| 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.
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.
...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.
| 1 person 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?"
| 2 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It buffed them, since it means you roll the main check with mythic proficiency--- which makes something like Imprison way better.
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.
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.
...
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.