| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should rituals (either specific rituals, or rituals in general) be further limited by imposing the mythic tag upon them? (As War of Immortals appears to be doing with create demiplane, freedom, and imprison.)
Some excerpts from the WoI Errata thread:
The create demiplane, freedom, and imprisonment rituals already exist in previous publications as non-mythic rituals and thus should not have the mythic trait.
Even if it was the developers' intent to take away these rituals from our nonmythic characters and further limit their use, I vehemently stand by the above statement. (Perhaps more so.) >8(
I disagree, I think the above rituals work better as Mythic options. The fact that they've been published before means nothing, options can get changed quite majorly when reprinted in the remaster.
How do you figure it is better?
They were already Rare.
All this does is make them unavailable in 99% of games rather than 95% of games.
It also further conceptually undermines the wizard and other casters who--without god mojo--have historically had the ability to create secure domains and imprison people all throughout literature.
It's unnecessary and hurts the game, or at least does nothing good for it.
I will never get behind limiting options for tables for little to no good reason.
If we are speaking about rituals as a whole I disagree. In fact, I would like for rituals to take some cues from Fabula Ultima or even D&D 5e to allow for some "narrative" spellcasting too. This allows for settings like Eberron that are fully built upon a magical foundation to work much better, like having non-spellcasting magical engineers that build lamps with the continual flame spell or similar stuff.
If we are speaking about rituals as a whole I disagree. In fact, I would like for rituals to take some cues from Fabula Ultima or even D&D 5e to allow for some "narrative" spellcasting too. This allows for settings like Eberron that are fully built upon a magical foundation to work much better, like having non-spellcasting magical engineers that build lamps with the continual flame spell or similar stuff.This I don't really understand. You already can build everything magical with crafting (plus Magical Crafting), no spellcasting needed*. You already can cast all rituals with skills only, no spellcasting needed (in contrast to Fabula Ultima where you must be a spellcaster and must have taken appropriate ritual skill to initiate rituals). GMs already can invent and provide PCs with custom rituals with any effect needed. What is hard - is creating rituals on the spot for everything remotely relevant like it's done in FU. But it's done with skills, spells, magic items in PF2 anyway. And GMs in FU still can forbid any rituals they consider unsuitable.
* Yes, a lot of items demand spell cast. But not all, and spells could come from other characters (don't remember about from other magic items). This is a restriction, but not very hard. And this builds cooperation.
You can create whatever you want magical with skills, but you can't cast something like, as I said in my previous comment, continual flame like a spellcaster with a fighter or other martial by taking extra steps, time, or whatever. The closest thing, as you pointed out, is Magical Crafting, which requires being at least expert in Crafting and, if I have to be totally honest, that's totally not worth it for something that in 99,9% of scenarios is something you likely want to do for flavor and not because of its mechanical impact (which is pretty much 0). In contrast, taking a level in a caster class in FU to use rituals is way less punishing than having to invest a skill increase and a skill increase anyways, since you have 50 levels in FU to spend while only 10 skill feats and 9 skill increases in PF2e (for most classes at least).
The good thing about this is that, since it really doesn't have a mechanical impact at all and mostly flavor, it means that any GM can easily handweave it without much problem, though I would want to see a more detailed version of what you can do in FU with rituals in PF2e. We already have the Pervasive Magic variant for that "magic is everywhere" world, so something like this would go perfectly with it.
The spell effects of continual flame/everlight and an everburning torch/everlght crystal are NOT the same thing, despite their many similarities.
One example difference, is that you can permantly dispel the former, but not the latter. Another is that continual flame can be cast on most anything, but an everburning torch must be a torch.
There's also differences in creation time and costs, but you already noted those.
I'm using continual flame because thats the first thing I thought, but I could say something like message to create long distance communication (obviously the 120 feet limit would severely limit this, but in that case I imagine in such a world there could probably be some sort of magical coil in the street that function as a network to increase the range to cover a whole city or town, kinda like repeating the spell until it reaches its destiny).
As I said, this is totally a flavor thing at the end of the day and doesn't really need mechanics, but something like allowing everyone to use cantrips by increasing the casting time to 10 minutes if you aren't a spellcaster with that spell in your spellbook or repertoire would be cool IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my statement, I think there's nothing wrong with these rituals being reprinted as Mythic options. For one, rituals are already a very funny corner of the game since all of them are at minimum Uncommon, and thus subject to full GM veto. You don't use rituals unless the table is using rituals. Mythic sits in a similar spot, I don't think it's that much of a leap from allowing Imprisonment to allowing Mythic. And since at this point we're firmly in home game territory, god knows none of this will be relevant for PFS, at that point you can just... Choose to use the old version if you don't like the remastered take.
I also think the rituals in question (Create Demiplane, Imprison and Freedom) fit more into a mythic game in scope than just a regular adventure even if Rituals in general are allowed. Create Demiplane especially strikes me as being much more appropriate for a game where you become, say, an Archfiend or Deity than one where you're just a really powerful Wizard.
I do not think rituals in general should become a part of the Mythic rules though. I think there should be more Mythic specific rituals and I'm fine with some existing ones being repurposed for Mythic as this trio was, but I would be disappointed if the entire subsystem became Mythified. There's space for things like Resurrection or Plant Growth to be just Uncommon.
Everything is either common or ask your GM. An active GM will likely look over all your choices anyhow, it's best to make sure the things they want to do will work the way they want in your game.
Mythic is just things intended to work together as a whole system with more oomph.
I don't see how adding more labels helps anyone. Trying to use mythic as a secondary blockade to say no to something seems pointless.
Rituals are all under the GMs control, be they uncommon, rare or mythic, there's no difference.
While it would be fine to tag potential specific Rituals with Mythic tag would be acceptable (although would have to double-check what Mythic tag definition says), but I would be very much against Rituals in general being pushed as Mythic. If anything there should be more relatively common rituals available to characters as a baseline. Some religiously inspired, while others potentially more arcane or occult inspired simple/base magics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess this explains why they weren't in PC2: I thought they were OGL casualties.
I don't really get what this is adding. All they've done is taken the default of "this is probably not available" and made it "this is super duper probably not available." Considering the effect was only changed on a critical success and critical success on rituals is already quite difficult, I don't see what this is adding except letting them add a part to the book that says "there's mythic rituals".
Probably would have been better to add a mythic option to existing rituals that makes them do something extra.
And yes: the GM can ignore this. The problem is that the default is the game designers telling people how they think things should work, which carries weight. For a feature of the game that already doesn't get much use, this is just a further relegation of it because a lot of GMs are not going to actually think through if they want to remove the mythic tag off these or not.
Nor should they have to: it's the game designer's job to design the game. Doing things that just subtract from the game and then going "GMs can fix it" is not a good way to operate a game system.
Rituals should just be plot devices in APs, because that is probably the most useful function they fulfill in any given game, and that is a best case scenario.
Worst case scenario, I would have rather they just not published any and used the page space and development effort towards either more balancing and/or other more fruitful options for existing content, but removing them from the game entirely is the next best thing. The whole "The first best time to do it was before it was done, but the second best time is now" thing.
...although would have to double-check what Mythic tag definition says...
Here's what WoI says about mythic rituals:
And here's a relevant excerpt of the Mythic trait:
In short, non-mythic characters can't cast mythic rituals. It's yet another (unnecessary) barrier to entry.
Note that there are thirteen mythic rituals in War of Immortals in all, but I only recognized three as reprinted from earlier sources, unless I missed any.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...although would have to double-check what Mythic tag definition says...Here's what WoI says about mythic rituals:
And here's a relevant excerpt of the Mythic trait:
In short, non-mythic characters can't cast mythic rituals. It's yet another (unnecessary) barrier to entry.
Note that there are thirteen mythic rituals in War of Immortals in all, but I only recognized three as reprinted from earlier sources, unless I missed any.
And also that your proficiency in the skill is irrelevant. Someone trained in the skill is equally as good as someone legendary in the skill at casting mythic rituals with it.
This also makes mythic rituals easier than normal rituals given the bonus the primary caster gets, if you can get past the gate of being allowed to do them at all.
Honestly the more I dig into mythic in this edition, the more stuff I find that I'm not a fan of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making a ritual mythic basically means that it's only going to be available to mythic people right? Which is a tiny minority of all PCs, let alone inhabitants of the diagesis. So I think the question of "should a ritual be mythic" basically boils down to "should someone who's not in the same weight class as Geb, Nex, Baba Yaga, Jatembe, etc. be able to cast it?"
Since the potential narrative power of rituals is essentially unlimited. So I think that mythic rituals are best reserved for things that probably should not be happening more than once every thousand years or so.
It's a question of "should any qualified archmage be able to manage this sort of thing, or only the type who literally shape the world?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Idk. Demiplane has always been an end game goal for any caster I've ever played. A place they call "theirs" is about as end game as you can get. To lose that behind a mythic wall seems... Unnecessary. If it's too game breaking for the GM, just make it so it's not a "get out of jail free" card with a plane shift or other such spell act. /Shrug. That's just my two cents.
I have a soft spot for a few rituals (like The World's a Stage, which is incredibly fun). I'd be very disappointed if rituals were cordoned off into mythic play. They're already uncommon, and only included at GM discretion; I don't think they need to be more gated than that.
Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course.
Adding new options is fine, of course, but many GMs are going to look at these reprints and view them as replacements/errata, not expansions to what already exists. That's taking away existingoptions, not adding new ones.
I did not see any verbiage in WoI indicating that you could use the original rituals normally, than get additional effects or benefits for being mythic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course.Adding new options is fine, of course, but many GMs are going to look at these reprints and view them as replacements/errata, not expansions to what already exists. That's taking away existingoptions, not adding new ones.
I did not see any verbiage in WoI indicating that you could use the original rituals normally, than get additional effects or benefits for being mythic.
I don't have WOI, so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mythic Rules were a variant ruleset.
In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.
I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.
By the way Paizo treats these things, this is a reprint. Thus they are errata and the old ones no longer exist.
The fact that they're reprinted with a new tag doesn't change that they are a reprint, just like the Oracle Mysteries/Curses drastically changing didn't change that they were also a reprint.
Can a GM ignore WoI entirely and use the CRB version? Yes. But that is not what the system is telling them: the system is telling them that these are now Mythic rituals only despite doing basically the same thing. In a standard "remaster content + non-replaced legacy content" game, the old ones are no longer on the table at all.
In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.
That only applies in PFS, which is moot for rituals as they are not permissible options in PFS.
As for home tables, I've simply never met a GM who behaves as you describe. Everyone I know treats a reprint as an errata/replacement, regardless of where it appears in an official publication.
I know at least two GMs who, if I showed this to them, they would immediately revoke said rituals from any non-mythic character that previously had them (one of those GMs likely wouldn't even compensate for the loss).
The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.
Freedom and imprisonment are from the CRB, originally, but create demiplane comes from the APG.
Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course.Adding new options is fine, of course, but many GMs are going to look at these reprints and view them as replacements/errata, not expansions to what already exists. That's taking away existingoptions, not adding new ones.
I did not see any verbiage in WoI indicating that you could use the original rituals normally, than get additional effects or benefits for being mythic.
Yeah, I meant in addition to what already existed before WoI, if that was unclear. I 100% agree with you here; I don't want them more restricted than they were before the book released.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It buffed them, since it means you roll the main check with mythic proficiency--- which makes something like Imprison way better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It buffed them, since it means you roll the main check with mythic proficiency--- which makes something like Imprison way better.
It is only a buff if your table is (or will be) using Mythic rules. It is otherwise not feasible for any other table because the old rituals don't exist now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way Paizo treats these things, this is a reprint. Thus they are errata and the old ones no longer exist.I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.
Normally, that's the case, but does that apply if the rules in question are variant rules and you aren't using that variant system at all?
It seems to me that not using a variant system means that you are treating all aspects of that system as if they don't exist as part of the rules.
So if you aren't using mythic rules, you would ignore the printing of mythic rituals, and those non-existent rules wouldn't replace the already existing rituals.
It seems weird to say that mythic rituals don't exist in your rule book because you aren't using that variant system, but at the same time they somehow do exist in your rule book and therefore they do replace the existing rules.
The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability by tying it to the variant rules, so this argument of "variant rules don't override core rules" makes no sense.
It is entirely possible that Paizo intended for these specific Rituals to permit Mythic versions of themselves, but that is pure speculation and has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
As for home tables, I've simply never met a GM who behaves as you describe. Everyone I know treats a reprint as an errata/replacement, regardless of where it appears in an official publication.
...
But if the rule changes are part of a variant rule set that you aren't using, then shouldn't you ignore that those variant rule descriptions exist?
It seems to me that if you aren't using a variant system like Automatic Bonus Progression then you should just ignore any rules contained within that system.
For example, the Armor Proficiency general feat printed in PC1 clearly replaces the version from the CRB because neither version is part of a variant system. They are both part of the core system and so the more recent one replaces the older version.
But let's say that in the future Paizo prints a variant rule system in which that feat works differently — perhaps it lets your armor scale with your unarmored defense progression.
Wouldn't the existence of that particular version of Armor Proficiency only replace the PC1 version if you were using that new variant system?
Otherwise you end up in the odd position that the players can't use the variant version because those rules aren't part of the system you are using, but they also can't use the old version because you are accepting the new rule as part of your system.
It just seems odd to me that someone would accept the variant version as part of the rules and simultaneously reject it as part of the rules. It's Schrödinger's rule.
-snip-
It's not a variant of an existing rule, though, it is turning the existing rule into a variant rule, thereby completely invalidating the previous existing rule. That is exactly what a reprint does; it takes the old rule and converts it into a new rule, invalidating the old one. That is why PC1 options take precedent over CRB options, because they are reprints.
So the argument of "just use the old one" doesn't work, because the intent for it has changed from "it belongs in the base game" to "it can only be used with Mythic rules."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is entirely possible that Paizo intended for these specific Rituals to permit Mythic versions of themselves, but that is pure speculation and has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.
You seem to love attributing motives to me, and somehow in all of these years you've never been correct about any of them. I don't know whether to be amused by that or just feel sad for you.
There's no wishful thinking in my part. I have zero interest in using rituals whether they are mythic or not, so I have no investment in whether the mythic rituals replace the old ones or not. I'm just trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity.
The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability by tying it to the variant rules, so this argument of "variant rules don't override core rules" makes no sense.
My point is that isn't clear to me that variant rules can or should count as reprints of core rules. Variant rules are elements of variant systems, and if you reject a variant system then it doesn't make sense to me that you would have to accept elements which only exist within that system. That would mean that those elements of the variant rules are actually core rules and thus not actually variant rules.
Imagine that Rule A is valid in a particular non-Euclidean geometry but not in Euclidean geometry. Rule B, on the other hand is true under Euclidean geometry but not under any non-Euclidean geometry. And Rule A and Rule B are incompatible.
Given all of that, saying "I accept Euclidean geometry and reject non-Euclidean geometry, but Rule A can't be true under Euclidean geometry because Rule B contradicts it" won't ever make sense to me. Claiming to reject the entire system of non-Euclidean geometry while still applying rules derived from it to Euclidean geometry is clearly not consistent.
I'm fine if Paizo intends for those rituals to be replaced. I don't care about the particular outcomes in this case. But it seems to me that your reasoning for why this should work can only be true if either the meaning of "variant rules" has changed or that the mythic rules aren't variant rules.
-snip-It's not a variant of an existing rule, though, it is turning the existing rule into a variant rule, thereby completely invalidating the previous existing rule.
As I said at the beginning of this conversation, I don't have the book. If the book specifically stares what you say it does, then there isn't any reason for me to continue. Could you cite the text that specifies that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It buffed them, since it means you roll the main check with mythic proficiency--- which makes something like Imprison way better.It is only a buff if your table is (or will be) using Mythic rules. It is otherwise not feasible for any other table because the old rituals don't exist now.
Given the plot coupon nature of Imprisonment, and the fact that it's already uncommon, I kinda think this is small potatoes as obstacles go? If someone raises to the GM that they want access to imprisonment, and the GM agrees they like the idea, I can see the GM giving them access to this one mythic option. That's even assuming the GM minds them using the CRB version that wasn't mythic when it's pointed out to them, and agrees it counts as invalidating the CRB version in the first place-- as opposed to only counting if the Mythic Rules are actually in play.
I'm more interested in the better math for when you *can* use it, rather than the shift from needing GM's Permission to use it to needing GM's Permission to use it.
I'm more interested in the better math for when you *can* use it, rather than the shift from needing GM's Permission to use it to needing GM's Permission to use it.
I'd have preferred they fix the ritual DC issues in general rather than just making mythic ones easier, but yes. If you're in the situation where you actually can use it, it did get easier. If there's any low rank mythic rituals, they would have gotten a LOT easier.
[By the way Paizo treats these things, this is a reprint. Thus they are errata and the old ones no longer exist.Normally, that's the case, but does that apply if the rules in question are variant rules and you aren't using that variant system at all?
Yes, it does: it's turned these into part of the variant rules. You don't ignore the reprint because of that. The reprint has turned these into part of the variant rules, which means if you're not using the variant rules they no longer exist at all.
Some people won't do that, but that is the default that has been given by the system writers and how PFS effectively treats things (which since rituals themselves don't exist there is kind of a moot point, but the way its handled is the same across the board).
As I said at the beginning of this conversation, I don't have the book. If the book specifically stares what you say it does, then there isn't any reason for me to continue. Could you cite the text that specifies that?-snip-It's not a variant of an existing rule, though, it is turning the existing rule into a variant rule, thereby completely invalidating the previous existing rule.
I don't have the book either, but I don't need the book or a citation to draw the logical conclusions I'm drawing. If an ability is reprinted different from its original, without any stipulation of it simply being a variant option and nothing more, it means it uses the new, reprinted rule. No such text for the "new" Mythic rituals means it overrides the old rule.
So, if an ability is originally printed to be used as a standard ability, but then reprinted to have a trait only usable with variant rules, then that means the ability can now only be used with variant rules, barring a sidebar saying that these are "special variants" of existing options to simply make use of Mythic proficiencies, and that the originals are still functional. I find it very hard to believe nobody has found a sidebar anywhere to clarify this apparent confusion, so I err on the side of "it doesn't exist" over "hundreds of people don't know where the sidebar is."
Also, how am I incorrectly attributing your motives? You want non-Mythic rules to function when Mythic rules are in place and were written to override the original non-Mythic options, but won't accept it because the originals are still "functional" if we don't play by Mythic rules, which is irrelevant if Paizo has now deemed those rules to be exclusive to Mythic through reprinting.
|
You can create whatever you want magical with skills, but you can't cast something like, as I said in my previous comment, continual flame like a spellcaster with a fighter or other martial by taking extra steps, time, or whatever. The closest thing, as you pointed out, is Magical Crafting, which requires being at least expert in Crafting and, if I have to be totally honest, that's totally not worth it for something that in 99,9% of scenarios is something you likely want to do for flavor and not because of its mechanical impact (which is pretty much 0). In contrast, taking a level in a caster class in FU to use rituals is way less punishing than having to invest a skill increase and a skill...If we are speaking about rituals as a whole I disagree. In fact, I would like for rituals to take some cues from Fabula Ultima or even D&D 5e to allow for some "narrative" spellcasting too. This allows for settings like Eberron that are fully built upon a magical foundation to work much better, like having non-spellcasting magical engineers that build lamps with the continual flame spell or similar stuff.This I don't really understand. You already can build everything magical with crafting (plus Magical Crafting), no spellcasting needed*. You already can cast all rituals with skills only, no spellcasting needed (in contrast to Fabula Ultima where you must be a spellcaster and must have taken appropriate ritual skill to initiate rituals). GMs already can invent and provide PCs with custom rituals with any effect needed. What is hard - is creating rituals on the spot for everything remotely relevant like it's done in FU. But it's done with skills, spells, magic items in PF2 anyway. And GMs in FU still can forbid any rituals they consider unsuitable.
* Yes, a lot of items demand spell cast. But not all, and spells could come from other characters (don't remember about from other magic items). This is a restriction, but not very hard. And this builds cooperation.
If it is for NPCs, they do not need to be created with PC rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability
Given that all rituals are rarity locked they were already optional rules. So they've gone from something you need your GM to enable for you to something you need your GM to enable for you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/abilityGiven that all rituals are rarity locked they were already optional rules. So they've gone from something you need your GM to enable for you to something you need your GM to enable for you.
What a strawman. Rarity and Mythic are not the same, any more than Rarity and Free Archetype are the same.
They are different assumptions of rules and different hoops to jump through. Many more GMs will be permissive of Rarity versus an entire variant rule like Free Archetype, or in this case, Mythic.
Rarity and Mythic are not the same, any more than Rarity and Free Archetype are the same.
They are different assumptions of rules and different hoops to jump through. Many more GMs will be permissive of Rarity versus an entire variant rule like Free Archetype, or in this case, Mythic.
I agree.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally got to look at this part of the book and compare the old ritual from Archives of Nethys with the new one/ones. So now I have a better understanding of the question and concern.
And by the way there is a sidebar that describes what a Mythic Ritual should be.
WHAT MAKES A RITUAL MYTHIC?
Rituals are magic that anyone with the right skills and resources can perform, and they often have large and significant effects or ramifications. So what makes a mythic ritual mythic? Most notably, the scale and impact they have on the game world. While most rituals might have a significant effect for a single character or a small region, mythic rituals can represent huge changes in the story and structure of the narrative, dynamically changing things that are true about the world in a way that creates consequences felt at a national or planetary level, and might even end or begin significant stories.
Based on this sidebar it seems like a mistake to have made Create Demiplane into a Ritual that required Mythic. I could see why it and Imprison, and Freedom Rituals, for instance could have had Mythic Heightening's that would potentially leverage Mythic points/Mythic skill proficiencies, etc. But crating a small demi-plane is not changing something at a national or even regional level, and is a part of many a Fantasy story that weren't planning on treading on the 'godlike' power structures. For instance most magic users can create smaller temporary places relatively easily, so why would creating a private space less than half an Acre in size considered mythic now?
I understand perfectly how it could have seemed like a perfect opportunity to include the Create Demiplane ritual back in after remaster as working with Mythic and Divinities puts you in a position to talk about planar powers and such. However, I also agree it is (in my personal opinion) a poor choice to consider this ritual only appropriate to Mythic stories, when it was more widely available before. Playing a 20th level wizard isn't supposed to 'presuppose' you are playing a Mythic game, that would need the Mythic rules, and the original ritual fit perfectly well in those fantasies. How does this 'change' limiting to Mythic characters, enable you to easily tell the same stories you could, that you want to.
If they wanted to make Mythic only version of the ritual, why didn't they name it Create Mythic Demiplane ritual? Give it some better options or size growth making a a preferred route for rather extreme. Honestly, it isn't hard for me to imagine someone having added the ritual in the book because it 'seemed appropriate', and then later editing passes someone 'presumed' that because it was in the book, it needed to be tagged mythic as a baseline. I'd be all for a errata to remove the Mythic trait from the ritual, and add a Mythic Heighten that would add the Mythic point cost, enable Mythic skill proficiency to be leveraged, and have it adjust the outcomes in some appropriate manners.
Again, saying Rare means you need to talk to the DM, and so Mythic Rare means the same, so there is no difference, does not work. Otherwise you could say, take everything RARE in other books and add Mythic. And we should all know that doesn't make sense.
I'm hoping that the original intent was for Create Demiplane was to show how some rituals might interact with Mythic but might not Require Mythic, and editing got carried away with simplifying/unifying things and took it too far. Again, that's my hope, and I'm hoping something will come out to clarify something like that.
Me personally I would replace Imprisonment and Freedom with Wish as a Mythic Ritual.
It fits the description in the mythic ritual tab.