log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Mythic Odysseys of Theros on DNDBeyhond

jgsugden

Hero
Generally. mythic could have been written in 4E terms by doubling the hit points and giving the following abilities:

  • Once bloodied, this creature gains the following legendary action options...
  • Once bloodied, this creature gains immunity to all damage. However, cracks in the carapace have revealed four hearts. Each has AC 22, 100 hps, and is +8 on all saving throws...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
Generally. mythic could have been written in 4E terms by doubling the hit points and giving the following abilities:

  • Once bloodied, this creature gains the following legendary action options...
  • Once bloodied, this creature gains immunity to all damage. However, cracks in the carapace have revealed four hearts. Each has AC 22, 100 hps, and is +8 on all saving throws...
Except we don't have a bloodied condition and mythic traits are optional. You don't have to run these as mythic monsters. Also, notice in one case their mythic trait provide new hit points and temporary hit points. But generally you are correct. The main reasons for going the Mythic Trait route are (IMO):
  • You can add some colorful description of the changing state of the battle.
  • They can be optional
  • They provide an easy mechanic to make a monster a much tougher encounter without changing its CR.
 

jgsugden

Hero
Except we don't have a bloodied condition and mythic traits are optional. You don't have to run these as mythic monsters. Also, notice in one case their mythic trait provide new hit points and temporary hit points. But generally you are correct. The main reasons for going the Mythic Trait route are (IMO):
  • You can add some colorful description of the changing state of the battle.
  • They can be optional
  • They provide an easy mechanic to make a monster a much tougher encounter without changing its CR.
I did start my comment with 'generally' for a reason.

My point is that, for the most part, this is just bringing back the bloodied concept with minor tweaks for a few creatures. I've been continuing to use bloodied as a meaningful distinction in my games during 5E, with some creatures that needed a bump gaining an advantage when not bloodied and others that were a little strong getting penalties when bloodied (and some creatures having their recharge ability go off when bloodied, etc...). It is one of the things from 4E that they should have continued into 5E. Maybe it could have been used less often than in 4E, but it was a solid mechanic.
 

pukunui

Hero
@jgsugden Yes, it is a solid mechanic. However, we know that the 5e devs tied themselves in linguistic knots to avoid using 4e terminology in the core rules, so there was really no way they were going to use the "bloodied" term here.
 



So how does the bestiary for Theros compare to Ravinica?

Ravinica is a great source of monsters, and based off the table of contents and comments in this thread I am optimistic that this book is going to be good, for the bestiary at least.

As an aside, one aspect about D&D design over the editions, is the designers oft ignore developments that came before. Monsters that have tactical, or cinematic alterations as a result of damage or having particular effects applied to the monster, has been in some monsters from 1e, (golems), was explored more in 3e with MM 6 or so, and then 4e heavily leaned into it.

Why 5e didn’t continue with the trend is a mystery. A zombie that explodes into a swarm of undead leaches when a critical hit lands...is no longer just a big bag of Hit Points.
 

Parmandur

Legend
So how does the bestiary for Theros compare to Ravinica?

Ravinica is a great source of monsters, and based off the table of contents and comments in this thread I am optimistic that this book is going to be good, for the bestiary at least.

As an aside, one aspect about D&D design over the editions, is the designers oft ignore developments that came before. Monsters that have tactical, or cinematic alterations as a result of damage or having particular effects applied to the monster, has been in some monsters from 1e, (golems), was explored more in 3e with MM 6 or so, and then 4e heavily leaned into it.

Why 5e didn’t continue with the trend is a mystery. A zombie that explodes into a swarm of undead leaches when a critical hit lands...is no longer just a big bag of Hit Points.
They did extensive research during the Next process, and found out what people by and large wanted from monsters, then made that.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
So what do people think? I kinda dig Anvilwrought.

And Hythonia is going to use broken off pieces of her victims to animate. Probably a singular digit off of each hand....
I think this book has some great ideas, I love the whole piety mechanic and supernatural gifts and can imagine using these in other settings. Mythic monsters are awesome and a great way to include boss fight phases in the game.

Since you've mentioned anvilwrought this brings up one of the things I find annoying about the 5e books, they don't always include artwork for a monster. I have absolutely no idea what a burnished hart is because it has no artwork and the description doesn't provide much detail. I guess it might be some sort of deer or ram but I honestly have no idea.
 


Parmandur

Legend
I think this book has some great ideas, I love the whole piety mechanic and supernatural gifts and can imagine using these in other settings. Mythic monsters are awesome and a great way to include boss fight phases in the game.

Since you've mentioned anvilwrought this brings up one of the things I find annoying about the 5e books, they don't always include artwork for a monster. I have absolutely no idea what a burnished hart is because it has no artwork and the description doesn't provide much detail. I guess it might be some sort of deer or ram but I honestly have no idea.
They have the art resource, probably wasn't room for it:

burnished-hart-35682-medium.jpg
 

dave2008

Legend
So how does the bestiary for Theros compare to Ravinica?

Ravinica is a great source of monsters, and based off the table of contents and comments in this thread I am optimistic that this book is going to be good, for the bestiary at least.
The bestiary is my favorite part. The only thing I was disappointed with was the hundred handed, I think that could use the mythic treatment. It like it a little better than the Ravnica one, but there close.
As an aside, one aspect about D&D design over the editions, is the designers oft ignore developments that came before. Monsters that have tactical, or cinematic alterations as a result of damage or having particular effects applied to the monster, has been in some monsters from 1e, (golems), was explored more in 3e with MM 6 or so, and then 4e heavily leaned into it.

Why 5e didn’t continue with the trend is a mystery. A zombie that explodes into a swarm of undead leaches when a critical hit lands...is no longer just a big bag of Hit Points.
Well, there back now and we have template to apply the idea to any monster in 5e now.
 






I think this book has some great ideas, I love the whole piety mechanic and supernatural gifts and can imagine using these in other settings. Mythic monsters are awesome and a great way to include boss fight phases in the game.
Yeah I found this aspect rather interesting and sort of atypical with 5E books. It's a bit lacking in the race/class department (three recycled races, two new, none exciting, and one good and one bad subclass), but it's full of other interesting ideas and as a setting it's quite interesting. It feels more TSR-ish, or late-3.5E-ish than anything we've seen so far. That's not completely a good thing but it's definitely not a bad thing either.
 

Yeah I found this aspect rather interesting and sort of atypical with 5E books. It's a bit lacking in the race/class department (three recycled races, two new, none exciting, and one good and one bad subclass), but it's full of other interesting ideas and as a setting it's quite interesting. It feels more TSR-ish, or late-3.5E-ish than anything we've seen so far. That's not completely a good thing but it's definitely not a bad thing either.
Wes Schneider is a lead designer on this book. He was a principal designer of Pathfinder. Might have something to do with it.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester
The bestiary is my favorite part. The only thing I was disappointed with was the hundred handed, I think that could use the mythic treatment.
Yeah, I was disappointed too - Hekatonkheires should look more like this:

But with these MtG books they have to adapt as closely from the cards as possible. Usually that makes for phenomenal hits (the artwork in Magic is usually a really, really good resource for fantasy gaming), but sometimes they're real duds, like here.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top