| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read over the rules multiple times now, built many characters using them, and played in a 5 session level 12 short campaign and I did not 'feel' anymore powerful than when I play my regular campaign which is also at level 12.
For reference in both games I played the same character using free archetype and ancestry paragon. I selected the same feats, skills, and ability boosts, the only difference was the mythic calling and the first mythic destiny feat.
Human fighter (I know generic) with wandering chef archetype, Hunter's Calling and Eternal Legend.
At no point during those 5 sessions did I feel like I was a cut above my none mythic fighter. Sure from a story perspective I was but roll the dice by the numbers? No.
Did you not grab any mythic feats between level 2-10? That might be your first issue, you need/want Mythic Strikes feat and the other minor bonuses you get from those feats. Also you need to be using Rewrite Fate some more, it is powerful.
Try feats like Correct the Story or Repel Assault and you will see just how powerful you are now compared to the average fighter of non-mythic variety.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda been going back and forth with mythic since, even when I think that it fails to achieve the things it wants to achieve, its not that far from being in that nice sweet spot of being "good" but not "so good it becomes mandatory for power gamers" that I think its what Paizo wanted to avoid.
I settled on a version that I think its the best one to achieve that sweet spot and also the one that requires the less changes to the current system; change the trigger from Rewrite Fate to "You are about to roll a check or save" and its effect to "You can expend a mythic point to attempt the check or save at mythic proficiency". Then change the effects that allow you to roll with mythic prof to instead give you a reroll to a particular check or save with mythic prof.
The problem I had with mythic was that Rewrite Fate was busted as hell while the feats, except for some of the mid to high level ones, were absolutely garbage in comparission. Why would it matter to choose a calling or mythic feat that uses a skill I want to use when all of those only allowed you to roll with mythic prof when I could already do that with Rewrite Fate and arguably better since its a reroll? This makes the choice of your calling much more important which I believe was the intention.
Not going to lie though some of the early Mythic Feats make me feel like a glorified skill monkey, perhaps something not quite one but when you have a hyper specific mythic feat for tying rope on an enemy AFTER another ally grapples them there is something just nto quite right about the system.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda been going back and forth with mythic since, even when I think that it fails to achieve the things it wants to achieve, its not that far from being in that nice sweet spot of being "good" but not "so good it becomes mandatory for power gamers" that I think its what Paizo wanted to avoid.
Shouldn't it be, though? What's the point of Mythic if not "you're a step beyond everyone else and thus can face the challenges normal heroes can't?"
Its not like power gamers can just go out and pick mythic feats at random normal campaigns. This is only available at all if the GM wants to be and thus everyone knows going in its a mythic campaign.
PF1 Mythic was super broken as you went up the tiers, but it did a great job of actually feeling "mythic" with absolutely bonkers characters facing off against massively dangerous foes. PF2 mythic just doesn't do that and the constraints put on it, probably trying to avoid balance issues, are a big reason why.
So the fact that internally it's not balanced with itself at all and some things are way beyond others is really disappointing.
I think I probably didn't explain myself correctly. Yes, mythic should make you stronger (which the current system does, even if most of the content is really bad, Rewrite Fate is IMO that strong) but I think I would prefer that, even in the ideal world where mythic didn't suck, it wasn't like it was in PF1e that it made everything into a joke. However, if I had to be totally honest, it wasn't particularly hard to make stuff a joke in PF1e even without mythic.
That's why I think the current system is not that far from being in an optimal state. A mythic character in the current system without even a single mythic feat is stronger than a non-mythic character only for the existance of Rewrite Fate, but the feats and callings do need a revision since they are not only subpar but also useless when Rewrite Fate exists. That's why I think taking the reroll effect of Rewrite Fate into the callings and feats while taking the roll with mythic prof effect of most feats and callings into Rewrite Fate is a nice and elegant homebrew solution if you don't want to make a new system from scratch.
I do think Mythic should feel like a cut above normal play, not just mechanically but narratively. The point to mythic in my opinion is that you're not just adventurers engaging in heroics, you're figures of such importance that each of you is actively shaping the world in a way that requires way heavier collaboration with the GM than your standard adventuring party. If mythic characters don't feel like they're breaking the conventions of standard play in some form or another, then you might as well just have a party of four regular adventurers with class archetypes, and unfortunately that's the impression I got for mythic callings and destinies.
This is one of the cases where I don't think the concerns of power gaming should carry too much weight, because mythic is very much designed in such a way that a player can't just choose to make their character mythic in regular play and overpower everyone else in the party. Either everyone in the party is mythic in an adventure the GM expressly wants to be mythic, or nobody is. Mythic characters I think should have access to mechanics that wouldn't be allowed on regular characters, and so should mythic monsters in ways more interesting than near-immunity to spells. For instance, I think the Wildspell could very well have a late-game ability that permanently quickens them and lets them use that fourth action to Cast a Spell, which would be way too strong for a regular character but is the kind of thing many caster players dream about.
What I think would help even more, though, would be if mythic callings were gotten rid of entirely, and mythic destinies were made available from level 1. One of the big letdowns of mythic play in 2e, in my opinion, is that you can't play a properly mythic character at the level ranges where most players play, and instead have to wait until level 12 to pick a mythic destiny. In the meantime, the only options available are painfully mundane filler: when people think of mythic adventurers, they don't think of bookkeepers or thespians, but that's what we got, and that's what players are stuck with from levels 1-11 in mythic adventures. The end result can therefore easily end up being that the most mythic aspect to your character in an entire adventure is that you're really good at one occasional check to Command a random wild animal.
That's why I think the current system is not that far from being in an optimal state. A mythic character in the current system without even a single mythic feat is stronger than a non-mythic character only for the existance of Rewrite Fate, but the feats and callings do need a revision since they are not only subpar but also useless when Rewrite Fate exists. That's why I think taking the reroll effect of Rewrite Fate into the callings and feats while taking the roll with mythic prof effect of most feats and callings into Rewrite Fate is a nice and elegant homebrew solution if you don't want to make a new system from scratch.
Yeah you're definitely right about Rewrite Fate. Any option that is "roll this skill check with mythic proficiency" isn't great when you already have "if you don't like the first roll, reroll it with mythic proficiency" that applies to so many things. Plus if your first dice roll is good you don't need to use any mythic power since you're probably succeeding anyway.
There's some real work needed to improve this system, since the callings are mostly uninteresting/niche while the destinies are wildly unbalanced with each other (among other things).
What I will say for PF1 Mythic is that when I ran it, the players had a blast. I'd never do it again because the line between "this can actually challenge them" and "this will be a TPK" was razor thin and it was a nightmare as a GM. But it did its job on the player end of "we're super badass legendary figures."
I don't think PF2 Mythic gives that same feeling... especially for the classes that don't get much out of it and against monsters with the ability that shuts down critical hits and anything with multiple Mythic Resilience (the case with all 3 of them is a middle finger to casters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the disconnect that some people have with PF2 mythic is the (very) limited number of mythic points their characters can use. Only having a maximum of three mythic points that can only be replenished in (very) specific circumstances significantly constrain how often a character can be "more powerful" than in a "regular campaign." This is exacerbated by the mythic points replacing a character's hero points.
TBF, as brought up in other discussions, mythic also tends to "feel" like a bigger deal at lower levels when the +10 bonus from Mythic proficiency is replacing the +2 or +4 for Trained or Expert instead of +6 or +8 for Master or Legendary. It also has been discussed that some mythic destinies (12th+ level) have much better options than others.
Leveling up in a kingmaker campaign from level 1, getting mythic feats the way most people do Free Archetype. We also allow spending a mythic point to buy a hero point (mostly to re-roll an attack).
Recently got the "Godspeed" feat. Being able to cast haste + tailwind on myself for one action & mythic point, at level 4, feels a definite cut above. I play a gish animist, so am always a bit tight on action economy, but can really cut loose when I have the actions to do so and can get in a good position...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Mythic rules are SUCH a letdown for how hyped up they were. Rewrite Fate is VERY nice at lower levels, and some of the highest-level feats are good, but most of it just feels really blah. Large parts of it don't even feel like they were properly playtested.
You aren't even properly Mythic until level 12, a tier most campaigns don't even reach! I was hoping for the crazy, game-breaking shenanigans from 1st edition, and instead I'm just slightly better at a few rolls a session until over halfway through the game. Mythic points don't replenish quickly enough to make a real difference it feels like, and I don't think they should replace Hero Points since they don't cover everything Hero Points did.
As someone who loves to play crafters, I am honestly very upset with the Artisan's Calling. It prevents you from using any equipment you haven't crafted yourself. No one character can craft everything they need! Some of the really cool options at high tiers like Mythic Runes and the Worldforge can only be accessed by PCs with Mythic Crafting, but the calling to get it is too prohibitive.
I think Callings should be done away with entirely, and you should be PROPERLY Mythic from the very beginning.
I am REALLY hoping that in a future release, Mythic rules will get a MASSIVE overhaul. They don't really seem worth it as-is.
I wouldn't really expect a mythic overhaul in a future book. The only reason why we got something similar with the Remaster was because, well, it was a remaster. They aren't going to remake mythic even if absolutely everyone hated it, because even in PF1e it was a niche variant rule and I'm inclined to believe its going to be even more niche in PF2e. I wouldn't be surprised if the few mythic APs we got didn't even force mythic into players and allowed GMs to not use it if they want.
There's eventually going to be errata on War of Immortals and sometimes they address balance issues in errata.
Like the fact that "Mythic Points are genuinely very difficult to regain" and "Rewrite Fate makes most of the effects of the form "you can spend a Mythic Point to attempt the check at mythic proficiency" from the callings irrelevant" seem like something worth addressing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. I wasn't a great fan of First Edition mythic rules. But after reading War of Immortals, I started to think First Edition mythic rules were quite good. Second Edition mythic rules don't let me feel like I am a truly mythic, powerful being at all. I honestly have no idea why people hated First Edition mythic rules so much nowadays.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's eventually going to be errata on War of Immortals and sometimes they address balance issues in errata.
I would like them to make far fewer of these balance issues to start with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's eventually going to be errata on War of Immortals and sometimes they address balance issues in errata.I would like them to make far fewer of these balance issues to start with.
Sure, it's better to not have these issues. But they have shown a willingness to address these kinds of issues with errata, so I hope they do so on the next pass.
Sigh. I wasn't a great fan of First Edition mythic rules. But after reading War of Immortals, I started to think First Edition mythic rules were quite good. Second Edition mythic rules don't let me feel like I am a truly mythic, powerful being at all. I honestly have no idea why people hated First Edition mythic rules so much nowadays.
As someone who ran a PF1 Mythic game, that ruleset becomes literally game breaking past a certain power level. PC get the ability to do so many "instantly end a combat" type of things that it becomes incredibly hard to challenge them at all without crossing over into overwhelming them with even more "instantly end a combat" enemies. PF1 already has a rocket tag feel at high level, and mythic made those rockets bigger. So it was really hard on a GM to get the balance right and that's where a lot of the disapproval for it comes from.
That said, it definitely conveyed the feeling of "I'm a super badass figure of myth fighting against odds that mere mortals couldn't stand against" really well. And while I wouldn't run a lot of mythic campaigns, the one we did do was a success in large part because it delivered on that feeling for the players.
I don't think PF2 mythic delivers that same feeling very well, especially on the weaker destinies and on classes that don't interact properly with it.
Which destinies would you consider weak if I may ask?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was hoping for the crazy, game-breaking shenanigans from 1st edition...
The biggest virtue of PF2, for me, is that it provides an accurate and reliable challenge rating for encounters, which allows it to provide a consistent and enjoyable experience for players and GMs. So I might be an outlier here, but I definitely don't want mythic rules to introduce "game-breaking" anything. (I went through the pain of trying to run a 1st edition mythic game, and it's an experience I never want to repeat.)
What I'd like mythic rules to do is introduce changes in the way the game is set-up that don't tinker with the fundamental math, but do allow players to engage in combat in non-standard ways, and to have greater narrative and world-shaping abilities.
So turning this into constructive feedback: I liked mythic feats like Unbelievable Interception or Eyes that See Eternity; mythic destinies like Godling and Prophesied Monarch; mythic rituals like City of Sin, Void Harvest, and World in Shadow. Stuff that allowed players to do cool new things, or really change the narrative, without breaking encounter math. Whereas I did not like the new mythic monster rules. They make monsters substantially tougher, but don't do so in a way that engages with the system’s use of level to represent how challenging threats are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's genuinely weird how the Beast Lord is written to be "you and your animal companion are two halves of one whole" but while you're significantly harder to put down in a way that lasts, your companion is not. So you're going to be replacing your wolf/cat/bird/bear/whatever with some frequency because, being mythic, you find yourself in more dangerous situations than a normal PC does.
That's kind of an issue of "it doesn't do what it says on the tin."
It's genuinely weird how the Beast Lord is written to be "you and your animal companion are two halves of one whole" but while you're significantly harder to put down in a way that lasts, your companion is not. So you're going to be replacing your wolf/cat/bird/bear/whatever with some frequency because, being mythic, you find yourself in more dangerous situations than a normal PC does.
Plus your companion isn't Mythic and doesn't have a way to bypass Mythic Resistance that I can see. Add how companions naturally tail off in normal PF2 at high level on top of that, and it's an incredibly underwhelming package.
That's kind of an issue of "it doesn't do what it says on the tin."
100%. Nothing leads to a player having a bad time faster than "I expected my character to be good at X because the game told me I would be, but I'm really not."
Which destinies would you consider weak if I may ask?
Beast Lord stands out as particularly egregious in its lack of helping your companion survive against mythic enemies and its lack of helping your companion hit/damage mythic enemies... and companions already tail off in power at high level so this destiny doing basically nothing to address that is a crippling deficiency.
If you compare what Beast Lord does to some of what Ascended Celestial can do, they're not in the same league. Considering how much effort PF2 goes to reduce these kinds of gaps between classes, having one this large in two things in the same book is... something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest virtue of PF2, for me, is that it provides an accurate and reliable challenge rating for encounters, which allows it to provide a consistent and enjoyable experience for players and GMs. So I might be an outlier here, but I definitely don't want mythic rules to introduce "game-breaking" anything. (I went through the pain of trying to run a 1st edition mythic game, and it's an experience I never want to repeat.)
This was one thing I struggled with while trying to make mythic encounters in 2e. Mythic characters and monsters are supposed to be stronger than non-mythic ones, but the rules don't tell you exactly how much stronger they make you, so you're just sort of expected to trial and error until you get it right, which is a disappointment after how reliably accurate the system's encounter balance has been up until this point.
Frankly, I feel like it would've been easier just to make mythic give you levels. That way we can properly raise enemy levels to match their power. But right now we're in this weird halfway point where mythic supposedly doesn't give you more power than a level, but still increases PC power to the point where encounter balancing stops being fully reliable.
They did not give the animal companion the ability to penetrate Mythic DR? That is not great.
Some of these issues. They are willing to leave too much to the GM.
The designers by and large do a good job. But some issues are really obvious at first glance and violate well established principles like Exemplar Archetype. Yet they get through ...| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They did not give the animal companion the ability to penetrate Mythic DR? That is not great.
Nope. It doesn't become a Mythic creature, you can't use Mythic Strike for it, and none of the destiny feats give it anything to get around mythic resistance. Against a mythic enemy, it really doesn't have much going for it (and against a non-mythic enemy you're basically a normal PF2 character with an animal companion).
Meanwhile Ascended Celestial is like "for one action I get haste, temporary HP, physical damage resistance, and a free shove/trip every time I hit something." It doesn't even cost a mythic point.
Or you can no-sell a crit, turning it into a hit and gaining resistence. Or attack every target in your aura (which can be 60') with no MAP. Or you can give your allies +3 to attack/skills for a minute AND frighten every enemy in your aura (which can be 60').
Like was said in another thread: the gaps between these are not what people are used to in PF2.
Some of these issues. They are willing to leave too much to the GM.
The designers by and large do a good job. But some issues are really obvious at first glance and violate well established principles like Exemplar Archetype. Yet they get through ...
Some stuff always slips through because it's just the nature of product development. But I really feel like things have been worse in the last few releases, especially in the second half of 2024. A LOT of stuff came out fairly close together and it felt like there was a significant increase in obvious problems making it through.
Some of this stuff clearly could have used more time in the oven.
I must have missed the Mythic Rule playtest. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention. I do want a more usable Mythic ruleset than PF1, but I don't want it to not feel very mythic. I guess I'll see when I use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must have missed the Mythic Rule playtest. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention. I do want a more usable Mythic ruleset than PF1, but I don't want it to not feel very mythic. I guess I'll see when I use it.
You didn't miss it: there wasn't one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must have missed the Mythic Rule playtest. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention. I do want a more usable Mythic ruleset than PF1, but I don't want it to not feel very mythic. I guess I'll see when I use it.You didn't miss it: there wasn't one.
Mythic really felt like the sort of thing we should have playtested, but it would be harder to run than a class playtest for sure.
For reference in both games I played the same character using free archetype and ancestry paragon.
Well that might well be part of the problem right there. You were already playing superheroes before, so implementing new rules for superheroes probably feels far less dramatic as a result.
I enjoyed the mythic rules in WoI and I like callings ramping up to destinies (that's more about me not liking lvl 1 "godlings" and the player attitudes they can engender). The disparities between some destinies is unfortunate but easily fixable. I just appreciate mythic for giving me something that actually justified a free-archetype-esque campaign. A call to action from the gods may be a little trite but having rules to back it up is sweet!
I honestly have no idea why Paizo thought it was a good idea to omit playtesting entirely for War of Immortals. Now I look forward to Pathfinder Third Edition more than ever, so I can finally see satisfying mythic rules for Pathfinder!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly have no idea why Paizo thought it was a good idea to omit playtesting entirely for War of Immortals.
The Exemplar and Animist were both extensively playtested, I figure they didn't want to run two playtests for one book or overcomplicate the WoI playtest (since they previously found that doing 4 classes at once for the APG didn't work as well as the 2-class playtests.)
Like the Mythic rules were something they could have playtested, but so are the rules for guns. The precedent is mostly that they always playtest classes but don't (publicly) playtest anything other additional material.
It will be interesting to see how much of this will need to change for SF2e, since there are "additional rules" that should receive additional playtesting for that game which are not classes (e.g. "Mecha rules").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the Mythic rules were something they could have playtested, but so are the rules for guns.
One of those works as an entirely new subsystem meant to fundamentally change the tone of the campaign and the other are normal weapons so I'm not sure those elements are really on the same level (though the fact that guns in pf2 are also kind of a flop maybe makes it even worse).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didh't they playtest the rules for guns alongside Gunslinger?
Like the Mythic rules were something they could have playtested, but so are the rules for guns.
They did, with a handful of available firearms.
And yeah, not playtesting mythic was a mistake... though I'm not sure something fundamental like the inverse-scaling on mythic proficiency (overwhelmingly powerful at low proficiency vs a moderate bonus at high proficiency) would have been fixed even with a playtest since it's kind of a fundamental part of how the mythic rules work.
But it wouldn't have hurt, that's for sure. The problems with something like Beast Lord are apparent very quickly as soon as you try and use it against a mythic enemy and a playtest would have caught that real fast.
For reference in both games I played the same character using free archetype and ancestry paragon.Well that might well be part of the problem right there. You were already playing superheroes before, so implementing new rules for superheroes probably feels far less dramatic as a result.
Free archetype to me doesn’t give you a whole lot extra, and I feel like Ancestral Paragon pretty much almost lets you be the ancestry you should already be, only a little later instead of a lot later.
I find PF2R class and archetype options kinda anemic, and Free Archetype does a little to remove that feeling. I find PF2R ancestries completely anemic, and the whole concept of having to wait a bunch of levels to get even near what my character should have been from 1st level is dreadful. [Note to self: Maybe that’s another reason why I play humans almost exclusively.]
I also don’t see either (or both) making a character “superheroic” compared to characters without them. And even more weirdly, it doesn’t seem like Mythic feels…mythic. But I have no experience with Mythic play, and am basing this solely on comments in this thread and the Destinies comparison thread linked upthread.
the only one that feels anywhere mythic is the mortal herald, and that is rare and in a different book. so maybe they realized their error, and will be some extensive errata in the future.
Have you seen the Ascended Celestial? It is considered up there for just being great but Mortal Herald is where it is at in all honestly.
A rough estimate of the power of a mythic destiny is how many levels you can choose an option that does not have the text "spend 1 Mythic Point". Options that let you spend 1 Mythic Point for a single action are especially disfavored. A major issue with mythic is that "mythic points are extremely rare" so ideally you get at least 1 minute out of every high-level thing that costs the metacurrency. Better are things like the Ascended Celestial's 14th level feat that just gives you a fly speed.