How are you running this?
Quote: 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. If you are a mythic character, do you get to bypass it even if wielding non-mythic weapons?
What counts as a mythic creature? Anyone with mythic points?
This resistance seems pretty pointless if all you need is to be mythic to bypass it. It would make the creature stronger against non-mythic PCs with non-mythic weapons, but mythic PCs would ignore it given how it is written.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm not running. Because currently the mythic rules are too problematic and the game runs better without them. :P
I think its fairly accurate what you have said.
Mythic PCs bypass it, Non-mythic PCs need Mythic Weapons to bypass it.
A Mythic Creature is either a PC with a Mythic Calling or a Creature with the mythic trait (most likely adjusted by a mythic template)
In a mythic campaign its absolutely useless against the PCs unless said PCs have companions or summons.
I honestly feel like they mostly included this because of the Mixed Play segment in Variant rules to have Mythic and Non-mythic PCs in the same party.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm not running Mythic Resistance/Resilience because it's extremely unbalancing the game math to an unplayable degree.
Instead I've replaced them with custom houserules for the creatures that have them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Deriven Firelion wrote: How are you running this?
Quote: 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. If you are a mythic character, do you get to bypass it even if wielding non-mythic weapons?
I don't see how it could be run any other way within the rules. It says "mythic creature" pretty clearly. Weapons are irrelevant to it if you meet that criteria.
Weapons only matter if it's a non-mythic creature that got a mythic weapon.
Quote: What counts as a mythic creature? Anyone with mythic points? RAW, it's anything "with mythic power". When PCs "gain mythic power", they're supposed to get a Calling and Rewrite Fate. So if you have that, you're definitely mythic.
Gaining mythic power appears to just be GM fiat declaring "you're mythic now", so its a "I know it when I see it" situation. But since you're supposed to get a Calling and mythic points at the same time if you're going by the rulebook, having one means you have the other.
Course if you're in some scenario that gives you a mythic ability temporarily for the scenario, are you mythic during that? Good question.
Quote: This resistance seems pretty pointless if all you need is to be mythic to bypass it. It would make the creature stronger against non-mythic PCs with non-mythic weapons, but mythic PCs would ignore it given how it is written. That's what happens, yes. It's a pretty nothingburger ability unless you're a PC with an animal companion/eidolon (though since eidolons are part of the Summoner you could maybe argue that one) in which case you're just stuck with it and are significantly hindered. The bypass methods don't even tend to work here, since an animal companion can't use mythic strike and can't wield a mythic weapon.
Meanwhile Mythic Resilience has no way to bypass it at all except targeting a different save, and there's creatures with multiples of that, so casters get to go through hoops to have to figure out what to target and work around it... and the one with Mythic Resilience x3 is just "you're playing support now, like it or not, this fight is for martials".
As written, I told my GM that if he ever runs a PF2 mythic game I'm playing a martial and I don't care if that means the party is 100% martials. The mythic deck is stacked too much in their direction.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think that the entire point of Mythic Resistance is that non-mythic people have a hard or impossible time defeating a Mythic monster. They need a Mythic hero, or group, to help them.
Look at Beowulf. Grendel is a mythic monster and wipes out a whole long house of battle-hardened warriors. They were very skilled and experienced, and could do nothing against it.
Beowulf, who is literally a mythic hero in this tale, kills Grendel.
That's the point, I think, of Mythic Resistance, creating story elements that make the PCs into much larger than life heroes.
I don't like the way that Mythic Resistance functions as written because it only functions if the GM is using Mythic for enemies but not also using Mythic for PCs.
So since I believe that not to be intended, as Mythic rules are presented as a game-wide toggle, I have to believe that the wording of "non-mythic creatures" is actually intended to be something else.
I've picked "non-mythic Strikes" as a thing to fill in. And in doing so have made it so that the typical play case of an enemy with Mythic Resistance is that they reduce damage of the characters fighting against them which gets overcome if the character has a mythic weapon (which they usually won't because of item level... because these rules are fairly poorly constructed in more than just this one place), or has used one of the available options to get Mythic Proficiency on the Strike they are making - but then doesn't also apply against spells which are already having enough trouble when they have to go up against Mythic Resilience so they don't need to also have Mythic Resistance affect them.
thenobledrake wrote: I don't like the way that Mythic Resistance functions as written because it only functions if the GM is using Mythic for enemies but not also using Mythic for PCs.
So since I believe that not to be intended, as Mythic rules are presented as a game-wide toggle, I have to believe that the wording of "non-mythic creatures" is actually intended to be something else.
I've picked "non-mythic Strikes" as a thing to fill in. And in doing so have made it so that the typical play case of an enemy with Mythic Resistance is that they reduce damage of the characters fighting against them which gets overcome if the character has a mythic weapon (which they usually won't because of item level... because these rules are fairly poorly constructed in more than just this one place), or has used one of the available options to get Mythic Proficiency on the Strike they are making - but then doesn't also apply against spells which are already having enough trouble when they have to go up against Mythic Resilience so they don't need to also have Mythic Resistance affect them.
There is a counterpoint to this in that they absolutely intended for parties where only some PCs are mythic as seen in the Mixed Play Variant Rule
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: thenobledrake wrote: I don't like the way that Mythic Resistance functions as written because it only functions if the GM is using Mythic for enemies but not also using Mythic for PCs.
So since I believe that not to be intended, as Mythic rules are presented as a game-wide toggle, I have to believe that the wording of "non-mythic creatures" is actually intended to be something else.
I've picked "non-mythic Strikes" as a thing to fill in. And in doing so have made it so that the typical play case of an enemy with Mythic Resistance is that they reduce damage of the characters fighting against them which gets overcome if the character has a mythic weapon (which they usually won't because of item level... because these rules are fairly poorly constructed in more than just this one place), or has used one of the available options to get Mythic Proficiency on the Strike they are making - but then doesn't also apply against spells which are already having enough trouble when they have to go up against Mythic Resilience so they don't need to also have Mythic Resistance affect them.
There is a counterpoint to this in that they absolutely intended for parties where only some PCs are mythic as seen in the Mixed Play Variant Rule Counter-counterpoint, it seems hard to accept that a core ability of creatures is only intended to be something used in a Variant rule.
If it was indeed something for a variant rule, it would be presented in that area rather than in the fundamental creature building rules.
Which is fair enough, The counterpoint wasn't "its only for that kind of variant rule". Rather that they covered for scenarios where other creatures assist the PCs, Mixed Play, and when the characters have yet to recieve their mythic power.
Starting off at level 1 with your mythic power isn't presented as a default but rather gained after slaying a mythic creature, mythic deed or other event the GM decides upon. I just don't think "Mythic is a game-wide toggle" as being an accurate statement and that GMs can use mythic creatures as important antagonists in a non-mythic game.
I don't like how the ability becomes useless after the PCs gain mythic powers but I also don't like how mythic resistance is purely against strikes either, But it is hard to argue that Mythic Creatures were meant only go up against Mythic PCs and NPCs.
Edit: Actually... Someone pointed out to me the existance of Mythic Strike, Which makes absolutely no sense in a world where Mythic Resistance doesn't apply against strikes from mythic creatures. Errata worthy perhaps?
NorrKnekten wrote:
There is a counterpoint to this in that they absolutely intended for parties where only some PCs are mythic as seen in the Mixed Play Variant Rule
If that were a genuine intention and not a "I dunno, maybe you'd do this" half-mention that doesn't even cover all the ins and outs of what it mentions... it would be in the book itself, not the random extra PDF.
NorrKnekten wrote: Starting off at level 1 with your mythic power isn't presented as a default but rather gained after slaying a mythic creature, mythic deed or other event the GM decides upon. I just don't think "Mythic is a game-wide toggle" as being an accurate statement and that GMs can use mythic creatures as important antagonists in a non-mythic game. I suspect the most common way Mythic is played is with it as a game wide toggle. While a GM can use mythic creatures in a non-mythic game and can also do things like "some PCs are mythic and others aren't", I don't think that's the most common style of play.
It's also a weird way to go given that Mythic Resistance being only for non-mythic PCs while Mythic Resilience is for everyone is a really bizarre contrast.
Quote: Edit: Actually... Someone pointed out to me the existance of Mythic Strike, Which makes absolutely no sense in a world where Mythic Resistance doesn't apply against strikes from mythic creatures. Errata worthy perhaps? Yeah it's really bizarre. Mythic Strike reads like something designed to work in a different iteration of the rules, because there's a bunch of text on it that does literally nothing in the current system. The only way to get Mythic Strike lets you ignore Mythic Resistence anyway.
Tridus wrote: I suspect the most common way Mythic is played is with it as a game wide toggle. While a GM can use mythic creatures in a non-mythic game and can also do things like "some PCs are mythic and others aren't", I don't think that's the most common style of play. No I agree with all of that, that is the most common way to play mythic, even in cases where mythic power is introduced several sessions or month into the campaign. The cats kinda out of the bag once they gain their powers.
As for mythic strike, We dont even know which is the correct behavior, is it Mythic Strike or Mythic resistance.
If Strike is, then the resistance seems to be only bypassed by mythic weapons.
If Resistance is, Then Strike has no reason to mention Resistance and only functions against immunity, which makes it rather pointless until level 20 creatures by the way it is written.
NorrKnekten wrote: As for mythic strike, We dont even know which is the correct behavior, is it Mythic Strike or Mythic resistance.
If Strike is, then the resistance seems to be only bypassed by mythic weapons.
If Resistance is, Then Strike has no reason to mention Resistance and only functions against immunity, which makes it rather pointless until level 20 creatures by the way it is written.
We don't know what they intended. We do know what they wrote. Mythic Resistance is clear how it works: mythic creatures ignore it. If the PCs have mythic archetypes and mythic points, it's hard not to consider them mythic creatures.
It means Mythic Strike doesn't make sense in what its saying... but it's not exactly the first time that happened. The second half of last year in particular had a LOT of issues like this. A lot of content coming out felt rushed and like it needed more time in the oven.
Our options here are either to have a redundant function on Mythic Strike, or to just flat out ignore what Mythic Resistance says it does.
Unless we get errata, the "mythic strike's text is redundant" explanation is the more reasonable one.
Tridus wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: As for mythic strike, We dont even know which is the correct behavior, is it Mythic Strike or Mythic resistance.
If Strike is, then the resistance seems to be only bypassed by mythic weapons.
If Resistance is, Then Strike has no reason to mention Resistance and only functions against immunity, which makes it rather pointless until level 20 creatures by the way it is written.
We don't know what they intended. We do know what they wrote. Mythic Resistance is clear how it works: mythic creatures ignore it. If the PCs have mythic archetypes and mythic points, it's hard not to consider them mythic creatures.
It means Mythic Strike doesn't make sense in what its saying... but it's not exactly the first time that happened. The second half of last year in particular had a LOT of issues like this. A lot of content coming out felt rushed and like it needed more time in the oven.
Our options here are either to have a redundant function on Mythic Strike, or to just flat out ignore what Mythic Resistance says it does.
Unless we get errata, the "mythic strike's text is redundant" explanation is the more reasonable one. Yeah, I agree. Following gameconventions Mythic Resistance is clear in what it does and the text in Mythic Strike is redundant or "referenencing the base rules"
I think following the game conventions the other way around produces a more workable result; Mythic Resistance is clear but causes problems so we don't stick to the wording, and by doing that we make Mythic Strike also able to be functional.
That way we aren't effectively just deleting one thing even though that is, technically, simpler.
thenobledrake wrote: I think following the game conventions the other way around produces a more workable result; Mythic Resistance is clear but causes problems so we don't stick to the wording, and by doing that we make Mythic Strike also able to be functional.
That way we aren't effectively just deleting one thing even though that is, technically, simpler.
No I agree with that aswell, Two separate parts one for dealing with ambiguity or problematic rules. And the other mentioning that sometimes rules mentions baserules for context as Mythic Resistance is not at all ambigious.
Here is a good question though, Does a Mythic Character gain the Mythic Trait? and if not, despite all this natural language presenting them as characters in a mythic campaign, are they truly considered mythic in gamesense?
Even if you could make a case for that, I don't particularly want to use a system where a mythic character somehow isn't considered a mythic creature.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Here is a good question though, Does a Mythic Character gain the Mythic Trait? and if not, despite all this natural language presenting them as characters in a mythic campaign, are they truly considered mythic in gamesense? So... that's just not at all how this game works.
Because it is written in and intended to be read in casual language, it must be enough that the section of the book which describes how a PC obtains their mythic calling, feats, and the like, is titled "Mythic Characters" and that means having any of those things is a result of and proof of your being a mythic character.
Otherwise there is no such thing as a mythic character when it comes to PCs because there's no part of the text that says to add the mythic trait to your character or otherwise defines what a mythic character even is. And just about every mythic rule mentions mythic characters as though that's what you must be if you're engaging this rule, with phrasing such as "At 1st level, or whenever they receive their mythic power, a mythic character gains a mythic Calling and the Rewrite Fate ability (see page 78)." where you can see that either you are a mythic character just because the rules are in play despite not having explicitly added a trait or the rules are not actually functional even at their base level.
Tridus wrote:
It means Mythic Strike doesn't make sense in what its saying... but it's not exactly the first time that happened. The second half of last year in particular had a LOT of issues like this. A lot of content coming out felt rushed and like it needed more time in the oven.
Sadly I have to agree that more and more content that comes out is riddled with errors, mistakes, and things that slip through the cracks way more than what it used to be beforehand.
Which is also why the lattest round of Errata was such a dissapointment since it failed to address countless things pointed in the dedicated thread for it and instead had some barebones trivial changes.
thenobledrake wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Here is a good question though, Does a Mythic Character gain the Mythic Trait? and if not, despite all this natural language presenting them as characters in a mythic campaign, are they truly considered mythic in gamesense? So... that's just not at all how this game works. I'm playing the devils advocate with a set of rules that seemingly makes very little sense and that i've already called errata worthy. Presenting a stance I heavily disagree with because it has a point.
We all agree that the rules either make Mythic resistance non-existent and/or makes no sense at all, and should be clarified. Because right now that is the entire issue, RAW states mythic creatures ignore the resistance.. which is but also totally on point for behavior lifted from 1e.
Mythic Character might actually not be considered mythic creatures. (Making them completely opposite of 1e mythic)
Mythic Resistance was meant affect strikes made with non-mythic weapons even if the character is mythic. (Like Mythic Immunity currently says)
Mythic Resistance works just as intended and is a non-existent mechanic against Mythic characters just like in 1e, Epic DR or Immortal became non-existent mechanics against +6 weapons or mythic characters.
All possible intentions.
Because when I read the rules..as I have previously stated, they very clearly state that Mythic resistance does not apply against mythic creatures, of which mythic characters should be. Some people say it feels wrong as the ability doesnt function in the most common campaign to include it. I agree.
So either RAW is the intention, or we are very clearly missing something that is RAI but not explicitly written. As is fit for a rules discussion.
shroudb wrote:
Sadly I have to agree that more and more content that comes out is riddled with errors, mistakes, and things that slip through the cracks way more than what it used to be beforehand.
Which is also why the lattest round of Errata was such a dissapointment since it failed to address countless things pointed in the dedicated thread for it and instead had some barebones trivial changes.
This, I feel, is a point on which many people fail to set proper expectations and do not realize it.
The Remaster cramming extra work into the same amount of time is the likely culprit for why the level of errors present in products has gone up, and while the Remaster is "done" now so the schedule can return to some normalcy there is now the extra work of finding all the errors and deciding what to actually do about them.
And while people might think fixing a lot of the errors is just reading the thread where message board users have collected what they've found and doing what the posters suggest as a fix, that's not how things really work. The team can't just go "okay, sounds good" to some armchair game designer, they have a responsibility to everyone else playing the game to actually check things out. Which is a fundamental thing, really, the people posting disappointment about how the thread didn't have a different impact were thinking it was going to be a thing it was never going to be since any errata suggestion is always going to be a thing that the team adds to the list of stuff to check in on and nothing further than that.
And there's only so many hours in the day, so the work pace isn't going to magically increase just because people hope this time the errata list will be 5 times bigger than last time.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote:
Sadly I have to agree that more and more content that comes out is riddled with errors, mistakes, and things that slip through the cracks way more than what it used to be beforehand.
Which is also why the lattest round of Errata was such a dissapointment since it failed to address countless things pointed in the dedicated thread for it and instead had some barebones trivial changes.
This, I feel, is a point on which many people fail to set proper expectations and do not realize it.
The Remaster cramming extra work into the same amount of time is the likely culprit for why the level of errors present in products has gone up, and while the Remaster is "done" now so the schedule can return to some normalcy there is now the extra work of finding all the errors and deciding what to actually do about them.
And while people might think fixing a lot of the errors is just reading the thread where message board users have collected what they've found and doing what the posters suggest as a fix, that's not how things really work. The team can't just go "okay, sounds good" to some armchair game designer, they have a responsibility to everyone else playing the game to actually check things out. Which is a fundamental thing, really, the people posting disappointment about how the thread didn't have a different impact were thinking it was going to be a thing it was never going to be since any errata suggestion is always going to be a thing that the team adds to the list of stuff to check in on and nothing further than that.
And there's only so many hours in the day, so the work pace isn't going to magically increase just because people hope this time the errata list will be 5 times bigger than last time. there is tempering expectations to a reasonable degree, and there is a barebones of an Errata on a 6 month schedule.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be fixed instantly as it's reported, but I also don't think that it's reasonable to have such few fixes and so many errors not even addressed at all.
In short, while I agree that there should be reasonable expectations from the readers, I also do think that there should also be reasonable expectations from the developers. Instantly excusing them without questioning why there aren't really any real errata done in such a big timeframe is not doing anyone any good.
NorrKnekten wrote: I'm playing the devils advocate with a set of rules that seemingly makes very little sense and that i've already called errata worthy. Presenting a stance I heavily disagree with because it has a point.
We all agree that the rules either make Mythic resistance non-existent and/or makes no sense at all, and should be clarified. Because right now that is the entire issue, RAW states mythic creatures ignore the resistance.. which is but also totally on point for behavior lifted from 1e.
I think it's important to distinguish between different rules issues:
1. Rules that are unclear/confusing/contradictory. aka: we don't understand what it does.
2. Rules where we can understand what they do as written but where that doesn't make a lot of sense or doesn't line up with the intention.
3. Rules that we just don't like.
This case isn't #1. Mythic Resistance is clear on how it works, and there's no reasonable argument that a PC with a mythic calling/mythic points/rewrite fate is not a mythic creature.
This is a case of #2. Mythic Strike says it does something that serves no purpose. That doesn't break Mythic Strike, since it still works to give the attack Mythic proficiency. But it doesn't make sense for that text about Mythic Resistance to be there when it doesn't do anything.
A devils advocate argument acting like this is case #1 isn't helpful since the issue isn't that and that just confuses things.
Quote: Mythic Character might actually not be considered mythic creatures. (Making them completely opposite of 1e mythic) I don't see any reasonable way for that to actually be the case. The book talks about what happens when you gain mythic power, and that's when PCs get all the things we identify as mythic abilities. You'd have to have done that to be able to get and use Mythic Strike RAW. If "having mythic power", using mythic points, and having a mythic calling doesn't make you mythic, then what does?
Also, going with this ruling makes the top end Mythic Creatures literally immune to PCs thanks to Mythic Immunity, especially for spellcasters since there's no way to bypass it. Creating stat blocks for creatures that the PCs are literally incapable of fighting goes against Paizo's entire design philosophy in terms of creature design, so this can't be the intention.
So this interpretation is both against a natural reading of the rules and also creates an unworkable outcome.
Quote: Mythic Resistance was meant affect strikes made with non-mythic weapons even if the character is mythic. (Like Mythic Immunity currently says) This would make sense, though without someone from Paizo telling us, we have no way to know.
Quote: Mythic Resistance works just as intended and is a non-existent mechanic against Mythic characters just like in 1e, Epic DR or Immortal became non-existent mechanics against +6 weapons or mythic characters. Yep. In this case the text on Mythic Strike is redundant and should just be removed.
Quote: Because when I read the rules..as I have previously stated, they very clearly state that Mythic resistance does not apply against mythic creatures, of which mythic characters should be. Some people say it feels wrong as the ability doesnt function in the most common campaign to include it. I agree.
So either RAW is the intention, or we are very clearly missing something that is RAI but not explicitly written. As is fit for a rules discussion.
Or it's just an error (likely from a previous iteration of the rules) on Mythic Strike that didn't get caught, which was a frequent occurrence last year. That's the simplest explanation.
shroudb wrote: Instantly excusing them without questioning why there aren't really any real errata done in such a big timeframe is not doing anyone any good. It's not "instantly excusing them", it's questioning what actually could reasonably have been done in the time and understanding it's not the thing you over-hyped yourself (like many others have) into believing was reasonable when it genuinely wasn't.
You're effectively trying to have it both ways by saying that you understand things can't be fixed right away and then throwing that out because what you were hoping gets fixed didn't get fixed yet.
And throwing the implication that because you haven't been informed of what is being worked on and when it's being worked on into the mix just makes the whole "they're not doing enough" claim even more obviously unreasonable - at least to everyone that isn't stuck in the cognitive dissonance pit of proving their expectations were actually totally reasonable by saying things like "real errata" to imply that the errata we do have don't actually count.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I will have to modify mythic rules to make them more powerful against martials and maybe a bit less so against casters. As it stands right now, mythic resistance does nothing against a mythic martial and mythic resilience makes a monster almost immune against their mythic resilience saves.
Deriven Firelion wrote: I will have to modify mythic rules to make them more powerful against martials and maybe a bit less so against casters. As it stands right now, mythic resistance does nothing against a mythic martial and mythic resilience makes a monster almost immune against their mythic resilience saves. I did some homebrew tweaking on both those abilities last year if you're looking for ideas on how to implement your own tweaks. I basically split Mythic Resilience up into more steps to get the same effect, so it would eat up more of a monster's budget and not lead to something that had auto-improving saves in all categories, and altered Mythic Resistance to function a bit more like a shield that a monster could spend a mythic point on if it was getting womped on by a bunch of mythic foes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...
Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.
but both sounds horrible/unfun to play with.
and if i dont misremember where there not a few low level mythic weapons in that book aswell? so its not only level 20 items.
but personally i agree that we would be mythical creatures, and the mythic rules as a whole are just made to favor martials more.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nelzy wrote: if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...
Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.
If you weren't mythic characters, then Mythic Immunity would either make the monster completely immune to all of your spells or all of your unarmed strikes.
Nelzy wrote: and if i dont misremember where there not a few low level mythic weapons in that book aswell? so its not only level 20 items. Even if the interpretation of "PC's who use mythic rules are not mythic characters" is correct, I think there is exactly one (1) mythic weapon that is not level 20: the gut-ripper, a level 7 mythic ogre hook that must kill at least one creature every day or be reverted to a non-magical ogre hook. So low-level players wouldn't get many ways to bypass mythic resistance anyway.
The GM would then be forced to make a few homebrew mythic weapons for low level characters then, but War of Immortals also never added any rules for making homebrew mythic items.
I personally find it rather unclear what would make an item mythic or non-mythic in the first place. For example, if the party goes on a harrowing quest to find a legendary sword blessed by Heaven in order to help slay Vulot, would this be a mythic sword... or just a normal non-mythic Chalice of Justice? What sort of powers would differentiate the two swords?
SpontaneousLightning wrote: Nelzy wrote: if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...
Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.
If you weren't mythic characters, then Mythic Immunity would either make the monster completely immune to all of your spells or all of your unarmed strikes. That's what should kill that interpretation. The idea that the rules are designed to make creatures literally immune to likely half the PCs in a party (or potentially all of them because Mythic Immunity mentions its possible to have it twice) simply doesn't pass a smell test. There is no way that's the intention, especially since casters can't even get a mythic weapon to bypass it.
Paizo has put out some half-baked stuff lately, but I can't believe that "sit the climactic final battle out because you didn't get a mythic weapon" is actually the design intent. Anytime a rule interpretation both goes against a plain English reading of the rules and also creates a nonsensical outcome, it's almost certainly incorrect.
Quote:
The GM would then be forced to make a few homebrew mythic weapons for low level characters then, but War of Immortals also never added any rules for making homebrew mythic items.
I personally find it rather unclear what would make an item mythic or non-mythic in the first place. For example, if the party goes on a harrowing quest to find a legendary sword blessed by Heaven in order to help slay Vulot, would this be a mythic sword... or just a normal non-mythic Chalice of Justice? What sort of powers would differentiate the two swords?
It's pretty much the same as making any other homebrew item: you make something up. What makes it "a mythic item" is the GM declaring it's a mythic item. That's it.
There doesn't need to be any special rules for it. Homebrew items can do whatever the GM wants, including being mythic.
Tridus wrote: SpontaneousLightning wrote: Nelzy wrote: if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...
Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.
If you weren't mythic characters, then Mythic Immunity would either make the monster completely immune to all of your spells or all of your unarmed strikes. That's what should kill that interpretation. The idea that the rules are designed to make creatures literally immune to likely half the PCs in a party (or potentially all of them because Mythic Immunity mentions its possible to have it twice) simply doesn't pass a smell test. There is no way that's the intention, especially since casters can't even get a mythic weapon to bypass it.
Paizo has put out some half-baked stuff lately, but I can't believe that "sit the climactic final battle out because you didn't get a mythic weapon" is actually the design intent. Anytime a rule interpretation both goes against a plain English reading of the rules and also creates a nonsensical outcome, it's almost certainly incorrect.
Quote:
The GM would then be forced to make a few homebrew mythic weapons for low level characters then, but War of Immortals also never added any rules for making homebrew mythic items.
I personally find it rather unclear what would make an item mythic or non-mythic in the first place. For example, if the party goes on a harrowing quest to find a legendary sword blessed by Heaven in order to help slay Vulot, would this be a mythic sword... or just a normal non-mythic Chalice of Justice? What sort of powers would differentiate the two swords?
It's pretty much the same as making any other homebrew item: you make something up. What makes it "a mythic item" is the GM declaring it's a mythic item. That's it.
There doesn't need to be any special rules for it. Homebrew items can do whatever the GM wants, including being mythic. isn't Mythic Immunity a level 23+ monster ability though?
I'd argue that if you want to fight a level 23 Mythic creature, having a Mythic weapon should be the bare minimum to even try.
(always assuming if we go with the interpetation that characters don't count as mythic creatures themselves)
---
going back to mythic resistance/resilience disparity, the fact that a rank 1 Incapacitation spell has the same chance to work vs a mythic creature as a rank 10 incapacitation spell, regardless of the enemy level, just helps to show how little thinking has been put into those two abilities.
Are we really suppossed to be spamming rank 1 Sleep and rank 3 Paralyze spells vs Mythics since they work just as well as a Rank 9 spell?
I stand by my previous (now deleted) comment:
the most reasonable explanation is that whomever wrote them either
a)did a mistake
b)didn't understand pf2 rules
as such, there's no point in talking about rai or raw, since the rules conflict with the base rules of tgtbt/tbtbt depending on your reading of them.
---
furthermore:
the actual wording of Mythic Immunity only reaslly hoses casters, not Unarmed:
Quote: The creature is immune to either harmful spells cast by non-mythic creatures, or Strikes made with non-mythic weapons and unarmed Strikes from non-mythic characters. while Unarmed specifies characters, Spells are still locked behind the ambiguous "creatures" term.
I think that having the capstone ability of the Mythic level 23 Uberboss doing absolutely nothing is TGTBT, but on the other hand, having the capstone ability of the Mythic level 23 Uberboss automatically shutting off all spells is TBTBT.
Ergo: the rules as written are simply wrong.
I wouldn't mind having Mythic Resistance work against both mythic and non-mythic creatures while leaving Mythic Immunity as a largely narrative ability to keep level 23+ mythic enemies out of the realm of the non-mythic. It would at least make Mythic Resistance useful next to Resilience while not being entirely superfluous once a mythic enemy reaches level 23.
Of course, I'd also like more interesting abilities for mythic monster to use than just invisible defense boosts, but baby steps.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: isn't Mythic Immunity a level 23+ monster ability though?
I'd argue that if you want to fight a level 23 Mythic creature, having a Mythic weapon should be the bare minimum to even try.
(always assuming if we go with the interpetation that characters don't count as mythic creatures themselves)
Sure... except there are no mythic caster weapons in the game, so anything with Mythic Immunity (spells) is straight up immune to PC spellcasters. Even with how the mythic rules favor martials, that can't possibly be the intention. Like, I can't believe Paizo actually intends "we're at the big climactic encounter of our mythic campaign, so casters you're all support now because the final enemy is immune to you."
This breaks so much stuff that a rule interpretation that causes it has to be wrong.
(It reminds me of Arcane Cascade, where the rules said one thing but that was so obviously wrong and broke a major class feature, so we collectively just went "nope" and didn't run it that way until the errata got it.)
Quote: going back to mythic resistance/resilience disparity, the fact that a rank 1 Incapacitation spell has the same chance to work vs a mythic creature as a rank 10 incapacitation spell, regardless of the enemy level, just helps to show how little thinking has been put into those two abilities.
Are we really suppossed to be spamming rank 1 Sleep and rank 3 Paralyze spells vs Mythics since they work just as well as a Rank 9 spell?
Agree 100%. Mythic Resilience is awful and warps the game in undesirable ways. The fact that it has no bypass method at all just feels wrong and the whole mechanic is why I refuse to play a caster in a mythic game (I told my GM flat out that if that means we have a party of 100% martials, that's how it is).
Quote:
I stand by my previous (now deleted) comment:
the most reasonable explanation is that whomever wrote them either
a)did a mistake
b)didn't understand pf2 rules
as such, there's no point in talking about rai or raw, since the rules conflict with the base rules of tgtbt/tbtbt depending on your reading of them.
My opinion is that they're overcompensating for the "casters break PF1 mythic" problem and it wasn't tested enough, but that's just speculation. I agree about the problem.
Quote:
---
furthermore:
the actual wording of Mythic Immunity only reaslly hoses casters, not Unarmed:
Quote:
The creature is immune to either harmful spells cast by non-mythic creatures, or Strikes made with non-mythic weapons and unarmed Strikes from non-mythic characters.
while Unarmed specifies characters, Spells are still locked behind the ambiguous "creatures" term.
Hard to tell if this is actually a deliberate word choice, or if its just inconsistent terminology. Like, if its "characters", does that immunity do nothing against non-character creatures like animal companions?
I think it's probably just inconsistent word choice and we shouldn't pay much attention to it, because the alternative is really messy.
Quote: I think that having the capstone ability of the Mythic level 23 Uberboss doing absolutely nothing is TGTBT, but on the other hand, having the capstone ability of the Mythic level 23 Uberboss automatically shutting off all spells is TBTBT.
Ergo: the rules as written are simply wrong.
IMO the intention is that a creature like Verex That Was is only meant to be fought by mythic PCs and the goal of mythic immunity is to make that happen. In that case, it doing nothing against mythic PCs makes sense.
It could be worded more simply to say that, like "creatures with mythic immunity are immune to all damage and harmful effects from non-mythic sources", but anyway. This is at least an outcome that makes sense as a design goal, whereas "this NPC is immune to half your party" most definitely isn't.
Tridus wrote: too much nesting My main point still is that it's a level 23 ability.
It is supposed too be beyond ordinary Mythic creatures.
So, doing absolutely nothing vs players, is definitely too good to be true.
---
It's not the average thing even Mythic characters will ever face.
It's the final boss of the Mythic campaign.
And as most final bosses, there is supposed to be some kind of gimmick to actually fight him.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
mythic immunity and mythic resistance are both largely ribbon features that limit the effectiveness of the PCs' non mythic allies. That's fine. It's clearly what they're designed to do so invoking 'too bad/good to be true' doesn't make sense.
Rather than try to contort into all these novel ways to redefine resistance and immunity it seems easier and much more plausible to just take at face value that resilience is the problem one, because it's the only one that interacts strangely and breaks underlying mechanisms of the game.
Squiggit wrote: mythic immunity and mythic resistance are both largely ribbon features that limit the effectiveness of the PCs' non mythic allies. That's fine. It's clearly what they're designed to do so invoking 'too bad/good to be true' doesn't make sense.
Rather than try to contort into all these novel ways to redefine resistance and immunity it seems easier and much more plausible to just take at face value that resilience is the problem one, because it's the only one that interacts strangely and breaks underlying mechanisms of the game.
Given the multiple threads (in various platforms) about them, I don't see where it's "clear".
I mean, it's your opinion, sure, but the opposite opinion is equally as strong.
Imo, the reality is much simpler:
Human error.
shroudb wrote: My main point still is that it's a level 23 ability.
It is supposed too be beyond ordinary Mythic creatures.
So, doing absolutely nothing vs players, is definitely too good to be true.
---
It's not the average thing even Mythic characters will ever face.
It's the final boss of the Mythic campaign.
And as most final bosses, there is supposed to be some kind of gimmick to actually fight him.
"Anyone who is playing a caster is not allowed to actually fight the BBEG" is not a gimmick. It's a broken game. That is an absolutely awful experience and not how the system works the rest of the time.
Mythic Resilience is bad enough, but this ruling makes that situation unplayable. And since it's generally going to happen at the climax of a campaign, there is no way they're intending to just leave the ending so deeply unenjoyable.
What AP has a boss that says "half the classes in the game aren't allowed to attack this"? Golems were the closest thing before, but even they didn't have blanket immunity, and the remaster specifically moved away from the previous design and made them easier for casters to fight.
Usually when there's a gimmick boss, the gimmick requires a macguffin, or some specific piece of knowledge to work around it, or some actions you have to do in the fight to disable it. Not "you must pick certain classes and the GM must house rule in a bunch of mythic weapons."
shroudb wrote:
I mean, it's your opinion, sure, but the opposite opinion is equally as strong.
No it isn't? The ability says what it does.
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
I mean, it's your opinion, sure, but the opposite opinion is equally as strong.
No it isn't? The ability says what it does. No one is questioning the RAW, what is in discussion is the RAI. Which is fundamentally an opinion.
The ability says it does nothing. For a capstone level 23 ability. Which is where the "ability is wrong" arguments stem from.
Your "opinion" is that this is intended.
The opposite "opinion" is that it's not.
Both are equally valid opinions, but they're still opinions.
---
Something being correctly written but fundamentally wrong RAW is not even the 1st time, take old Arcane Cascade and how long it took to be even usable "by RAW".
I haven't decided what side I'm taking here, but I will point out that spellcasters, especially late game casters, have numerous options that let them antagonize enemies without allowing a saving throw at all. But this is little comfort to spontaneous casters, who can't change their entire loadout after a rest.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wait, I just realized something. If mythic characters count as mythic creatures for the purpose of overcoming mythic resistance, then what does Mythic Strike even do?
You need to be a mythic character to take it, so overcoming mythic resistance isn't useful. And at level 10, nothing is going to have mythic immunity.
So all that leaves us with is the ability to Strike with mythic proficiency. But if that's your goal, why not just Strike then Rewrite Fate if you miss?
Edit: I'm an idiot. Rewrite Fate only works on skill checks and saving throws.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
