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

Mythic Flaw First Impressions


Player Feedback

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chuckg wrote:

And if you want to be Galahad, who wasn't arrogant nor ridden with any other particular flaws?

The core of the problem is that the Mythic Flaws require you to limit yourself to the designer's range of possible hero concepts instead of giving you the freedom to roll your own. You're either arrogant, hubristic, or have some form of Kryptonite, no other options.

We want character choice.

Your option would be, unless they start running Mythic PFS games, to just say "we're not doing the Mythic Flaw thing here".

Crisis averted.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

I'll second the suggestion that the GM should select the characters' mythic flaws (with input from his players). As noted above, that frees up the GM to decide not to ignore flaws if that better fits the type of game he's running. (And, if the GM decides that no PCs have flaws, you don't need to attach any sort of penalty to that; the GM has already taken their flawlessness into account.)


Rynjin wrote:

Your option would be, unless they start running Mythic PFS games, to just say "we're not doing the Mythic Flaw thing here".

Crisis averted.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any advice more useless for a Playtest Feedback forum than 'If you don't like it, then house rule it!' Discussing whether or not a rule needs changing before the production version is finalized is exactly what we're supposed to be doing here.

If something needs house ruling, then perhaps it just needs re-ruling? Making heroic flaws optional does nothing to stop people who still want heroic flaws from having them. It just means the rest of us who don't want them don't have to beg our DMs for a house rule we may or may not get, depending on their whim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chuckg wrote:


Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any advice more useless for a Playtest Feedback forum than 'If you don't like it, then house rule it!' Discussing whether or not a rule needs changing before the production version is finalized is exactly what we're supposed to be doing here.

If something needs house ruling, then perhaps it just needs re-ruling? Making heroic flaws optional does nothing to stop people who still want heroic flaws from having them. It just means the rest of us who don't want them don't have to beg our DMs for a house rule we may or may not get, depending on their whim.

Well they honestly shouldn't have to say it for every new book that gets released. It's right in there "All rules are optional, tailor them to suit your needs" or something similar.

If it was going to be "officially optional" all they'd have to do would be change the word "must" to "may". I just think a playtest should be more about "this works, this doesn't" MECHANICALLY above problems like this that can be fixed with a simple word swap.

This thread wasn't even about "should there be optional Mythic Flaws" last I checked, it was rebalancing them so they're more evenly in line with each other. I could have gotten my threads confused (there is another floating around) but I don't think I did.

Taldor

I'm having a few questions about Furious Rage.

What would happen if you are a barbarian in rage whose Furious Rage just activated??

Does the only effect is to limit some skill checks (which does not happen that much in combat where the flaw has the highest chance to activate) and gives you a -2 to AC?
Does the character has the urge to attack the person who intimidated him??

If that's the case, it seems to me that the only time this can be of any danger is if someone succeeds at intimidating you in the middle of the town, but the only victim would be your reputation and probably the one intimidating you. It doesn't seems that much of a big deal compared to some other.

Maybe if you would attack the one that intimidated you, and then other innocent bystanders if you can't get to him, the flaw would make better senses to me, but right now, it doesn't seem that much of a pain to have...


Chuckg wrote:

And if you want to be Galahad, who wasn't arrogant nor ridden with any other particular flaws?

I was suggesting the mechanic associated with Heroic Arrogance (reduced uses of mythis power) rather than actual arrogance. Fewer uses of an ability that all mythic characters have would be a sufficiently subtle "flaw" that the character would not be viewed as actually having a flaw.


Rynjin wrote:
Chuckg wrote:


Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any advice more useless for a Playtest Feedback forum than 'If you don't like it, then house rule it!' Discussing whether or not a rule needs changing before the production version is finalized is exactly what we're supposed to be doing here.

If something needs house ruling, then perhaps it just needs re-ruling? Making heroic flaws optional does nothing to stop people who still want heroic flaws from having them. It just means the rest of us who don't want them don't have to beg our DMs for a house rule we may or may not get, depending on their whim.

Well they honestly shouldn't have to say it for every new book that gets released. It's right in there "All rules are optional, tailor them to suit your needs" or something similar.

If it was going to be "officially optional" all they'd have to do would be change the word "must" to "may". I just think a playtest should be more about "this works, this doesn't" MECHANICALLY above problems like this that can be fixed with a simple word swap.

This thread wasn't even about "should there be optional Mythic Flaws" last I checked, it was rebalancing them so they're more evenly in line with each other. I could have gotten my threads confused (there is another floating around) but I don't think I did.

The thread title is "mythic flaws, first impressions", not "mythic flaws, you're not allowed to say if you dislike them as a concept".

So some people have thereby given their impression of them, that being a wondering of why they need to be mandatory in the first place.

But if you'd like a mechanical question posited unto you for noodling, what mechanically would be taken away from the game by adding a mythic feat or the like that could be taken that would, for instance, allow a character to ignore them, in exchange for something like having to do X more trials to get a tier, or something like that.


Darkorin wrote:

I'm having a few questions about Furious Rage.

What would happen if you are a barbarian in rage whose Furious Rage just activated??

Does the only effect is to limit some skill checks (which does not happen that much in combat where the flaw has the highest chance to activate) and gives you a -2 to AC?
Does the character has the urge to attack the person who intimidated him??

If that's the case, it seems to me that the only time this can be of any danger is if someone succeeds at intimidating you in the middle of the town, but the only victim would be your reputation and probably the one intimidating you. It doesn't seems that much of a big deal compared to some other.

Maybe if you would attack the one that intimidated you, and then other innocent bystanders if you can't get to him, the flaw would make better senses to me, but right now, it doesn't seem that much of a pain to have...

My 2cp on this issue:

You Barbarian Rage is interrupted by your Furious Rage. You immediately go into Furious Rage and lose your rage bonuses however you don't expend extra rounds of rage. When your Furious Rage is expended you can continue your normal rage without penalty, having spent no rounds during your Furious Rage and not being forced out of your Barbarian Rage and thus fatigued, you just had a period where you lost your bonuses.

btw this DOES bring the fact that having Barbarians with Furious Rage and Barbarian Rage will get confusing quickly... might I suggest a different name for Furious Rage, I do believe Frenzy is open at the moment.


mark kay wrote:

The thread title is "mythic flaws, first impressions", not "mythic flaws, you're not allowed to say if you dislike them as a concept".

So some people have thereby given their impression of them, that being a wondering of why they need to be mandatory in the first place.

But if you'd like a mechanical question posited unto you, what mechanically would be taken away from the game by adding a mythic feat or the like that could be taken that would, say, allow a character to ignore them, in exchange for something like having to do X more trials to get a tier, or something like that.

Not a damn thing. I wouldn't mind if they were optional either, just wondering why it was such a big deal that they weren't.

But on the flipside of the coin, what is mechanically wrong with requiring a downside (even one as small as "I have to eat trail rations once a day to keep my cosmic powers") for getting the Mythic abilities?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My personal opinion with the flaws is that while yes, some are worse than others, this is true with any archetype/class comparison. I do think that some will need clarification/restriction (dependency for example needs a narrowed down list to avoid a certain amount of ridiculousness (limiting "blood dependency" to "blood of others" to eliminate people cutting themselves and drinking in a pinch)).

Lucent wrote:

Item Dependency: Your mythic abilities stem not from within, but from a mystical tie to an object. This may be your father's sword, an heirloom locket, or the bullet pulled from your skull when you were raised from the dead. Whatever it is, its hold on you is absolute. You must keep this object on your person at all times (and not in an extra-dimensional space). If you are ever deprived of the item for more than 1 round, you lose access to all of your mythic abilities. Once chosen, this item cannot change.

If your item is destroyed, you are permanently deprived of your mythic tiers. If the destroyed item is ever restored (a sundered amulet reunited, shards of your broken sword reforged), your powers return.

Mythic Code: Your mythic power is reliant on your ability to uphold a code; be it a personal set of rules and restrictions or the religious code of a deity. Regardless of the origin, your powers are dependent on your ability to adhere to these strictures. You must design a code of conduct with your GM which must have at least four points to uphold. They may not already be tenents that you must uphold to maintain other normal class abilities (such as a paladin's code or a knight's order code), but are restrictions in addition to them (though these codes themselves make for good inspiration.) If you ever violate a point of your code, you lose access to your mythic abilities for one day per mythic tier (or until you receive an atonement.)

I have to say, I really like both of these as options. The first definitely suits something like a bladebound/kensai magus or a swordsaint and the second tailors well to themes present in clerics, paladins and even witches.


Rynjin wrote:
mark kay wrote:

The thread title is "mythic flaws, first impressions", not "mythic flaws, you're not allowed to say if you dislike them as a concept".

So some people have thereby given their impression of them, that being a wondering of why they need to be mandatory in the first place.

But if you'd like a mechanical question posited unto you, what mechanically would be taken away from the game by adding a mythic feat or the like that could be taken that would, say, allow a character to ignore them, in exchange for something like having to do X more trials to get a tier, or something like that.

Not a damn thing. I wouldn't mind if they were optional either, just wondering why it was such a big deal that they weren't.

But on the flipside of the coin, what is mechanically wrong with requiring a downside (even one as small as "I have to eat trail rations once a day to keep my cosmic powers") for getting the Mythic abilities?

If you want to game that way? Not a whole lot. If you were looking to mechanically emulate to some degree the various mythic or epic fiction characters/stories/tales/monsters that have nothing to do with such things, in a game pitching itself as letting you do so? A whole lot, because you're stuck with them anyway, and it's not like they're minor enough to ignore.

Why thereby it's such a big deal? Lots of people don't house rule. It's a dismissive solution thereby to the whole thing.


Lucent wrote:

Another random thought:

Mythic Code: Your mythic power is reliant on your ability to uphold a code; be it a personal set of rules and restrictions or the religious code of a deity. Regardless of the origin, your powers are dependent on your ability to adhere to these strictures. You must design a code of conduct with your GM which must have at least four points to uphold. They may not already be tenents that you must uphold to maintain other normal class abilities (such as a paladin's code or a knight's order code), but are restrictions in addition to them (though these codes themselves make for good inspiration.) If you ever violate a point of your code, you lose access to your mythic abilities for one day per mythic tier (or until you receive an atonement.)

There we go -- an excellent flaw for a character like Sir Galahad. Add four additional items not covered by the basic paladin's code and you are good to go.

Andoran

I am so adding some of Lucent's flaws to the table. I especially love the Mythic Code. It would work beautifully for the Paladin in the group. He tends to uphold his deity's code and has four of them he maintains the most and works very hard to uphold.


I like item dependency a lot... however it makes me wonder if Gollum was Mythic...


I think Gollum ascended (gained his first mythic tier) when he acquired the One Ring -- but he remained mythic even after he lost the ring to Bilbo.

Still -- I could see this as a replacement flaw for a character with a more mundane flaw. Elric, for example, was dependent on acquiring certain herbs -- but eventually he exchanged that flaw for dependence on Stormbringer.

I guess one qualification for the item dependency is that the item must be at least semi-sentient, with a chance of either getting away from or harming its mythic owner in some way.

Shadow Lodge

I don't mind them so far (with just a scan through mostly), bu I do have questions like if a +3 weapon or Mithral would count as Silver in this case. The other things is that there seem to be far too few options, at least presented, and I really hope that the actual book contains like double to triple the options we have now.

On a side not, but also sort of tied to this indirectly, I really hope that the book focuses on Clerics, Fightrs, Rogues, and Wizards (with the Paths and options), and adds lesser bits in for others. Offering flaws with those prime classes in mind, and balanced for those classes, for instance before forcing in the Magus or the Alchemist.

A few extras that come to mind might be along these lines:

Item Aversion, either similar to (normal) vampires vs Holy Symbols, Mirrors, and Garlic, or the inability to be within a certain type of place, (or even to act in a certain way like the above mentioned Highlanders can not fight on Holy ground).

Stasis, similar to spellcasters praying or memorizing spells, and in that case in addition to, the character must dedicate a period of time where they are in a death-like state to recharge and regain all their abilities, daily.

Code, a behavior or action they must do at every opportunity or can not do ever (or loose all powers for 24+ hours). <reasonably strict>


Thanks for the kind words. The mythic playtest has really been a boon to my creative wellspring, as it were.


While Galahad doesn't have a flaw in the form of hubris, he could easily fit into having a Mythic Flaw ah la the mechanics.

He was, for example, chaste, and his purity is implied in many stories to be part of what made him such a big hero.


Honestly, I have to question the need for mythic flaws myself. Some of this backward justification to explain away guys like Galahad is kludgy in the extreme. When you need to say "well, while what this flaw actually means doesn't apply in the slightest, the mechanics can be forced to fit", what that really means is that it. . . just doesn't fit.

A far better system would be for mythic flaws to be an optional element, that you take in exchange for additional mythic abilities. Most mythic heroes who have actual prominent flaws are also notably powerful even by the standards of their counterparts and peers ( to continue with the Arthurian examples, Lancelot certainly had personality issues worthy of a weakness, but he was also a warrior who could stalemate God's manifest power ). Being able to take additional mythic abilities in exchange for giving yourself weaknesses seems a proper way to represent that, without forcing *every* mythic hero to have a bizarre weakness or problematic personality.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually I think the Mythic Code flaw works great, and is well within the spirit we're shooting for with this concept.

That's not to say there isn't merit in considering them a trade-off for additional power as you suggest, but the Mythic Code suggestion is hardly "backward justification" or "kludgy in the extreme." I thought it was pretty cool, and lots of other people did too.

Do not confuse "this is not to my taste" or "support of this might undermine my desired outcome" with "this inherently sucks."

They are not the same thing.


Erik Mona wrote:

Actually I think the Mythic Code flaw works great, and is well within the spirit we're shooting for with this concept.

That's not to say there isn't merit in considering them a trade-off for additional power as you suggest, but the Mythic Code suggestion is hardly "backward justification" or "kludgy in the extreme." I thought it was pretty cool, and lots of other people did too.

Do not confuse "this is not to my taste" or "support of this might undermine my desired outcome" with "this inherently sucks."

They are not the same thing.

If my desired outcome though, is playing something in the style of the various characters or stories that don't truck in anything that resemble mythic flaws and/or their mechanics (Perseus/Arthur in most versions/Finrod/Hurin/Corum/Gandalf himself really/Beren/Luthien/the members of the Round Table who had no such stuff/the Fianna or Red Branch that didn't/etc. etc. etc.), that's a pretty big undermining of my desired outcome for a system otherwise putting itself out there as my being able to use it for such things.

And there's something honestly sort of dissonant to me, I guess, about not being otherwise able to do so. I'm really just myself looking for something that otherwise opts out of it, whether that means accepting less power for doing so, having to do more mythic trials to get a tier without taking a flaw, taking a feat, losing a path power, or whichever.


You could make an argument that Perseus had Hubris and Gandalf had Dependency: Tobacco.

Andoran

I would say test it without using it at all. Really I am doing that myself to see if it makes a huge difference as a few of my players objected. So I asked the one player if they could make time to help me test it without the flaw and they agreed. I won't know until Tuesday how it works though.

It is just a suggestion though.


Rynjin wrote:
You could make an argument that Perseus had Hubris and Gandalf had Dependency: Tobacco.

.. those are pretty heavy stretches, for two guys out of a whole list rifled off. Especially that last one.

Quote:

I would say test it without using it at all. Really I am doing that myself to see if it makes a huge difference as a few of my players objected. So I asked the one player if they could make time to help me test it without the flaw and they agreed. I won't know until Tuesday how it works though.

It is just a suggestion though.

It makes as much a conceptual difference as anything for the mechanics to require having one, it means such a thing is a fundamental part of the character and who they are.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucent wrote:

Another random thought:

Mythic Code: Your mythic power is reliant on your ability to uphold a code; be it a personal set of rules and restrictions or the religious code of a deity. Regardless of the origin, your powers are dependent on your ability to adhere to these strictures. You must design a code of conduct with your GM which must have at least four points to uphold. They may not already be tenents that you must uphold to maintain other normal class abilities (such as a paladin's code or a knight's order code), but are restrictions in addition to them (though these codes themselves make for good inspiration.) If you ever violate a point of your code, you lose access to your mythic abilities for one day per mythic tier (or until you receive an atonement.)

Nice idea, but I would suggest to remove the atonement spell, it's a clunky spell at the best of times (and could maybe be fitting for a a paladin, receiving it from a cleric of his deity..) but to regain your mystic power it's actually quite inexpensive. So it's critical to give the scroll of atonement to your rogue, before you go %$"§§$ crazy and violate your code.


The geis (geas? the spelling's not consistant) of celtic mythology might be worth a look at:

For example (from wiki)

Cú Chulainn's geasa included a ban against eating dog meat, but in early Ireland there was a powerful general taboo against refusing hospitality, so when an old crone offers him a meal of dog meat, he has no choice to break his geis. In this way he is spiritually weakened for the fight ahead of him.

Of course, as far as I know, all the stories involving geasa have the hero breaking them for one reason or another.

Shadow Lodge

I say leave them in. I will always, always, always vote for having content in. If a GM doesn't want it, s/he can houserule it out. Doing the opposite - wanting something that's not in the rules and having to cook something up from scratch - is always much harder than removing something that is in the rules that you don't want.

I personally think the flaws are awesome, if a bit limited. Some of the suggested new flaws here are pretty cool too though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I really hope that the book focuses on Clerics, Fightrs, Rogues, and Wizards (with the Paths and options), and adds lesser bits in for others. Offering flaws with those prime classes in mind, and balanced for those classes, for instance before forcing in the Magus or the Alchemist.

Please, Paizo, DON'T do that. Any class must have the same treatment of the other classes. Some prefer classics ones. Others prefers new ones. No one should get more options than the other.

Shadow Lodge

Alaryth wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I really hope that the book focuses on Clerics, Fightrs, Rogues, and Wizards (with the Paths and options), and adds lesser bits in for others. Offering flaws with those prime classes in mind, and balanced for those classes, for instance before forcing in the Magus or the Alchemist.

Please, Paizo, DON'T do that. Any class must have the same treatment of the other classes. Some prefer classics ones. Others prefers new ones. No one should get more options than the other.

Seconded, so much. My biggest complaints at the moment are that some of the non-Core classes have a very difficult time finding fitting options without bouncing around several different paths.

Shadow Lodge

Alaryth wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I really hope that the book focuses on Clerics, Fightrs, Rogues, and Wizards (with the Paths and options), and adds lesser bits in for others. Offering flaws with those prime classes in mind, and balanced for those classes, for instance before forcing in the Magus or the Alchemist.

Please, Paizo, DON'T do that. Any class must have the same treatment of the other classes. Some prefer classics ones. Others prefers new ones. No one should get more options than the other.

But for a playtest they should really focus on a core assumption and branch out. That will allow both better development of the system and to identify changes and fixes needed. Rather than dwelling on things that may not even be an issue.


Some thoughts on the flaws:

Weapon Weakness is laughable and should limit the options to some of the more common ones such as blades and natural attacks. Weapon Weakness: Crossbow is hilariously too weak of a flaw. I mean oh boy my level 17 barbarian has to worry about getting shot at by a highly optimized crossbow specialist. Scary. ;)

I also think there could be, well, more flaws. Lucent's options are really good. I also like the idea of having a weakness to certain animals (like your mythic powers don't work against felines or feline like creatures as an example). Things of that nature. Perhaps a deific weakness as well. Being vulnerable to channel energy attacks from clerics of that deity taking extra damage from those that count that deity as a patron and what not.


Tark's comment made me imagine a mythic weakness of being vulnerable to things of a specific color. "Oh no, he's YELLOW! My powers are worthless!"

(maybe some examples are not as good as others...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucent wrote:

Tark's comment made me imagine a mythic weakness of being vulnerable to things of a specific color. "Oh no, he's YELLOW! My powers are worthless!"

(maybe some examples are not as good as others...)

The original Green Lantern had weakness to Wood, so he fits perfectly.


TarkXT wrote:
Weapon Weakness: Crossbow is hilariously too weak of a flaw. I mean oh boy my level 17 barbarian has to worry about getting shot at by a highly optimized crossbow specialist. Scary. ;)

Or double weapons. "Oh no!! How did you know my only weakness -- adding another blade to the other end of your sword??"

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

TarkXT wrote:
...like your mythic powers don't work against felines or feline like creatures...

This raises a good point. Most of the flaws seem to involve things that hurt you or bypass your defenses. Shouldn't there also be flaws that involve an inability to use your offensive capabilities in certain circumstances? Things like "you take a penalty equal to your mythic tier on attack rolls, caster level checks, and skill checks against X" or something like that?


Lucent wrote:

Tark's comment made me imagine a mythic weakness of being vulnerable to things of a specific color. "Oh no, he's YELLOW! My powers are worthless!"

(maybe some examples are not as good as others...)

Well it is kryptonite isn't it?

The issue I have is that certain ones (like the double weapons above) are so silly and uncommon or weak compared to say school aversion or insanity that I don't see a reason why the wizard shouldn't take say weapon weakness: close.


Close weapons really do suck and being weak agianst them does not matter as you are crippling yourself to choose them.


doctor_wu wrote:
Close weapons really do suck and being weak agianst them does not matter as you are crippling yourself to choose them.

Unless you're Captain America.


Well, I'd imagine that a GM should ensure that the weaknesses come up (if they are in use), especially considering the nature is to represent mythic characters who have weaknesses. If you pick weakness against crossbows or darts, it should be pretty much assumed that the GM is gonna put in some foes with crossbows or darts. Dependency on chocolate? Brief chocolate shortage, just to have a little challenge there. The latter is probably difficult to pull off well, but it's there.

How lame would the story of Achilles be if someone didn't shoot him in the heel with an arrow? Pretend someone watched your campaign and wrote a book about it. How lame would it be if the dart-susceptible hero never encountered darts? Pretty lame, unless a given group is trying to skirt the weakness rules. Of course, it could also be a way to nullify weaknesses without actually removing the rule, but it would probably be easier in such cases to remove the rule. Also, note how the enemies need weaknesses, too. Before the final battle, you better figure out what that weakness is! And if it's a strange one, say the BBEG must destroy a Faberge egg every 24 hours, you might not even need to engage in a direct confrontation, just don't let the BBEG get ahold of any more Faberge eggs. I dunno how tough that would be, but I find beauty in that.

But of course, things are different in PFS, and although I'm not extremely familiar with PFS, I imagine a GM can't just change weapon types around or introduce a chocolate shortage in town. But it's PFS, and rules should not be considered with PFS in mind -- PFS should have adaptation rules, like with its ban on crafting magic items, for example.


Honestly, the only flaw on the list that bothers me is Dependency. Everything else fits nicely in the box of "on rare occasions, this will show up and trip you up, and if your enemies catch wind of it, they can use it against you." Dependency (the Popeye flaw) doesn't do that though, as is. The only characters that don't need to eat or drink every day are ones with rings of sustenance, and even then, they'll usually make exception for something they enjoy. So, the secret won't get out, and honestly, there are numerous level 1 spells that can eliminate the possibility of it ever coming up. Plus the effects only limit your access to your mythic powers, while the rest force you to deal with something that wouldn't be an issue for non-mythic characters.

This though can easily be remedied by changing the wording. Something like:
"This food or drink must be unusual in some way, and available only from a specific source, for example, water from a natural spring, or berries from the trees surrounding the area where you first ascended. The source may not be one the character has constant access to, such as 'Moonshine I personally distill' or 'bread I summon with create food and drink."

Tada. Generally it won't be a big deal, just stock up in bulk now and then, which becomes easier to do the higher your level (giving you a greater effective range, and more time away from base camp), but if you're trapped somewhere for a while, it's a problem, and if your enemies find out why you keep returning to your home town, it's a serious problem. I'd also throw in some extra penalty for abstaining, like fatigue on the third day that can only be removed by ingesting what you need.


Stazamos wrote:
Well, I'd imagine that a GM should ensure that the weaknesses come up (if they are in use), especially considering the nature is to represent mythic characters who have weaknesses. If you pick weakness against crossbows or darts, it should be pretty much assumed that the GM is gonna put in some foes with crossbows or darts.

The issue is not whether or not the gm will bring them up. The issue will be how silly will the weakness turn out if they do.

Take crossbows. Crossbows require a heavy investment of feats to make effective. And I do mean heavy. As in only fighters and maybe rangers will commonly use them over say, a bow. Paladins aren't going to bother when they can bypass your dr anyway. And they still do terrible damage compared to a good solid melee weapon or composite bow.

And keep in mind this wakness still doesn't do thing like make you lose your powers or make you staggered or dazed. Ultimately it treats you as nonmythic with a chance to take more damage when you are crit (which is something that can be negated as well nonmythically.

If achilles was weak to arrows the way mythic characters are he would eat the archer for breakfast and be mildly annoyed.

My thoughts on a solution? give the player a choice of two fighter weapon groups. That expands the gm's range of possibilities. OR make the damage dealt by these weapons Mythic damage and possibly inflict a status effect (I like shaken but sickened is good too)


For those of you planning on not telling the player what their flaw is, how do you plan on not telling the player that they have to drink coffee every morning? Do they just have to keep trying food and drinks until they find what they need?

Shadow Lodge

Sounds reasonable, though I would give them hints, (both through Wis checks and in character nudges) pointing them in the right direction, if that where the case. I can actually see that as really interesting, possibly going out of my way to insinuate, (and let the draw the conclusion) that it is something a little special that a certin coffee shop adds in, or maybe it isn't the coffee, but rather an exchange of goods with a certain individual, or something really OCD, and allow them to find out their limits from there.


Beckett wrote:
Sounds reasonable, though I would give them hints, (both through Wis checks and in character nudges) pointing them in the right direction, if that where the case. I can actually see that as really interesting, possibly going out of my way to insinuate, (and let the draw the conclusion) that it is something a little special that a certin coffee shop adds in, or maybe it isn't the coffee, but rather an exchange of goods with a certain individual, or something really OCD, and allow them to find out their limits from there.

That sounds like an absolutely HORRIBLE way to play a game. Not only would you have to spend a session or two of the character binge eating and drinking (sure to be fun for the rest of the group who already have their powers) but now that character can never leave the city for any length of time unless he can literally pick up the coffee shop and take it with him.

Shadow Lodge

I think you missed the "pointing them in the right direction" part indicating that they would have their powers. Are any of the other characters going to be going out and hitting themselves with all types of possible weapons to see if one of them almost kills them? No reason to jump to an extreme conclusion.


Beckett wrote:
I think you missed the "pointing them in the right direction" part indicating that they would have their powers. Are any of the other characters going to be going out and hitting themselves with all types of possible weapons to see if one of them almost kills them? No reason to jump to an extreme conclusion.

I think it still creates more problems than it solves. I'm more comfortable telling them what their weakness is while still choosing it for them based on character background and source of power.

Shadow Lodge

I agree that it probably is more trouble than it's worth. If I where to pick for them, I might do that, but honestly, I'm more likely to roll, (or have them roll) randomly.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber

Maybe I'm just used to the Complications system in HERO, but I rather like the flaws in the system. I think the issues with flaws being more optional but giving more powers is that sometimes, you can have this overshadowing power disparity between the flawed characters and unflawed. Basically, if flaws are supposed to be a bit more rare, then more times than not the flawed character with overshadow the flawless characters. Sure, there will be that once-in-a-blue-moon encounter where the flawed PC's weakness to wood kicks in, but those will be rare. I'd rather everyone be on the same level and I think that personally, I'm alright with playing a nigh unstoppable juggernaut with a flaw. Feels more interesting for me I suppose.

Shadow Lodge

It would be cool if the Flaws changed, and/or grew stronger as the character's tier increases. Using Silver Weapons as a generic example

Tier 1-3, the Flaw is annoying, but not debilitating in most cases. (any silver weapon)

Tier 4-7ish, all the bypassing DR and defences start kicking in, or causing the character to start immediatly loosing power access or actions. (might just be a Fighter Weapon group of Silver weapons)

Tier 8-9 similar to before, but to a more extremely level, silver weapons can bypass all defences short of short term spells and class features (mins per level or less), deal extra damage, and can temporarily sap mythic powers by being carried or held touch. (Silver Daggers only)

Tier 10, it can fairly easily kill the character (in the right circumstances, not happenstance), inflict wounds that can not be normally healed and take a long time to heal on their own.

Something like that?

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / Player Feedback / Mythic Flaw First Impressions All Messageboards

©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.