This post deals with conclusions from Mythic play, as well as conclusions from our Mass combat rules, army management, and how they were used in this campaign.
Experiences with Mythic play- Tier 1
So, we have played with the first tier of mythic power till now. How did it play so far? Well, the surge has almost never been used so far. (Maybe because it's just a 1d6). Each character used mythic power nearly solely for their path signature ability- the casters just used it to add a lot of spontaneous spells, and the mundanes added their powerful attacks (Either rolling twice and choosing the best or making it a sneak attack) not considering DR.
The effects?
- More caster versatility. For prepared casters, such as Sena, it means less dependency on scrolls (He hasn't used any since he got Mythic power), and "having" more utility spells. For spontaneous casters (Such as Julian), it means having a much more varied "spell list" to choose from.
- More caster power: since the spell level is only limited by the highest level the caster can cast usually, these extra spells are almost always from the highest spell level, givign the caster in effect a bunch load of extra spells of this high level, often more than lower levels! Sena for example was spamming Smite Evil left and right in the siege battle and the previous battles. I am less worried about this now, but as mythic power points increase by 2 for each level, this may mean a LOT of spells. It's the only problem I have with mythic power so far.
- More attacks, and more powerful- DR becomes a sort of a joke. (Soltengrabbe's epic DR didn't help much). Since the extra attack of the mundanes can be added to any round (As long as there was any attack there), the players spam as many extra attacks as the mundanes do spells. They often hit more and cause decent- serious damage.
- The "Hard to kill" Ability is a life saver. It saved 1 or 2 characters from dying (I think it was Mad dog on both cases :smalltongue:). Though I like the "double hp to die" aspect, I do miss the bleeding to death and tension it caused.
On the whole though, s Julian and Andera's player said- it gives the characters a feeling that they are something special, unique, beyond the normal constraints of others, or in other words- Mythic... So I guess it does get the feeling across. I did feel some challenges were easier to deal with, but not by a whole lot. It also makes the game less... clunky, since the characters (mostly casters) have more options, and thus they get stuck less and move the game more.
So all in all, I'm for it. I will discuss with the players about the "spamming the highest level spells" aspect with them before the next session, see what they have to say.
Leading a low level complex armyWell, this has been quite a ride! Some of the conclusions here are things I've been discussing with another forumist- Haktar in the Mass combat rules thread, but others pertain more to this campaign:
- Though I haven't played out the Paizo version of the siege, the players LOVED the mass combat, though it took some time to get used to. On the whole They loved dealing with the combats themselves, with tactical decisions, placing of troops, movement and such. A positive experience.
- In retrospect, I should have allowed only the characters to be army leaders, with all of the other NPCs to maybe add tctic, a bonus, and ability or such (Like Aravash as a support caster). The reality is that the players cared mostly for their own armies, and gave a lot less attention to the others. The amount of "NPCs" (Which included both commanding NPCs, face NPCs and the armies themselves) was too much for me to handle, or for the players to keep track off, and we kept forgetting about this or that (The Knights of Sarenrae were all but forgotten till the last battle, Qulin kept getting overlooked, and Aravbeth was in the background for most of the time). I suggest to focus on a smaller army (Number of units equal to number of PCs), and adjust the challenges accordingly.
- Inter- army arguments: This was mostly to how I played out Nurah, the prejudices and such in the army. I think it added to the game, but as Julian's player said in the last session: "This is the most undisciplined, rumor mongering and problematic army I've ever seen!" He is right about it, but perhaps it is worth to lower it down.
- For me at least as a DM it is hard to keep on the strategy track of all of the enemy units. Furthermore, adding the +4/-4 tactic to potential relentless brutality (another +4/ -4) makes for devastating suicide squads. I've avoided it most times (Due to the enemies trying to also... you know.. preserve themselves?) but these combinations are indeed problematic. Haktar suggested to forgo the strategy track altogether, which gives these tactics a more unique feel as well. But my players kinda liked having something extra to play with (There are notthat many options in mass combat). So we'll see
- Ranged combat has proven quite powerful when facing a non ranged combatant (Like in the combat with the vargoiles, elementals and skeletons). One track that Haktar suggested was to try and make the different kinds of units more specialized (Melee, ranged, mounted, ambush and so on) through tactics specific to them. Might make things more complicated, but I need to see if this can be done.
- A major thematic problem is having individual characters (Usually PCs) acting on the battlefield in "normal game speed (6 seconds rounds), along with the mass combat game (1 minute rounds). This showed it's ugly head in the battle of Keeper's canyon with Excorius challenging three characters to single combat, which ground the game to a halt, with 3 other players twiddling their thumbs. In the last battle Julian also embarked on her own, but this for some reason went much faster- into the tower, kill the brimorak, open gate. Then out and blast the cultists from a distance. So I'm not sure about this... I think with 2 or more characters it would be very difficult to manage.
- Consumption: I haven't touched upon this a lot in the log. All armies had supplies for 2 weeks, but I had some supply destroyed (Due to Worldwound effects or Nurah's sabotage). This came to be a hassle to keep track of these for some reason- who has what, who transferred how much consumption to whom, and so on. All in all- it didn't really interested anyone! Maybe on a more strategic or logistic minded game it would have matter, but not in this very focused and linear siege. (Not to mention they finished on the 10th day) I'd suggest to either keep it in the background entirely, or to have all the armies pull up their resources together, and just deduct the total consumption from that.
- Learning boons and tactics: Though it was difficult to gasp in the first 2 battles, it soon after became easy for the players. The armies and commanders were sort of saturated after they captured Paradise hill, which was the sweet spot. Haktar suggested maybe altering the mechanics also deepening on winning or losing. We haven't yet come to a conclusion about that. (As I feel a loss could potentially teach you MORE)
- Players' learning curve: The players understood how the mass combat works (more than less) at the battle of bloody sands (The ambush with elementals and skeletons). So I think it took about... 3 battles? The battle of Keeper's canyon proved very difficult to grasp for some reason, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps the introduction of Excorius and his challenges at the second mass combat made things too difficult to grasp. The players are not all fully certain of the 5-phses-of-mass-combat, but on the whole they understand how things work.
All in all a good experience. Some rough edges and things to work out (I heard there is mass combat at the fourth module as well? :smallamused:) we'll work things out.
For now, the aftermath of the battle, and the citadel of Drezen awaits!