log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Mythic Odysseys of Theros on DNDBeyhond


log in or register to remove this ad



vpuigdoller

Adventurer
I like the feat at first lvl option as an alternative to supernatural gifts. I love mythic traits in mythic monsters and the boxed text that goes along with their activations. Looks like we finally have a working version of boss type monsters. The satyr and leonin are kool additions imo. I like the pantheon and the gods quite a lot as well. Regarding the setting will need to read more carefully to reach an opinion.

Very sad there are only 3 mythic monsters. I think thats the best part of the book.
 

The flavor d6 tables for the Supernatural Gifts are so freaking cool and inspire me endlessly to make characters and NPCs. The Mythic Monsters are super nifty and really cinematic. The bestiary is just behind MM with my fave bestiary yet from an official WotC book. The Glory Paladin sucks and the Eloquence Bard is basically a Champion and all the races compared to the Satyr are super duper weak but still pretty flavorful overall.

Still reading through the book, saving the setting infos for tomorrow, but its all good stuff overall.
 

Eloquence Bard seems extremely good to me, because it effectively has "Reliable Talent" for Persuasion and Deception. At level 3. And that solves so many problems in so many situations. No more having a decent-but-imperfect RP and needing to roll Persuasion, with a massive bonus, then getting a 2 or whatever. Combine that with the ability to drop enemy saves with your Inspiration die, and you're going to be outstandingly effective with a lot of single-target spells (like our good friend Suggestion). In fact it competes hard with the excellent ability for people to retain Inspiration dice if they fail the roll anyway. Infectious Inspiration is also excellent.

They're not as well-rounded or optimization-friendly as Lore Bards, but they're very solid.

Oath of Glory on the other hand is staggeringly bad, mechanically. Like wow. I am genuinely impressed by how bad they are. Their aura is +10ft movement? And it's not even an aura until 18th level? And then it has a 10ft radius? Was this designed by Scrooge McDuck? Did the designer personally have to pay $100 for each foot or movement and radius this ability had or something? They are literally not capable of doing what the lore-text describes until L18, and then only with a tiny number of people (5 abreast, including them). Also it only works if you're last in initiative. That is grade-A terrible design on every level. This really feels like someone totally unnecessarily nerfed the hell out of this.

I dunno if it's quite the worst Paladin subclass, but it's up there.

Satyrs are the only race that isn't kind of a boring mess mechanically (and indeed verge on the OP thanks to straight-up magic resistance). Leonins have a pretty strong ability, but Centaurs and Minotaurs are unaltered from Ravnica, and are thus both terrible at what they're supposed to be good at, mythologically - Centaurs have to move 30' to use their ability - and it takes a Bonus Action even then, and yet they can't actually charge (because no-one in 5E can pretty much, without the Feat), so basically enemies need to be at least 30ft away, but less than 40ft away (because that's their move), in order to use a bonus ability to maybe gain a small amount of damage. Jeez. Minotaurs are similar - but least can make a horn attack charge, even if it inexplicably can't shove - the one thing you'd expect it to be able to do - that is instead on an ability they can only use if they DON'T charge (?!?!?!). Tritons remain dull/weak.

Monsters look good but haven't read that properly yet.

In terms of races and subclasses, Odyssey of the Dragonlords is straight-up better, I would note. Not only does Dragonlords have subclasses for all the classes, but they're straight-up better-designed, something I never thought I'd say comparing a 5E WotC book and a 5E 3PP book. The same is true of the races. Dragonlords has more new races - Sirens, Medusas and Dryads as well as Centaurs, Minotaurs and Satyrs, but their designs for those races are both more interesting, and better-balanced. I don't think we can get away with "well different approaches" either - two subclasses and one of them stinks? Two new races and one is dull-but-powerful and the other is just kind "eh". That's not great work WotC.

But I suspect monster-wise is where this book will shine.
 
Last edited:

Oath of Glory on the other hand is staggeringly bad, mechanically. Like wow. I am genuinely impressed by how bad they are. Their aura is +10ft movement? And it's not even an aura until 18th level? And then it has a 10ft radius? Was this designed by Scrooge McDuck? Did the designer personally have to pay $100 for each foot or movement and radius this ability had or something? They are literally not capable of doing what the lore-text describes until L18, and then only with a tiny number of people (5 abreast, including them). Also it only works if you're last in initiative. That is grade-A terrible design on every level. This really feels like someone totally unnecessarily nerfed the hell out of this.

I dunno if it's quite the worst Paladin subclass, but it's up there.
Goddamnit. This is why heroes cannot have nice things. This was supposed to be good.

Book looks too DM centric.
 

dave2008

Legend
Sweet. I'm more excited about Theros than I have been about some other releases. Mostly because Greek-themed campaigns seem like they have some room to do different and cool things with a campaign. When you have a chance to browse through it I'd love to hear what you think of some of the rules for mythic creatures. We've had some spoilers, but not a lot of detail.
I took a quick look: When a mythic trait is active the monster can use a Legendary Action to take a Mythic Action. All of the monsters listed have the Mythic Trait activate at 0 hit points. I will look in more depth later.
What are the monsters like?
Is the bestiary extensive.
Just started looking, but the monster list is quite extensive. Notes on some typical D&D monsters in the Theros setting, plus a lot of new stat blocks and of course Mythic Monsters
 


dave2008

Legend
A note about Mythic Monsters: They are straight up much tougher than their CR. The CR only seems to be calculated for before the monsters mythic trait comes into effect. For example, TROMOKRATIS has 409 hit points and everything seems to track with its CR of 26. However, when it drops to 0 and its Mythic trait kicks in it gets 400 more hit points! That is way beyond a CR 26 monster at that point.

Doesn't that make the CR kinda useless as a comparative tool? Maybe that is explained somewhere else, I will take a look.

EDIT: OK, there is an explanation. If you choose to use the Mythic Traits (they are optional), you threat the battle as two consecutive monsters (your fight two CR 26 monsters one after the other) in terms of encounter building and XP rewards.

There is also a bit of boxed text to read when the transformation happens.
 
Last edited:

atanakar

Hero
In terms of races and subclasses, Odyssey of the Dragonlords is straight-up better, I would note. Not only does Dragonlords have subclasses for all the classes, but they're straight-up better-designed, something I never thought I'd say comparing a 5E WotC book and a 5E 3PP book. The same is true of the races. Dragonlords has more new races - Sirens and Dryads as well as Centaurs, Minotaurs and Satyrs, but their designs for those races are both more interesting, and better-balanced. I don't think we can get away with "well different approaches" either - two subclasses and one of them stinks? Two new races and one is dull-but-powerful and the other is just kind "eh". That's not great work WotC.
Thank you for this comparison. I don't usually buy settings but I will buy the Odyssey of the Dragonlords now that we can compare.
 



In terms of races and subclasses, Odyssey of the Dragonlords is straight-up better, I would note. Not only does Dragonlords have subclasses for all the classes, but they're straight-up better-designed, something I never thought I'd say comparing a 5E WotC book and a 5E 3PP book. The same is true of the races. Dragonlords has more new races - Sirens and Dryads as well as Centaurs, Minotaurs and Satyrs, but their designs for those races are both more interesting, and better-balanced. I don't think we can get away with "well different approaches" either - two subclasses and one of them stinks? Two new races and one is dull-but-powerful and the other is just kind "eh". That's not great work WotC.
The problem now is unearthed arcana. They make cool shite from the off. Then zealously nerf. This has happened before. Some playtesters are clearly giving poor feedback. Some Wizards designers clearly should know better.
The lack of player centric material is also becoming an issue.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
@Fenris-77, after looking at them a bit more, I am really liking the mythic monsters. They have found a rather simple way to make a solo monster truly difficult. These go way beyond the typical CR 17, 21, & 26 monsters without simple using bigger numbers. Very interesting approach.
That sounds very cool. Solo monsters need some love in 5E. And not now it has one million hit points... Sorta random question, do the rules look like they could scale down to make smaller solo monsters more interesting?
 

dave2008

Legend
The problem now is unearthed arcana. They make cool shite from the off. Then zealously nerf. This has happened before. Some playtesters are clearly giving poor feedback. Some Wizards designers clearly should know better.
The lack of player centric material is also becoming an issue.
Only if you zip through player options (my group is on their same characters from when we started 5e almost 6 years ago) or don't llike 3pp content. Personally I would have been fine with only the PHB options and everything else being 3PP.
 

dave2008

Legend
That sounds very cool. Solo monsters need some love in 5E. And not now it has one million hit points... Sorta random question, do the rules look like they could scale down to make smaller solo monsters more interesting?
Not sure what you mean, but the examples range from CR17 to CR 26. The concept could easily be adjusted to any CR really. It is similar to the idea of an "elite"monster in 4e. It has double the HP (essentially) and gets new action options halfway through the battle, sorta of like it has been "bloodied" ;)

Here is an example of a Mythic trait:
Shed Skin (Mythic Trait; Recharges after a Short or Long Rest).If Hythonia is reduced to 0 hit points, she doesn’t die or fall unconscious. Instead, she sheds her skin, regains 199 hit points, and moves up to her speed without provoking opportunity attacks.
 

darjr

I crit!
The transformations are amazing. I wish they were a secret from players cause as a surprise it’s a freaking huge one.
 


Only if you zip through player options (my group is on their same characters from when we started 5e almost 6 years ago) or don't llike 3pp content. Personally I would have been fine with only the PHB options and everything else being 3PP.
Our group has one shots just to test out the new toys. Some of our group create and retire more than one character. Annoying and tiresome to DM for. But cool also.
I am probably not alone in this.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top