Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Interesting Path Choices


Player Feedback


I thought this might be a good place to mention any unexpected choices of mythic paths that anyone might be considering.

My player character is a summoner (and thus an arcane spellcaster) who generally distrusts the gods. I was rather surprised when I read through the different mythic paths and reached the conclusion that his best choice would be -- the Hierophant! While many of the path abilities make direct refernce to divine spells, that restriction still leaves him with plenty of abilities to pick for enhancing his eidolon.

Does anyone else see themselves going with unexpected mythic path choices?

Taldor

Well, yeah, i for one saw my cleric as a guardian much more then a hierophant. It's awesome though, being able to fit a path to the concept of your character, not to his mechanics.


I am now thinking that Dual Path may be a very popular feat for mythic characters.


David knott 242 wrote:

I am now thinking that Dual Path may be a very popular feat for mythic characters.

It's almost a must. I fear it wont survive because of that.

Taldor

Or will be severely nerfed...which isn't such a bad thing


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

2. There are 21 classes, counting UC and UM, and a huge number of archetypes to induce variation. There are only six paths. Dual Path enables you to create a Mythic experience that is suited to your character, rather than shoehorning him/her into one role. Therefore (almost) everyone will take it, but that's the whole point.

I'm arguing for the second interpretation; I think squeezing such a huge variety into six narrowly-defined roles is very limiting.

Taldor

Yeah, maybe add another 3 paths? Or introduce racial paths in the mix. now that would be awesome.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I am not sure we will be adding more paths to the mix, but we are certainly looking at a number of options for universal path abilities that might allow some of the paths to function a bit better for a wider variety of classes.

Concerning Dual Path, we full well understand that this might be a very popular choice for many characters.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

2. There are 21 classes, counting UC and UM, and a huge number of archetypes to induce variation. There are only six paths. Dual Path enables you to create a Mythic experience that is suited to your character, rather than shoehorning him/her into one role. Therefore (almost) everyone will take it, but that's the whole point.

I'm arguing for the second interpretation; I think squeezing such a huge variety into six narrowly-defined roles is very limiting.

I would advocate for number 2 as well.

Please, Gods, no more mythic paths than the ones we already have.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

2. There are 21 classes, counting UC and UM, and a huge number of archetypes to induce variation. There are only six paths. Dual Path enables you to create a Mythic experience that is suited to your character, rather than shoehorning him/her into one role. Therefore (almost) everyone will take it, but that's the whole point.

I'm arguing for the second interpretation; I think squeezing such a huge variety into six narrowly-defined roles is very limiting.

I would advocate for number 2 as well.

Please, Gods, no more mythic paths than the ones we already have.

I for one do not think there would be a problem with more mythic paths being added, however I believe that if more are added, they should be added in a separate book at a later time, similar to the additional classes in the APG, UC and UM. Perhaps some time after Mythic Adventures there can be a new book, maybe Advanced Mythic Guide or something (Ultimate Mythic would lead to confusion with Ultimate Magic), which could include additional paths and other Mythic options that don't make it into the Mythic Adventures book.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

Alternatively it can be made part of the basic mythic rules instead of being a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

Alternatively it can be made part of the basic mythic rules instead of being a feat.

I don't think the one-feat cost to open secondary options is unreasonable.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

Alternatively it can be made part of the basic mythic rules instead of being a feat.
I don't think the one-feat cost to open secondary options is unreasonable.

Then reduce the number of mythic feats by one.

I feel that a feat that it's taken by 9 out 10 characters (characters not builds) is something that should be part of the base.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Well, I think there's two ways of looking at it.

1. Everyone will take it, therefore it should be changed.

Alternatively it can be made part of the basic mythic rules instead of being a feat.
I don't think the one-feat cost to open secondary options is unreasonable.

Then reduce the number of mythic feats by one.

I feel that a feat that it's taken by 9 out 10 characters (characters not builds) is something that should be part of the base.

But what about the 1 in 10 that doesn't want it? They shouldn't get shafted and lose a feat because everyone else wants things from multiple Paths.


I found that a number of builds really didn't satisfy. With my typical wizard, I'm actually considering going champion or trickster over archmage, because they shore up a lot of holes in his abilities, rather than allowing him to just be an overwhelming spell monster. The feat would be amazing, but not neccesary. Ultimately, while I enjoy the paths, as written, I feel that there's not *quite* the level of customization I'm used to, and the feat more than remedies that. A wider selection of universal powers might be good, or if the feat *must* be nerfed, perhaps a feat to take a mythic from another path, though I don't think the feat itself needs changing as it is.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@Dylos
I think that they should.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.


leo1925 wrote:

@Dylos

I think that they should.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Making it part of the base would mean assuming that every character took access to two mythic path's worth of abilities as a default, which sort of starts to unravel the point of having the paths to begin with. You might as well just have a generic path and let people pick and choose from all the abilities.

I wont say this is an invalid way to do things, but the system, and balancing it, becomes considerably more complicated (and a much bigger headache) in that event. It all gets rather inelegant very quickly.

I can see why they made it a single, optional feat. It's the most efficient way to handle the question, and it seems like it does an okay job* of that at face value.

*Says the man who just read the rules today and hasn't tested anything yet, so, you know, grain of salt.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that folks also need to remember that the final version of these paths will have quite a bit more path abilities to choose from for each path, meaning that each one will offer quite a bit more flexibility. As we add more options, I think the reliance on this feat grows less and less.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Cheliax

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I think that folks also need to remember that the final version of these paths will have quite a bit more path abilities to choose from for each path, meaning that each one will offer quite a bit more flexibility. As we add more options, I think the reliance on this feat grows less and less.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think it would be nice to see paths that would fit (for example) mythic rangers and barbarians better than the current ones do. Personally I'd prefer three or four paths per ability score; I don't think "Champion" or "Guardian" fits (as a name or concept) for a brutal barbarian, even though they'd encompass a wider range of path abilities. But that's just my opinion.


fleet warrior champion ability is good for archer rangers and espically if they take distant barrage. Armor master also can be of some use for archer rangers.


I think what makes Dual Path appealing for people who might otherwise not be interested in that feat is that it grants a 1st level ability from a different path -- which is more than most of the other mythic feats grant. If that part of the feat were dropped, few people would bother to take it before 2nd tier, and then only if they really wanted a path power from a different path.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like how dual path mythic characters can synergize well with eldritch knights, mystic theurges, rage prophets, and arcane tricksters.

Shadow Lodge

David knott 242 wrote:
Does anyone else see themselves going with unexpected mythic path choices?

I'm GMing so it's not my character, but the Oracle in my Kingmaker game is very much more enamored with Trickster than she is with Hierophant, and the few Hierophant tricks she likes she can always nab with Path Dabbling.


SmiloDan wrote:
I like how dual path mythic characters can synergize well with eldritch knights, mystic theurges, rage prophets, and arcane tricksters.

Dual path is also appplicable to the bard and magus. The only other option for them is mythic spells. With the magus, dual path may be the better option allowing a champion/archmage to select Mage Strike and also Fleet Charge. Both of which enhace the tatical ability of the magus. I can easily see a magus using his swift action to activate fleet charge to get to the opponent and deliver the single attack then finishing the round with a full attack. Next round using a mythic power point to activate Mage Strike and follow up with a full attack. Either or both of the full attacks could involve Spell Combat/Spell Strike. I may be reading too much into fleet strike and mage strike but it seems to be possible for the character to do.

Anyway, I am going to start my playtest tonight going the dual pathed magus champion/archmage and see how it goes.


It's too bad endless power excludes classes with 4 levels of spells. It would have really helped a ranger's limited number of spells per day. I couldn't imagine not taking it three times for instant enemy though, so it probably would have been too good.

Does anyone else think that fleet charge is strictly better for an archer than distant barrage? You'll usually have feats to get around most cover and concealment anyway, and even if you don't, repositioning can alleviate some of those problems AND help you line up Through Shot.

Also, I wonder if there's a deadly aim (mythic) that didn't show up in this play test.


If you have to say "usually", then no, it's just regular better. I can still imagine taking both.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / Player Feedback / Interesting Path Choices All Messageboards
Recent threads in Player Feedback

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.