| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a concern with regards to the mythic resilience ability that is available to mythic NPCs. My concern is that it could make casters almost useless as debuffers and battlefield controllers at high levels due to Mythic Resilience on all three saves effectively shutting down casters as if all their spells had the incapacitate trait.
Imagine this. You're a party of level 11 PCs and you're a caster. You're going up against a mythic creature that is PL+2 with all three mythic resilient saves. A level 13 creature's low save is a +20, and as a level 11 caster you likely have a spell DC of 30 at this point. This pretty much means that the only way that the creature can fail a saving throw with their weakest save is for them to roll a 1. A caster should not be struggling this hard to hit the weakest save of a PL+2 creature.
Suppose though that we should instead be judging mythic casters by their mythic spell DC. In the case of a mythic 11 caster, they would have a mythic spell DC of 36 if they spend one of their mythic points. In that situation, the chance that that same creature gets a failure on their save would be 30%. It is as if you're targeting the low save of a creature that is PL+4. Even with mythic points and mythic DCs in play, casters seem to struggle way too much to target even low saves of PL+2 mythic creatures.
If we go up to level 20 mythic PCs, a mythic 20 caster would have a spell DC of 45. With mythic DCs in play, that would be 47. A PL+2 mythic creature with all three mythic resiliences has a low save of +33. Without mythic DCs, the only way the creature can roll a failure in their weakest save is to roll a 2 or less for a 10% chance of failing. With mythic DCs in play, the creature would have to roll a 4 or less for a 20% chance of failing with their weakest save. In this case, it'd be like targeting the moderate save of a creature that is PL+5.
This seems incredibly unfair to any class that relies on DCs to do their main thing, particularly casters, kineticists, and toxicologists. It shuts down an entire playstyle for casters and restricts them to being buff-bots. Classes like kineticist cannot utilize feats that use their Class DC and pretty much are restricted only to making elemental blasts. Toxicologists cannot use their poisons at all.
Is this the intended design? If so, is PL+2 meant to be the new PL+4 in mythic games? Or is there something I'm missing here? Because so far, mythic resilience seems to make high level mythic games feel horrible to play in for anyone that isn't a martial. Some party members would just not be able to contribute effectively in fights at a certain level.
Resentment witches stay winning.
Forgot to clarify what Mythic Resilience is, so people probably don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm just gonna copy-paste what it does here.
Mythic Resilience (1st): The creature treats its saving throws with the associated save as one degree of success better than it rolled. This is not cumulative with other effects that change their degree of success, like the incapacitation trait (except for rolling a natural 1 or 20). Each time the monster gains mythic resilience, choose one save. The ability should apply to the creature’s highest saves first.
This can be taken again at levels 7 and 13, so a Level 13 Mythic Creature has Mythic Resilience in all 3 of their saves.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting that several of the mythic templates specifically forbid you from taking resilience in a specific save, so creatures of that type will have one save that doesn't get juiced up.
Though it's also worth noting a number of the boss monsters have resilience in every save by default, and if you're building a mythic creature normally this is true by mid levels.
It seems kind of out of whack with the other mythic defense systems: mythic resistance is bypassed by simply being mythic, so is mythic immunity, even mythic defense can still allow normal attacks to go through (and it's a level 20 ability whereas resilience comes online at 1 and caps out at 13).
I know the kneejerk reaction will be "well mythic monsters are supposed to be scary" but it's significantly out of step with every other mythic defensive ability and significantly impacts certain classes much more than others.
It genuinely feels like an editing mistake to me, because it's so disproportionate compared to every other ability in the chapter.
That does pretty much ruin casters with nothing for them to do about it. That is not great. It is really going to slant mythic towards martials by quite a margin.
That does pretty much ruin casters with nothing for them to do about it. That is not great. It is really going to slant mythic towards martials by quite a margin.
If this was PF1 I would cheer, but PF2 casters aren't the god kings they used to be.
When I initially started reading this thread I was thinking, a mythic creature 2 levels above a mythic party should be scary, but as I continued reading, and realizing that most mythic defenses are bypassed by also being mythic/having mythic power it does disproportionately affect casters.
In my mind, "by the numbers" if you are mythic and fighting a mythic creature, it should (almost) be the same as if neither of you were mythic. I say almost because I'm thinking mostly in numbers and "extra abilities" that are basically just numbers, like mythic resistance. Not accounting for things that are special actions or expansions beyond simple numbers.
An enemy that can only fail any save on a nat 1....isn't fun for casters to fight. I guess if you know it's coming you can mentally prepare to just buff and not directly attack, but not every caster class has that luxury, nor does every caster player want to become relegated to the cheer squad.
Probably needs to be an explicit rule that no NPC can have 3 mythic resilient saves.
|
I pointed this out in the product thread, but this ability seems out of line.
If we take the 11th level caster scenario from the above, the entire outcome structure is inverted. A 25% chance of success becomes a 75% chance of success.
They would have a 95% to succeed on any non-mythic spells.
Either Mythic Resilience needs a mythic point to power it, or it needs a bypass method. Otherwise this is just bad.
They realy need a way to spend Mythic points to ignore this defence like the other have ways to ignore it.
That does pretty much ruin casters with nothing for them to do about it. That is not great. It is really going to slant mythic towards martials by quite a margin.If this was PF1 I would cheer, but PF2 casters aren't the god kings they used to be.
When I initially started reading this thread I was thinking, a mythic creature 2 levels above a mythic party should be scary, but as I continued reading, and realizing that most mythic defenses are bypassed by also being mythic/having mythic power it does disproportionately affect casters.
In my mind, "by the numbers" if you are mythic and fighting a mythic creature, it should (almost) be the same as if neither of you were mythic. I say almost because I'm thinking mostly in numbers and "extra abilities" that are basically just numbers, like mythic resistance. Not accounting for things that are special actions or expansions beyond simple numbers.
An enemy that can only fail any save on a nat 1....isn't fun for casters to fight. I guess if you know it's coming you can mentally prepare to just buff and not directly attack, but not every caster class has that luxury, nor does every caster player want to become relegated to the cheer squad.
Probably needs to be an explicit rule that no NPC can have 3 mythic resilient saves.
I do wish to add something interesting I've heard while discussing this on reddit and discord.
One alternative interpretation people have told me regarding Mythic Resistance (which is different from Mythic Resilience) is that it's meant to give the creature resistance to attacks made using non-mythic weapons/strikes. This makes alot of sense, and makes the Mythic Strike's clause (Level 10 Mythic Feat) of bypassing Mythic Resistances actually make sense now.
If we go by this interpretation, enemy creatures would want to have a combination of both Mythic Resistance and Resilience. A creature that took all 3 abilities in Resilience would be hard for casters to kill, but vulnerable to martials due to not having resistance. A creature that took all 3 abilities in Resistance would be hard for martials to kill, but very vulnerable to spell DCs.
My only problem with this interpretation though is that:
1. If Mythic Resistance worked this way, then it's pretty much mandatory to take Mythic Strike at level 10, and martials would be shooting theirselves in the foot by not taking this.
2. Mythic Weapons bypass Mythic Resistance, and the mythic ogre example statblock in the book seems to imply that Mythic Martial PCs can get access to Mythic Weapons by as early as Level 7 or even earlier, which makes Mythic Resistance worthless if this is true.
3. Mythic Immunity at Level 23 exists, which gives Immunity to all strikes made using non-mythic weapons. This pretty much makes Mythic Resistance redundant for Mythic 23+ creatures and allows them to just take all three Mythic Resiliences anyway.
4. Mythic Martials still get access to at-will options to counteract the Anti-Martial mythic ability (assuming we pretend it works that way instead of RAW). Mythic Casters however still have no way to counteract Mythic Resilience.
And all this assumes that Mythic Resistance worked by that alternative interpretation instead of what we have in the book as of now. Right now, RAW, Mythic Resistance only grants resistance to strikes made by non-mythic creatures, which in a Mythic Campaign with Mythic PCs, is pretty much worthless outside of flavor.
Here's what Mythic Resistance does:
Mythic Resistance (1st): The creature gains resistance to all Strikes made by non-mythic creatures equal to half its level. If it gains mythic resistance a second time, increase the resistance to its full level. Mythic weapons bypass this resistance even if the creature wielding them is not mythic.
Is there nothing in any of the caster focused Mythic paths or destinies that address Resilience?
I could see it being something gated to characters representing the most mythic spell casters in the world, and not any random mythic character.
Is there nothing in any of the caster focused Mythic paths or destinies that address Resilience?
I could see it being something gated to characters representing the most mythic spell casters in the world, and not any random mythic character.
The most that Mythic Casters could do is cast a spell at Mythic Spell DC, which as I have stated in the beginning of the thread, does not help enough. I've given the mythic feats and destinies a read and I have not seen anything of the sort that lets a caster ignore Mythic Resilience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.
GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.
This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.
Yeah this ability caught my attention when I read the monster section. IMHO It is pretty bad as written if it is always active, for the reasons already stated.
I'll probably change the ability in my games to be something like this:
- You can activate it after rolling a saving throw and knowing the degree of success to improve it one step, at the cost of one mythic point.
- Change the text of the ability so it reads similar to the abilities characters get with levels to upgrade some of their saving throws:
"Mythic Resilience (1st): Choose one save, starting with the creature's highest.It gets the first benefit of this ability: when the creature rolls a success on that save, it gets a critical success instead. The second time the creature gets this mythic ability, you must pick the same save you did the first time. The creature then gets a second benefit: When the creature rolls a critical failure on the selected save, it gets a failure instead. When the creature fails a save against an effect that deals damage, the damage taken is halved.
After taking Mythic Resilience with the same save twice, you can select a different save to apply the first benefit. Prioritize the next highest save the creature has."
|
GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.
And if you boost all saves, it's because it fits the Mythic story you want to tell. It's the beauty of NPC creation not being the same as PC creation.
"We're not in PF1 anymore."
GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.
One of the mythic templates that Paizo printed which can be put on top of mythic creatures is the Ambusher template, and one of the restrictions of that template is that they cannot take Mythic Resistance, which means they're always forced to take Mythic Resilience.
This means that any level 13+ mythic creature with the Ambusher template will always have all three mythic resilient saves. Paizo intends on letting GMs make creatures that have mythic resilience in everything. Having 3 mythic resilient saves is an intentional part of the monster design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.One of the mythic templates that Paizo printed which can be put on top of mythic creatures is the Ambusher template, and one of the restrictions of that template is that they cannot take Mythic Resistance, which means they're always forced to take Mythic Resilience.
This means that any level 13+ mythic creature with the Ambusher template will always have all three mythic resilient saves. Paizo intends on letting GMs make creatures that have mythic resilience in everything. Having 3 mythic resilient saves is an intentional part of the monster design.
That may be the way it's currently set up, because they've failed to realize how bad an idea that is.
The devs are human, they sometimes miss the consequences of their decisions until after the fact.
GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.And if you boost all saves, it's because it fits the Mythic story you want to tell. It's the beauty of NPC creation not being the same as PC creation.
"We're not in PF1 anymore."
I mean, you're not wrong but I'm not sure that's really meaningful here. Yes, as GM I can make changes to avoid overusing the bad mechanic but it's still a bad mechanic that shouldn't exist in its current form.
Until Paizo has made an errata or a statement about this, I'm likely just going to run Mythic Resilience the same way Mythic Resistance works by making Mythic Resilience only apply against save effects made by non-mythic creatures. As it is, mythic creatures heavily and disporportionately penalize mythic casters, kineticists, and any other classes that rely on DCs to contribute to fights.
I'm still unsure and confused why Paizo made mythic creature abilities the way they are. Mythic Resistance is worthless RAW and the alternative interpretation for how it works (resistance to non-mythic strikes/weapons) is easily bypassed through other methods. Mythic Resilience is just totally busted since there is no way to bypass it.
That does pretty much ruin casters with nothing for them to do about it. That is not great. It is really going to slant mythic towards martials by quite a margin.If this was PF1 I would cheer, but PF2 casters aren't the god kings they used to be.
When I initially started reading this thread I was thinking, a mythic creature 2 levels above a mythic party should be scary, but as I continued reading, and realizing that most mythic defenses are bypassed by also being mythic/having mythic power it does disproportionately affect casters.
In my mind, "by the numbers" if you are mythic and fighting a mythic creature, it should (almost) be the same as if neither of you were mythic. I say almost because I'm thinking mostly in numbers and "extra abilities" that are basically just numbers, like mythic resistance. Not accounting for things that are special actions or expansions beyond simple numbers.
An enemy that can only fail any save on a nat 1....isn't fun for casters to fight. I guess if you know it's coming you can mentally prepare to just buff and not directly attack, but not every caster class has that luxury, nor does every caster player want to become relegated to the cheer squad.
Probably needs to be an explicit rule that no NPC can have 3 mythic resilient saves.
I agree. Casters are very much close in power to martials. This was not necessary and makes mythic monsters practically immune to spells given bosses will have already high saves coupled with mythic resilience. I might have to modify this mechanic as it will make no one want to play mythic casters when every mythic boss has incap with high saves against everything they do.
While mythic martials cut through mythic damage resistance like butter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While mythic martials cut through mythic damage resistance like butter.
This is what makes me think it might be in error. Mythic Resistance and Immunity are bypassed essentially for free by mythic characters, because simply being mythic and having mythic gear shuts them off.
The template rules treat resilience and resistance as equivalent abilities (you choose between them), even though mythic characters automatically bypass resistance and resilience essentially halves the effectiveness of all save based abilities. Those exist at wildly different power levels.
Defense is the only other ability that can't be bypassed, and is attack roll specific, but only for countering critical hits and only at level 20 and above. Resilience does that and much more and comes online as early as level 1.
|
|
I mean, you're not wrong but I'm not sure that's really meaningful here. Yes, as GM I can make changes to avoid overusing the bad mechanic but it's still a bad mechanic that shouldn't exist in its current form.GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.And if you boost all saves, it's because it fits the Mythic story you want to tell. It's the beauty of NPC creation not being the same as PC creation.
"We're not in PF1 anymore."
No. It has its uses to create a Mythic monster who is specifically extra strong against save attacks.
And has to be taken down with other means.
If the GM throws such Mythic monsters willy nilly in random encounters knowing they shut down a big part of a caster's arsenal...
That's a GM problem.
Makes me realize we need the Mythic henchman creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, you're not wrong but I'm not sure that's really meaningful here. Yes, as GM I can make changes to avoid overusing the bad mechanic but it's still a bad mechanic that shouldn't exist in its current form.GMs should simply not put mythic resilience on everything.This right? Like, you the GM are building this creature. Just like building any other monster, you need to be sure to not overpower them. leaving one save as a "bad save" is basic monster design.And if you boost all saves, it's because it fits the Mythic story you want to tell. It's the beauty of NPC creation not being the same as PC creation.
"We're not in PF1 anymore."
No. It has its uses to create a Mythic monster who is specifically extra strong against save attacks.
And has to be taken down with other means.
If the GM throws such Mythic monsters willy nilly in random encounters knowing they shut down a big part of a caster's arsenal...
That's a GM problem.
Makes me realize we need the Mythic henchman creature.
It's hard to think of it as a narrative device when it is part of the basic mythic monster design process. As the system is set up right now, a monster with 3 mythic resilient saves is a basic assumption the system makes that the players will encounter semi-regularly, and something the system assumes that the GM is expected to make for basic encounters.
The mythic monster creation guidelines say nothing nor does it warn GMs about making monsters with 3 mythic resilient saves with no limitations, and Paizo seems to intend to let GMs make monsters with 3 mythic resilient saves for basic mythic monsters becasue the Ambusher role template exists, which, as I have stated in a post above, specifically requires that it gets all mythic resilient saves by level 13. This isn't some "big-mega-boss" template for Treerazer, Oliphaunt, or the Tarrasque, this is just a template for your basic unnamed bad guys for your PL+1 or PL+2 encounters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
If the GM throws such Mythic monsters willy nilly in random encounters knowing they shut down a big part of a caster's arsenal...
That's a GM problem.
Flip that around. If using the rules provided in a completely straightforward way is bad GMing then clearly there's a problem with what's written.
Philosophy aside, it's just not a good mechanic. It's dramatically out of step with its peers and has the potential to severely degrade the playability of certain builds in a way that no other option does.
And again, it's not some unique specialist mechanic either, it's a standard feature of the template. If you're following the template, any creature can pick it up at level 1, and every creature is going to have it in at least one save by 13. Hell, Ambushers are required to take it in all their saves.
Didn't realize Mythic lvl 13 creatures were that common in Golarion
Well yeah... That's like, that's what the Godsrain did. And you need mythic creatures for like... y'know, a mythic campaign.
Didn't realize Mythic lvl 13 creatures were that common in Golarion
I mean... Yeah? Eventually your group is going to surpass level 13, and thus encounter such mythic monsters. Obviously not every monster in a mythic adventure will be mythic themselves, but after a certain point all mythic creatures you encounter are past level 13. And you know, Golems weren't very fun. This is kinda like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a primary wizard player, I have always enjoyed a well-placed golem encounter in an adventure, I just wouldn't want every boss creature to be a golem without that being incredibly broadcast from session 0.
As long as creatures with 3 saves at Mythic resilience are less than 10% of creatures encountered, I don't think it will be too big a deal for me, although I think Kineticist players might have a lot more trouble, especially as 2 or even just one resilient save could be a problem for them, especially if it is Fort/Reflex. I guess they can then at least make blast attacks and the creature isn't likely to have mythic resistances that will give them too much trouble. It actually sounds like every mythic caster is going to want some more spell attack roll spells in some high level slots again, so hopefully we get more of them in the near future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a primary wizard player, I have always enjoyed a well-placed golem encounter in an adventure, I just wouldn't want every boss creature to be a golem without that being incredibly broadcast from session 0.
As long as creatures with 3 saves at Mythic resilience are less than 10% of creatures encountered, I don't think it will be too big a deal for me, although I think Kineticist players might have a lot more trouble, especially as 2 or even just one resilient save could be a problem for them, especially if it is Fort/Reflex. I guess they can then at least make blast attacks and the creature isn't likely to have mythic resistances that will give them too much trouble. It actually sounds like every mythic caster is going to want some more spell attack roll spells in some high level slots again, so hopefully we get more of them in the near future.
Eh, it's still a really problematic mechanic. Regardless if someone is using 3 mythic resilient saves on their monsters or not, the fact that it even exists and is allowed by the rules is a very big problem.
This isn't exactly like designing a monster to have 3 extreme saves, because that is something the system's guidelines forbids and warns against, while having 3 mythic resilient saves is something the system makes no effort to warn against and actually makes it a base assumption of monster creation by introducing a basic monster template that has 3 mythic resilient saves.
I also don't think alot of casters will appreciate being forced into playing a buff-bot, and spell attack rolls are very few and far between, and aren't as impactful as save effect spells. There's also, as you mentioned, Kineticists and Toxicologists, and maybe some other more classes that rely on using Class DCs as well, and I don't think I'd enjoy playing a Kineticist where I'm relegated to only using my very underwhelming 5d6 Elemental Blasts or playing a Toxicologist who can't use their poisons, even if that's not every encounter, but it certainly is gonna be a considerable and meaningful number of them.
I lack the book; what's the opportunity cost for the creature?
Do the comparative feats not give similar advantages? (I mean the offensive ones, as the defensive ones have been compared up above and do appear to be inferior, perhaps even geared toward non-Mythic enemies.)
I lack the book; what's the opportunity cost for the creature?
Do the comparative feats not give similar advantages? (I mean the offensive ones, as the defensive ones have been compared up above and do appear to be inferior, perhaps even geared toward non-Mythic enemies.)You pick at level 1/7/13 one of the two options below:
You either pick Resilience for 1 save, which is permanent upgrading the results of all your saving throws using said save.
Or you pick up Resistance (half your level/full level for 2nd time), which is resistance to Strikes but completly bypassed by: being a mythic creature or wielding a mythic weapon.
It doesn't compete with the offensive options at all.
Thank you.
Well that does seem horrible. It sounds like a given, and intentional. It's gonna makes facing groups rougher, meaning warriors should think about their multi-target Strike feats as a bit more valuable. And MM/Force Barrage moves up a notch too.
ETA: Low-level Incapacitation spells move up a notch too, since they're balanced around this setback which now applies to rival spells too. Of course, the pervasive dislike of using those spells indicates how poorly having similar penalties to other spells will be received.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like a mythic caster casting a spell attack roll spell with a mythic point is going to have a nasty spell on their hands that mythic resilience won’t do anything for. Right now those options are fairly limited, but something like holly light is going to tear up a mythic demon. I am waiting to call foul until I deep dive the mythic spell casting options.
It seems like a mythic caster casting a spell attack roll spell with a mythic point is going to have a nasty spell on their hands that mythic resilience won’t do anything for. Right now those options are fairly limited, but something like holly light is going to tear up a mythic demon. I am waiting to call foul until I deep dive the mythic spell casting options.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. There is only one mythic spell in the book that has the attack trait and it does a whopping 4d6 damage at max upcast.
It seems like a mythic caster casting a spell attack roll spell with a mythic point is going to have a nasty spell on their hands that mythic resilience won’t do anything for. Right now those options are fairly limited, but something like holly light is going to tear up a mythic demon. I am waiting to call foul until I deep dive the mythic spell casting options.
Could also use battleform spells. Maybe there is some cool mythic battleform spell.
What would really help is effective summons against bosses. Maybe they will have a mythic summon that can help.
Otherwise combat casters are not going to be be happy, but the bard and cleric will shine even brighter as they can just buff and heal against big bosses. Another thing we don't much discuss in the wizard and combat caster threads is classes like the bard and cleric and druid to a lesser extent can go from debuffing, AoEing, and damage casting to healing and buffing far easier than the arcane casters. It's a major advantage to be able to switch your role when the combat requires it to buffer and healer which the arcane list can't do, but every other list can do.
It just occurred to me how important this is with Mythic Resilience and why classes like the druid, bard, and cleric shine where a wizard or other battle caster like even an arcane sorcerer can become nearly useless when a monster shrugs them off like nothing. The druid, bard, and cleric can suddenly shift their role. Druid to martial combatant and healer. Cleric to healer and buffer. Bard to healer and buffer. Arcane list lacks the ability to do this well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think we'll get some sort of errata or statement about this? I wanna play and/or run a mythic game, but the way mythic monsters are right now makes me super apprehensive to get in one and I don't want to have to homebrew my own fix to tone down mythic resilience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think we'll get some sort of errata or statement about this? I wanna play and/or run a mythic game, but the way mythic monsters are right now makes me super apprehensive to get in one and I don't want to have to homebrew my own fix to tone down mythic resilience.
Maybe, but I doubt it. If you really want to run a Mythic game, I say go for it, and make Mythic Resilience apply to spells and abilities from non-mythic creatures. That'll bring it more in-line with Mythic Resistance and Mythic Immunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it really feels like casters got shafted *hard* with the mythic rules, and they already were suffering. It's a huge overcorrection from 1e and at this point it feels like it's personal from the design team.
I don't think us getting errata is impossible tbh considering 2e has been more active with errata than 1e has been overall
Yeah, I agree. This is the first year we're getting the promised errata cycle not tied to print cycles, and the first one brought a lot of love to books that needed it. There's still plenty that could use some more love, though (looking at Secrets of Magic and Book of the Dead), but it's not impossible.
If these Mythic rules are only in an adventure path, then I'd be worrying about them never being addressed. But since these are in a hardcover rulebook, it's not a matter of if, but when. Hopefully not in multiple years, like Secrets of Magic did.
I don't think us getting errata is impossible tbh considering 2e has been more active with errata than 1e has been overallIt's not impossible. It's just there are a number of glaring problems (considered such by at least a substantial part of local community) that are either not considered a problem by designers or simply ignored for years. We don't have any confidence that this case would be considered a problem and not ignored. (Assuming it's noticed at all)
I hope they notice how big of a problem this is, because it makes mid-high level mythic unplayable, or at least unbearable to play in as a caster/kineticist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know some of y'all have your books, and I am not trying to say anyone's early takes on Mythic Resilience is wrong, but I see a lot of interesting opportunities for spells that get frequently overlooked to be very useful in fights against mythic creatures, and very well may introduce some mythic threats into non-mythic campaigns just to have the occasional monster that really has to be fought in a different way.
1. Spell attack roll spells vs ambushers will be perfectly fine. Especially since ambushers can't have any mythic resistance. A spell like horizon thunder sphere is going to be very effective. The remaster currently lacks a lot of these kind of options, and it looks like that is pretty intentional on the core spells, but maybe as we expand out from the core we'll get a lot more like them (also for any remastered Magus, more spell attack roll spells are a necessity).
1.5. As a weird exploit of that, the shadow signet becomes a way hammer a mythic creature that has a bad (but mythically resilient) save, as long as it is Fort or Ref.
2. They don't improve the actual saving throw modifier, and so some weird spells suddenly become a lot more useful. For example, a rank 2 calm spell will be as effective against a creature with mythic resilience on will as a rank 9 calm spell will be. I don't know that I love this interaction of the rules, as it mostly applies to will save spells, although there are a couple of decent fort ones once you are really, really high level.
The overall effect of mythic resilience is probably going to be that the metanarrative math around some spells and some mythic enemies steps out into a bizzaro-zone that most players will never interact with except to realize "that their spells are useless here," unless mythic enemies tend to be creatures who get myths built up around them in world and the party can learn about and plan to fight well in advance, in which case, there could be a lot of fun to be had with this game mechanic.