption is that the gods and the great powers of the Outer Planes are in the driver's seat, and mortals ultimately are weaker than the divine. If a single mortal planet is home to more high level beings than the entirety of Hell, that really changes the power dynamic between the two...

Tl;dr allowing mere mortals access to demigod-level power without any connection to extraplanar influences leads to exceedingly strange setting implications. Especially if you have multiple such mortals running around your campaign setting (read: the PCs), who together could wipe out the Four Horsemen in one go.

[Temperans]

If mythic does not break the math and ability limits wide open then what even is the point of having those rules? Mythic is an optional system for when you want the party to face against demigods and say "okay this is doable". Can it cause burn out? Yeah that's why its an optional rule or part of a specific AP, aka you have to opt in to use those rules.

The balance of mythic is in that everyone who is mythic is equally broken compared to a normal character. Martials getting even better action economy, casters making their spells more powerful, limited immortality, being able to do things that would never be an option for normal characters, etc.

Too many mythic people? Doesn't matter because PCs are that special. Things too easy? Well they better be because the more mythic the more awesome you should be. Too much power? Pure nonsense the players can never have more power than the GM.

But you know what would make mythic bad? Trying to make it balanced with a regular character. If being mythic 10 was no different to being mythic 0.

[Rysky]

It's an optional rule that the system would have to be built around going forward, since while it may be optional the demigods and equal threats are not setting-optional.

I don't want Mythic 1 level 1 characters, the stories should be mythic.

I want the rules to enable mythic worthy narratives, not just extra +1s unga bunga.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the primary role of mythic should be to allow you to do things that are normally not allowed by the rules. Things like "using a once/day ability more often" or "refocusing during combat" or "being quickened without a restriction on the bonus action."

[Dexter Coffee]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Dexter Coffee wrote:

<snip>

<snip> … So yeah, I'm strongly in favor of making it so that high level PCs have to tie themselves to extraplanar factions and LEAVE once their time has comerather than contributing to the already-dense clutter of mythic beings wandering around Golarion. Same is true of homebrew settings. The default assumption is that the gods and the great powers of the Outer Planes are in the driver's seat, and mortals ultimately are weaker than the divine. If a single mortal planet is home to more high level beings than the entirety of Hell, that really changes the power dynamic between the two...

For the first part I am in favor of having the powers that be try to make that the case. Having mythic beings on your side or working for you, or at least towing the planar “rules” line keeps a very dangerous being an ally or at least somewhat controlled. Though from a player facing point it would be a choice depending on what they want the PC to be and do etc. etc.

On the second point I am of a different mind personally and love that dynamic but admit that’s not how everyone likes it. It shows that the real power from a sheer numbers perspective is and always will be in the Material Plane (The Universe). It’s just a BIG place and much more disconnected than the outer planes due to it being an ACTUAL universe that mostly plays by mundane rules of size and travel.

Woe to the lords of the outer planes should these petty mortals realize it. Asmodeus does and that’s why he’s using all his hellish in cunning to find a way to keep them in there place permanently. At least in my universes canon but we’re all different in what we like :)

Just hope it’s modular enough that we can both do what we would like.

Edit: Huh lol. Actually writing it out shows me how much I’ve been influenced by the Dresden Files in how I view the whole Mortal vs Supernatural dynamic in my games. Since it’s about the same. The silly mortals don’t realize their the big kid on the block too ignorant and disconnected to notice.

[Claxon]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

There's two approaches, and it gets tricky because you have two largely opposing camps in terms of what they want Mythic to be.

Option 1 is that Mythic increases narrative power through abilities that increase your ability to interact with the world. You can gain followers, shape nations, and parley with gods. The fundamental math of the system is untouched and the balance remains.

Option 2 is that Mythic (as it did in 1st Edition) increases mechanical power. You'd have Mythic archetypes that unlock proficiency increases at certain points which would stack with those from your class - which eventually scales up to the Mythic (Lvl +10) proficiency at higher levels.

The math around which proficiencies get increased would need to be carefully calculated, but the end result could be PCs with an effective power of around level 21.5.

As much as some people don't like this, there's no denying that there is a sizeable contingent of players who really want for their characters to have the numbers to back up their narrative position.

The thing is, I believe you could appease both camps by making the numerical increases an optional addendum - a "Mythic Plus", so to speak.

You'd have your Mythic Archetypes with your Mythic Feats that have these grand world-shaping abilities, and then on a subsequent page you could flesh out how each archetype boosts your proficiencies if your table actually want to play with the higher power level and accepts that the balance will get a bit wonky.

I think you're right, but I think the only reasonable approach in PF2 (so that the whole system doesn't fall apart) is the first one.

Mythic will add things that you character can do that aren't simply bigger numbers. They can be effective math enhancers, but not actually increasing the numbers (which is the real problem).

For example, a mythic ability that gives you more actions to do certain things (like strike). Or a mythic ability that causes attack actions to not increase your MAP once per round. Or to ignore MAP on an action once per round. Additionally abilities that gives you extra sustain actions for casters. Additional metamagic options. And even giving your focus spells for things like teleporting or something like that. There's plenty of design space that isn't the terrible idea of "Oh, here's Legendary++ proficiency."

There's a lot of room to create "crazy awesome" abilities without changing the underlying math. Above I've outlined a few, and if Paizo doesn't do something like that I think they're just going to recreate the problems PF1 mythic had in PF2.

[Calliope5431]

Dexter Coffee wrote:

For the first part I am in favor of having the powers that be try to make that the case. Having mythic beings on your side or working for you, or at least towing the planar “rules” line keeps a very dangerous being an ally or at least somewhat controlled. Though from a player facing point it would be a choice depending on what they want the PC to be and do etc. etc.

On the second point I am of a different mind personally and love that dynamic but admit that’s not how everyone likes it. It shows that the real power from a sheer numbers perspective is and always will be in the Material Plane (The Universe). It’s just a BIG place and much more disconnected than the outer planes due to it being an ACTUAL universe that mostly plays by mundane rules of size and travel.

Woe to the lords of the outer planes should these petty mortals realize it. Asmodeus does and that’s why he’s using all his hellish in cunning to find a way to keep them in there place permanently. At least in my universes canon but we’re all different in what we like :)

Just hope it’s modular enough that we can both do what we would like.

Yup, I agree. The ideal solution is the one that lets as many people play the game they want to play as possible.

The issue for some settings is that if Golarion alone has five times as many high-powered critters as Abaddon, and there are a thousand (or a million!) planets in the mortal realm like Golarion, well...

You have to wonder why parties of mortal archmages aren't ruling the entire cosmology. After all, mass-producing mortal wizards is a lot easier than mass-producing eons-old archangels, and the wizards very much know their own strength.

(in my home campaign this actually happened, and the Runelords wound up conquering the Abyss, but that's neither here nor there)

But anyway, I love Dresden's solution to it (and Dresden as well of course). It's extremely novel and provides an excellent rationale for why "the masquerade" exists. I do think it's not appropriate for every campaign, but if you build the world around it it's got the potential to be really cool.

[Megistone]

If you are going to break the balance anyway, how is it different than just giving a +2 to hit/DC?
I could understand giving stuff like more staying power (recalling cast spells, for example), something that bypasses mythical enemies special defenses, or big narrative power. But once you allow extra strikes, the encounter balance is already out of the window.

[Calliope5431]

Megistone wrote:

If you are going to break the balance anyway, how is it different than just giving a +2 to hit/DC?

I could understand giving stuff like more staying power (recalling cast spells, for example), something that bypasses mythical enemies special defenses, or big narrative power. But once you allow extra strikes, the encounter balance is already out of the window.

Because to-hit pluses are boring as heck, for one. But more importantly, because 2e is built around the idea that something five or six levels higher than you will maul you regardless of how many strikes you can make.

The system is built on tiers of power. Level 10 PCs cannot defeat balors even if they have 10 attacks per round, because they max out at +23 to hit or so (+10 levels + 6 master proficiency on a fighter + 5 strength mod + 2 item bonus) and the balor has AC 45. Meaning they only hit it on a nat 20, and they don't even crit then because the nat 20 would still miss normally.

Adding extra pluses throws that logic out the window.

Myself? I'd opt for more narrative power while keeping mechanical power flat, because not only does it not blow up the entire foundation of the system math, it also lets you do cool things you couldn't before.

I mean really. Having +45 to hit with your sword will not solve the problem of "there's a Noah's Ark-style flood about to drown the continent." The ability to raise mountains? Yeah, that might actually help. Likewise, hitting balors on 2s will not defeat an army of ten million skeletons marching across Avistan from the Eye of Terror. You simply can't stab them all fast enough. But calling down a miles-wide column of fire that inflicts 100 damage to everything in its blast radius? Yeah. That'll make a dent.

[siegfriedliner]

For mythic stuff I want to feel like Hercules or Chuchulain.

Leaping hundreds of feet, throwing building size boulders, causing an earthquake with a mighty stomp (admittedly the barbarian can do this already). Dancing on top of the edge of a blade.

I am not sure how you could do that without affecting the balance of the game and I am certain I am going to be disappointed.

But unreasonable expectations aside I am looking forward to see what they come up with.

[Evan Tarlton]

For my part, I want both the crazy super-powers and the mechanical boosts. They don't have to come at the same time, though. I'd be 100% okay with the boosts being higher tier.

[Sanityfaerie]

So I see this.

- First of all, it's War of the Immortals. That's the entire thing. If it doesn't give you a path (as an immortal) to go beat in the faces of gods, then it has failed. If gods are dying and there's no way for PCs to get in on that action, the whole Mythic thing has just failed.

- Second, that tight math is a precious, precious thing, and we're not getting more PC levels. Well, okay. I think, then, that Mythic is going to have to do a different thing. Like, you don't get real levels, but you do get Mythic Ranks. Mythic Ranks don't boost your level for anything that cares explicitly about level (HP, proficiency, class features, etc) but do give you various power-ups in ways that let you punch above your weight. If you want to determine encounter difficulty, you add mythic rank and level together, and you run your comparisons off of *that*.

I think it's important that at least some of the mythic paths be interesting and transformative. I think it's important that at least some of them not be tied to outer planes, worship or alignment. I think there's enough space in Golarion for both of these things.

I admit, one of the things that I would absolutely love to see out of Mythic? Some way to get multiple capstone feats. I'd ask for a way to poach capstone feats out of other classes, but I know that that would be game-breaking. So not that one. The other, though?

[belgrath9344]

we should be able to do both the people who only want narrative stuff should have it but the mechanics focused people should have thier stuff too pf2e is a mechanics & rules heavy game & I think & hope that this is reflected in the mythic system. we absolutely should be able to fight & have stats for cr 26-30 creatures & not just a mythic tag on cr 1-25 creatures thats boring if we're becomingdivine/ demigods / immortals we should be able to fight demigod /true demon lords etc lvl enemies. & for people concerned about the math why pf2e is balanced unlike pf1. I don't think we'll loose something that's lauded as one of pf2e best things a working encounter system even with mythic.

for narrative powers if I'm a mythic brawler my fights should look like the first kratos vs Baulder fight in god of war buildings breaking the earth cracking after a grapple check stuff like that

[Sorrei]

Hello new here in this forum so im sorry if i break some courtesy here.
But my base assumtion would be that Mythic Character are balance against other Mythic Characters and Mythic Creatures not base one.

If the party is ment to face Level 25+ Enemies with those Mythic Powers while the max level is still 20 it demands a higher level of power.

But maybe they have will have a handy table that shows that a level 5 Mythic Party counts as level 7 for normal encounter values or something in that direction :)

[magnuskn]

The problem I see with making mythic tiers (I presume for a moment that they'll stick with that format) big power increases is that then you can only stick them into full mythic games, i.e. not drop one or two tiers into a campaign to spruce up the story a bit. Unless the devs add very detailed guidelines in the book how to rebalance the encounters with some mythic tiers sprinkled on top. Even then that would create a ton of work for GM's who would go down that route.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think it's conceivable to add "Mythic" as the sixth proficiency tier. That seems like something you could balance around.

[Sorrei]

I am rather sure Mythic will be something that affects a character from rather early on, Exemplar is a tone setter in that regard...i mean in terms of flavor considering it seems predistined to be played in a Mythic Tier Campaign.

[Sanityfaerie]

magnuskn wrote:

The problem I see with making mythic tiers (I presume for a moment that they'll stick with that format) big power increases is that then you can only stick them into full mythic games, i.e. not drop one or two tiers into a campaign to spruce up the story a bit. Unless the devs add very detailed guidelines in the book how to rebalance the encounters with some mythic tiers sprinkled on top. Even then that would create a ton of work for GM's who would go down that route.

The simplest answer would be to have a mythic tier be worth, basically, a level or two in terms of expected overall power, just doing it in a very different way. Want to sprinkle on a bit of mythic? You get your level-equivalent for CR bumped up a bit. Want to pile on a lot? It goes up by a lot.

Now, if that *is* what's going on then yeah, I'm concerned that this thing isn't being playtested, because that's absolutely the sort of thing that I'd want to see playtested. Maybe they'll throw it at us sometime later?

...and then I think about how other RPG publishers do things, and I can't help but think... we are spoiled. Like... imagine if this whole Thing about Mythic not being playtested wasn't even a thing, because nothing got playtested. Really.

[Arcaian]

I'm intrigued by what these rules are going to end up looking like. I'd be very happy with a series of mythic archetypes that you only get with the optional ruleset that gives you mythic feats, with a focus on interesting ways to interact with the narrative that are normally inappropriate narratively in a standard PF2 game. That being said, this would still leave demigods and the like inaccessible, as it's not really a power increase. I think it'd be very good to avoid the complexity of 'level 8 mythic tier 4 = equivalent level 10' from pf1, as the balance becomes very complicated. My preference would probably be the system I outlined above, but then some sort of optional progression once you get to level 20 that boosts you further to make it reasonable to fight level 25+ enemies. Honestly, I'd be fine without ever having the ability to fight those higher level enemies, but I know it's important to many people who care about the mythic system :)

[Cori Marie]

magnuskn wrote:

The problem I see with making mythic tiers (I presume for a moment that they'll stick with that format) big power increases is that then you can only stick them into full mythic games, i.e. not drop one or two tiers into a campaign to spruce up the story a bit. Unless the devs add very detailed guidelines in the book how to rebalance the encounters with some mythic tiers sprinkled on top. Even then that would create a ton of work for GM's who would go down that route.

The Hideous Laughter Podcast recently proved this to be untrue in PF1. The GM of that podcast gave the players a dose of Mythic at the end of their long-running Carrion Crown game, and it worked absolutely perfectly.

[Unicore]

1 rank of mythic tier for 3 person parties running APs in PF1 was pretty fun. I’ve even done 3 ranks over 10 levels with 2 person parties and it wasn’t breaking too much more than high level always starts to in PF1. 4 is where things always went gonzo off the rails, nightmare to run nuclear rocket tag for us. Never again.

[Rysky]

It seems people are under the impression that those who want Mythic to be more narrative rather simply number+ don't want to engage with high end threats, which is the exact opposite of what's being asked for.

Mythic narratives and encounters includes dealing with high level threats, I thought that much would be obvious. We just want the system and and narrative to be fulfilling and fun and not just simply "unga bunga gooder" with boring number increases and abilities.

"Oh you get more HP, more to hit, a 4th action each round"... yay? That's not mythic or legendary or compelling, it's a level up by another name.

[Calliope5431]

Rysky wrote:

It seems people are under the impression that those who want Mythic to be more narrative rather simply number+ don't want to engage with high end threats, which is the exact opposite of what's being asked for.

Mythic narratives and encounters includes dealing with high level threats, I thought that much would be obvious. We just want the system and and narrative to be fulfilling and fun and not just simply "unga bunga gooder" with boring number increases and abilities.

"Oh you get more HP, more to hit, a 4th action each round"... yay? That's not mythic or legendary or compelling, it's a level up by another name.

Yes, exactly. I would personally appreciate both the ability to raise mountains, AND the ability to fight Arshea, Vildeis, and Ragathiel

(what can I say? I play in evil campaigns)

[TheGentlemanDM]

For the curious, I did take a pass at what a Mythic Plus could look like here.

This comes with the obvious disclaimer that a) this is a draft idea and b) is aware that it will result in less balanced gameplay. It's Mythic. We expected balance to get wonky.

It uses Mythic archetypes that grant floating proficiency increases. Each archetype prioritises certain proficiency boosts, with everything getting boosted at least once, and particular things getting boosted twice (or a permanent +2 status bonus if already boosted from Legendary -> Mythic -> beyond).

For example, the Mystic Pathway grants its first boost to spellcasting proficiencies and class DC. At third level, you gain a floating proficiency boost, meaning a Wizard would go from Trained to Expert. At 7th level, when they natural go to Expert, that floating boost would put them at Master spellcasting.

It solves the issue that you'd need a bit more bulk (through extra HP) as part of being treated as a higher level, and also solves the incapacitation problem that casters would have.

It's not perfect, but the end result produces a character that is around 23rd level in power.

The only issue left is that while everything else (HP, saves, and accuracy) scales with attribute boosts, AC is capped by armour DEX caps, meaning that AC scales worse than everything else in the long run.

[CorvusMask]

I guess that 2e mythic likely won't really allow for theoretical "level 1, mythic tier 10" character, because regardless of whether mythic is supposed to be narrative or "allows you at high level to fight demigods" power, I don't think its really possible to have mythic ability where balance works the same at "level 1"(even if hypothetical level 1 mythic tier 10 character converted to 2e would be level 6, since in 1e each 2 mythic tiers was supposed to raise cr by one).

What that means I dunno, maybe something like "there are five mythic tiers and you can get them only over course of 4 levels" or maybe if they keep them at ten, "you can only have one mythic tier for every two levels you have"

(tbh, I don't think 2e should have 10 mythic tiers, because I think level 25 should be treated as absolute max PC level limit like how level 30 should be absolute NPC statblock max, and its confusing to have "not levels where you need two of them to count as full level up math wise". I COULD see it work though if every odd number was "narrative power increase" while every even tier was "encounter power" increase.)

[Temperans]

Well mythic used to increase power by granting bonus ability points and HP. There is no reason why mythic can't do that again; Which would also make sure that you can boost the stats that your character wants, while not touching proficiency.

The core of progression would then be in the powers you can pick. Which should be generic mythic abilities, unique mythic path abilities, and/or mythic versions of reguar feats. Mythic spells you get access by having mythic tiers.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

siegfriedliner wrote:

For mythic stuff I want to feel like Hercules or Chuchulain.

You're doing this already with Legendary skill feats, and the Exemplar will be this+++ with all of their "throw the bad guy into the sun" feats.

[magnuskn]

Cori Marie wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

The problem I see with making mythic tiers (I presume for a moment that they'll stick with that format) big power increases is that then you can only stick them into full mythic games, i.e. not drop one or two tiers into a campaign to spruce up the story a bit. Unless the devs add very detailed guidelines in the book how to rebalance the encounters with some mythic tiers sprinkled on top. Even then that would create a ton of work for GM's who would go down that route.

The Hideous Laughter Podcast recently proved this to be untrue in PF1. The GM of that podcast gave the players a dose of Mythic at the end of their long-running Carrion Crown game, and it worked absolutely perfectly.

Then they probably didn't take very good abilities. I gave out one mythic tier at the end of Hell's Rebels and the damage output went up very noticeably. Mythic Vital Strike is dang broken.

[glass]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's conceivable to add "Mythic" as the sixth proficiency tier. That seems like something you could balance around.

I would not be surprised if the Mythic proficiency rank is a thing, there are some caveats: If you can, like in PF1, be Mythic from first level I seriously doubt you get to skip all the way to better-than-Legendary a dozen levels before Legendary would be come online normally.

A likely scenario, to my mind, is that a relevant subset of proficiencies (determined by Mythic Path or equivalent, and possibly modified by feats) get a flat +1, so you get Mythic proficiency when you would otherwise have got Legendary (and Legendary when you could have been Master and so on down).

Rysky wrote:

"Oh you get more HP, more to hit, a 4th action each round"... yay? That's not mythic or legendary or compelling, it's a level up by another name.

I feel like whatever they do with Mythic, when looked at from a one-sentence overview POV, "a level up by another name" is going to be an apt description. Because anything does not broadly fit that description is either going to be broken as all get out, or is not going to help you take down those Level 30 demon lords etc.

[CorvusMask]

Oh right other thought: While I don't really think "mythic trait" creatures are gonna be a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if mythic rules included some kind of legendary/lair action from D&D 5" inspired general mechanic different creatures could use kind of dealio. That said solobosses in pf2e don't really need to fight with action economy as hard as in other d20 systems

[Sanityfaerie]

CorvusMask wrote:

I guess that 2e mythic likely won't really allow for theoretical "level 1, mythic tier 10" character

Epic demonslayer shanktown?

[Cori Marie]

magnuskn wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

The problem I see with making mythic tiers (I presume for a moment that they'll stick with that format) big power increases is that then you can only stick them into full mythic games, i.e. not drop one or two tiers into a campaign to spruce up the story a bit. Unless the devs add very detailed guidelines in the book how to rebalance the encounters with some mythic tiers sprinkled on top. Even then that would create a ton of work for GM's who would go down that route.

The Hideous Laughter Podcast recently proved this to be untrue in PF1. The GM of that podcast gave the players a dose of Mythic at the end of their long-running Carrion Crown game, and it worked absolutely perfectly.

Then they probably didn't take very good abilities. I gave out one mythic tier at the end of Hell's Rebels and the damage output went up very noticeably. Mythic Vital Strike is dang broken.

More that the GM didn't just let them take anything. That's part of the job of the GM in a situation like this is to manage what the players can and can't have.

[PossibleCabbage]

glass wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's conceivable to add "Mythic" as the sixth proficiency tier. That seems like something you could balance around.

I would not be surprised if the Mythic proficiency rank is a thing, there are some caveats: If you can, like in PF1, be Mythic from first level I seriously doubt you get to skip all the way to better-than-Legendary a dozen levels before Legendary would be come online normally.

A likely scenario, to my mind, is that a relevant subset of proficiencies (determined by Mythic Path or equivalent, and possibly modified by feats) get a flat +1, so you get Mythic proficiency when you would otherwise have got Legendary (and Legendary when you could have been Master and so on down).

Yeah, I think during the progression along Mythic tiers you will from time to time get a proficiency boost to something. "Mythic" is just going to be the name for "what if you apply this to something that is already legendary.

So at 15th level with the right mythic tier you could have "Mythic Stealth" or "Mythic Athleticism."

This is probably also what the language for "this damage increases to x if you're legendary" text in weapon specialization future proofs for in classes that don't get legendary attacks.

I think "getting a +2 here or there" is enough for the people who want Mythic to be the tool that lets them fight level 25 monsters.

[magnuskn]

Cori Marie wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

The problem I see with making mythic tiers (I presume for a moment that they'll stick with that format) big power increases is that then you can only stick them into full mythic games, i.e. not drop one or two tiers into a campaign to spruce up the story a bit. Unless the devs add very detailed guidelines in the book how to rebalance the encounters with some mythic tiers sprinkled on top. Even then that would create a ton of work for GM's who would go down that route.

The Hideous Laughter Podcast recently proved this to be untrue in PF1. The GM of that podcast gave the players a dose of Mythic at the end of their long-running Carrion Crown game, and it worked absolutely perfectly.

Then they probably didn't take very good abilities. I gave out one mythic tier at the end of Hell's Rebels and the damage output went up very noticeably. Mythic Vital Strike is dang broken.

More that the GM didn't just let them take anything. That's part of the job of the GM in a situation like this is to manage what the players can and can't have.

Ah, okay, so we are still talking about a rather curated mythic tier, just so we are clear that a single 1E mythic tier absolutely can ruin game balance, only that you seem to think that the onus to prevent that is on the GM, rather than the entire system not being bonkers broken.

[Temperans]

Mythic is supposed to be bonkers broken compared to normal. So yes it is the onus of the GM to determine how much of that they want.

A GM that gives players mythic and then complains that the players used mythic abilities is the same as the guy purposely falling off a bicycle and then blaming someone else for it.

[magnuskn]

Temperans wrote:

Mythic is supposed to be bonkers broken compared to normal. So yes it is the onus of the GM to determine how much of that they want.

A GM that gives players mythic and then complains that the players used mythic abilities is the same as the guy purposely falling off a bicycle and then blaming someone else for it.

The discussion wasn't "is mythic broken" but rather "is one tier of mythic not mostly harmless?", with the disagreement between Cori Marie being that she thinks a curated single tier is okay and me saying that the system shouldn't be written in a way where you need to curate in the first place.

Anyway, it's an 1E discussion, which is actually a moot point. We'll have to see how 2E handles mythic in the first place and that is probably one year and a some months away still.

[Temperans]

magnuskn wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Mythic is supposed to be bonkers broken compared to normal. So yes it is the onus of the GM to determine how much of that they want.

A GM that gives players mythic and then complains that the players used mythic abilities is the same as the guy purposely falling off a bicycle and then blaming someone else for it.

The discussion wasn't "is mythic broken" but rather "is one tier of mythic not mostly harmless?", with the disagreement between Cori Marie being that she thinks a curated single tier is okay and me saying that the system shouldn't be written in a way where you need to curate in the first place.

Anyway, it's an 1E discussion, which is actually a moot point. We'll have to see how 2E handles mythic in the first place and that is probably one year and a some months away still.

And I am was responding to your idea that the onus should not be on the GM to decides what is "broken".

It is precisely the GM who should be making sure the options are not broken for their campaign, not paizo. Paizo should just release as many awesome mythic abilities as possible and the GM can choose which one are possible. That's the whole reason why the rarity system was implemented in the first place.

[Calliope5431]

The onus is always on the GM. Without a sane GM curating things roughly any system shatters, including pf 2e.

If you don't believe me, throw an aeon with regeneration shut off by only chaotic damage at your party and watch them cry. Or any spawn of rovagug. Make sure to give them no way to kill it, of course. After all, if the rules provide no way of doing so, why should you?

So yeah, I think it's safe to say that some sort of GM curation is a solid idea.

I agree with everyone else here about waiting for the 2e implementation though. Who knows what it will look like.

[PossibleCabbage]

PF2 goes to considerable lengths to make the GM's job more manageable. The system thus far is somewhat allergic to "make the GM figure it out" as a means of addressing major issues.

Like the GM's choice should be "do I want to tell mythic stories or not" and not "do I want to throw balance out of the window." Mythic PCs should be balanced against mythic threats!

[magnuskn]

Temperans wrote:

And I am was responding to your idea that the onus should not be on the GM to decides what is "broken".

It is precisely the GM who should be making sure the options are not broken for their campaign, not paizo. Paizo should just release as many awesome mythic abilities as possible and the GM can choose which one are possible. That's the whole reason why the rarity system was implemented in the first place.

Please point the rarity system in 1E out to me. I'll wait.

[Prince Setehrael]

Thought/Theoy that I have about possible way Mythic may be implemented.

Variation of the Dual Class rules instead of Free Archtype.

[The Raven Black]

Calliope5431 wrote:

The onus is always on the GM. Without a sane GM curating things roughly any system shatters, including pf 2e.

If you don't believe me, throw an aeon with regeneration shut off by only chaotic damage at your party and watch them cry. Or any spawn of rovagug. Make sure to give them no way to kill it, of course. After all, if the rules provide no way of doing so, why should you?

So yeah, I think it's safe to say that some sort of GM curation is a solid idea.

I agree with everyone else here about waiting for the 2e implementation though. Who knows what it will look like.

PF1 Mythic needed more than 50% curated IMO, especially those abilities with bigger numbers that most attracted players (surprise).

PF2 has nothing on the same scale. Pretty much the opposite actually.