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

PaizoCon 2014!

Mythic Flaw First Impressions


Player Feedback

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I haven't tested anything in-game, but on first glance there is an imbalance among the flaws.

For example, compare
Insanity (confused for d4 rounds after being critted or failing save against mind-affecting spells)
to
Material Weakness: Silver (crits auto-confirmed and multiplier increased by one, plus no DR when hit by weapons primarily made from silver)

I like the idea of flaws. There may need to be some rebalancing, if only to stop the min/maxers with Dependency: Urine.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DigMarx wrote:
...if only to stop the min/maxers with Dependency: Urine.

Make them roleplay that out and they'll pick something else...either that or the other players will make them pick something else.


I wasn't too happy with the Material Weakness and Weapon Weakness, the Weapon Weakness seems MUCH worse in comparison.

Weapon Weakness has you select a Fighter's Weapon Training group of weapons. Any weapon in that group gets a +4 to hit and damage against you, increases it's damage multiplier by x1, and bypasses all DR.

Whereas Material Weakness bypasses your DR, increases the multiplier, and auto-confirms crits. Auto-confirming may seem like a lot, but the +4 to hit and damage against you is going to come up a lot more and net out a lot more damage then auto-criting.


Tels wrote:


Whereas Material Weakness bypasses your DR, increases the multiplier, and auto-confirms crits. Auto-confirming may seem like a lot, but the +4 to hit and damage against you is going to come up a lot more and net out a lot more damage then auto-criting.

Like others have said for Weapon Weakness choose siege weapons as your Weapon Weakness and the number of times it comes up should be fairly rare


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nosforontu wrote:
Tels wrote:


Whereas Material Weakness bypasses your DR, increases the multiplier, and auto-confirms crits. Auto-confirming may seem like a lot, but the +4 to hit and damage against you is going to come up a lot more and net out a lot more damage then auto-criting.
Like others have said for Weapon Weakness choose siege weapons as your Weapon Weakness and the number of times it comes up should be fairly rare

From a purely optimizing point of view, sure. But I don't expect every player to be choosing the most advantageous Flaw in the game. I actually expect many GMs that use Mythic to choose the flaw themselves, truthfully, and keep it hidden from the players until they can figure it out.


Dependency: Chocolate doesn't feel like much of a weakness.

Necromancer wrote:
DigMarx wrote:
...if only to stop the min/maxers with Dependency: Urine.
Make them roleplay that out and they'll pick something else...either that or the other players will make them pick something else.

No, the REAL min/maxers would pick Dependency: Seminal Fluids.

Taldor

Tels wrote:
Nosforontu wrote:
Tels wrote:


Whereas Material Weakness bypasses your DR, increases the multiplier, and auto-confirms crits. Auto-confirming may seem like a lot, but the +4 to hit and damage against you is going to come up a lot more and net out a lot more damage then auto-criting.
Like others have said for Weapon Weakness choose siege weapons as your Weapon Weakness and the number of times it comes up should be fairly rare
From a purely optimizing point of view, sure. But I don't expect every player to be choosing the most advantageous Flaw in the game. I actually expect many GMs that use Mythic to choose the flaw themselves, truthfully, and keep it hidden from the players until they can figure it out.

This, this would be awesome. Imagine a player's face when he realizes that that silver knife just pierced his skin like butter.

Harrison wrote:
Dependency: Chocolate doesn't feel like much of a weakness.

Especially when the character gets obese and starts loosing con, and dex xD


Hama wrote:
Harrison wrote:
Dependency: Chocolate doesn't feel like much of a weakness.
Especially when the character gets obese and starts loosing con, and dex xD

With how much physical activity adventurers usually perform on a day-to-day basis, I don't think there'd be any worry about getting overweight from a Chocolate Dependency.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DigMarx wrote:


...if only to stop the min/maxers with Dependency: Urine.

Bear Grylls, Mythic Ranger.


My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.


I'm going to have to echo wondering why these are made mandatory to take and what is accomplished thereby in doing so. Not every figure of myth/legend/story trucks in having such a thing, if the goal is recreating an experience, and if it isn't, it feels a bit too "you don't otherwise /deserve/ to play at this scale".

This is without getting into that these flaws aren't all exactly of the same heft, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chuckg wrote:

My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.

My gut says to prevent the problems that always crop up when you can take flaws in return for extra points.

"This is my dyslexic one legged dwarf with allergies to silver who needs to drink his own pee in order to continue functioning."

Obviously an extreme example, but it might have been that that door was best... not left open. Plus, most mythic figures have some sort of foible, even if not in the classic greek model.


Quote:
Plus, most mythic figures have some sort of foible, even if not in the classic greek model.

It's actually pretty variable. Hell, Launcelot's foible was "adultery", and Galahad was entirely without flaw (or Perceval, depending who you want to go with there) for every Gawain choking on rage-o-hol. Arthur's own "flaw" if you will, was basically a lack of clear judgement when it came to his friends and wife, in most versions of the story. Gareth Beaumayn, several other knights that got major story time and were some of the worthies of the table round similarly, nothing like this sort of thing.

Hektor didn't so much have an innate flaw as "the Gods liked to take Hektor's brain and play it like a bongo drum if things weren't 100% going how they liked". Hektor's lack of greek style personality defects was part of why he was such a tragic character, this decent man in this situation that was going to inevitably destroy him, and if it ever seemed otherwise, the hand of god from on high (literally) would come down to monkey with him, right into his thoughts if needs be.

Some of the Fianna had some unfortunate personal deals, and a bunch had none. Similarly the Red Branch.

Even getting into fiction, Corum of Moorcock's stuff had none particularly, especially on this scale (his magic hand did some funky stuff once or twice, but that was more 'temporary ownership of a cursed artifact').

If it was an option, that would be one thing. To have to deal with it no matter what, I just don't see what that adds of absolute necessity to the experience. It feels like a sop to people not keen on this level of play being viable in the first place.

I guess if you could devote a feat or path power slot to ameliorating it or something, that would itself be something.


The flaw exists so you can't be completely unstoppable. I'm not really sure what's confusing about this. It's not to ruin your fun - in fact just the opposite. It's so that you can actually be challenged, which generally leads to fun for most players.


Lord Embok wrote:
The flaw exists so you can't be completely unstoppable. I'm not really sure what's confusing about this. It's not to ruin your fun - in fact just the opposite. It's so that you can actually be challenged, which generally leads to fun for most players.

Would not that you would be facing men and monsters themselves of mythic heft already stop you from being completely unstoppable?

If you can't actually be challenged unless you have this flaw, there's something more fundamentally wrong here on a game design level of whether your character needs must have something hobbling like that intrinsically.

edit: If the scale of play only provides for certain types of characters/stories and not others, that seems like itself a pretty hefty flaw, is I guess what I'm saying.

"Well Corum, Perseus and Launcelot and whoever else were unstoppable twinks for not having stuff like this" seems an odd way to go.


Lord Embok wrote:
The flaw exists so you can't be completely unstoppable. I'm not really sure what's confusing about this. It's not to ruin your fun - in fact just the opposite. It's so that you can actually be challenged, which generally leads to fun for most players.

I think of it like the Oracle's Curse, only not something you can just pick and all but completely ignore most of the time.


I don't think it's too bad an idea.

There's also the convenience of it not really messing with the other abilities Mythic gives, which means it could easily be removed if your group is ok with it.

Taldor

The point is that mythic rules are here for your character to be a Samuel L. Jackson level of badass. If that is not clear, read the document again.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Hama wrote:
The point is that mythic rules are here for your character to be a Samuel L. Jackson level of badass.

Material Weakness: Sharks


Mikaze wrote:
Hama wrote:
The point is that mythic rules are here for your character to be a Samuel L. Jackson level of badass.
Doesn't he have a weakness against sharks? ;)

Only genetically enhanced super-sharks, which is as it should be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Hama wrote:
The point is that mythic rules are here for your character to be a Samuel L. Jackson level of badass.
Doesn't he have a weakness against sharks? ;)
Only genetically enhanced super-sharks, which is as it should be.

He gets threatened with regular sharks in Jumper.


Chuckg wrote:

My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.

Many of them did however, Heracles (Violent Rages), Achilles (Vulnerable Point), Samson (Cut Hair), even non-mythical Highlander Immortals not being able to fight each other on holy ground. I like the Mythic Characters having to choose these types of flaws.


'Many of them' is an argument for 'optional', not 'mandatory'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DigMarx wrote:
...I like the idea of flaws. There may need to be some rebalancing, if only to stop the min/maxers with Dependency: Urine.

...Really? Straight to that?

Can't one be more creative?

I mean, I'd probably just go with "anything that contains sugar" and choose Wizard, that way I can Role-play L From Death Note.

But keeping to the spirit of min maxing. You'd be surprised how many times the words "I'll eat your face" can be thrown around as a silly threat. So "Dependancy: Face", would probably be a rather economic choice.

And then there's the real Min/Max idea of simply having their dependency be "Blood". Which, assuming you're playing a Vampire or Dhampir, is already easy to get, and part of the routine of staying alive. And if one is lax with the rules, one can always allow their own blood so even when bound and gagged, they can still bite their own tongue or lip, drink some blood, and bust out.


Honestly, having flaws doesn't bother me at all. I think some need to be changed a little bit to make everything working, but that's it.

However, what would be lost if we make flaws optional? What is gained by making flaws mandatory?

I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't just be optional.


mark kay wrote:
Quote:
Plus, most mythic figures have some sort of foible, even if not in the classic greek model.

It's actually pretty variable. Hell, Launcelot's foible was "adultery", and Galahad was entirely without flaw (or Perceval, depending who you want to go with there) for every Gawain choking on rage-o-hol. Arthur's own "flaw" if you will, was basically a lack of clear judgement when it came to his friends and wife, in most versions of the story. Gareth Beaumayn, several other knights that got major story time and were some of the worthies of the table round similarly, nothing like this sort of thing.

Hektor didn't so much have an innate flaw as "the Gods liked to take Hektor's brain and play it like a bongo drum if things weren't 100% going how they liked". Hektor's lack of greek style personality defects was part of why he was such a tragic character, this decent man in this situation that was going to inevitably destroy him, and if it ever seemed otherwise, the hand of god from on high (literally) would come down to monkey with him, right into his thoughts if needs be.

Some of the Fianna had some unfortunate personal deals, and a bunch had none. Similarly the Red Branch.

Even getting into fiction, Corum of Moorcock's stuff had none particularly, especially on this scale (his magic hand did some funky stuff once or twice, but that was more 'temporary ownership of a cursed artifact').

If it was an option, that would be one thing. To have to deal with it no matter what, I just don't see what that adds of absolute necessity to the experience. It feels like a sop to people not keen on this level of play being viable in the first place.

I guess if you could devote a feat or path power slot to ameliorating it or something, that would itself be something.

Really, the way I think of it is that most mortal beings of power have some weakness, not all, true, but still that most would. The system is also for monsters so you could think of Smaug or the Hydra (although they don't quite fit the given flaws) or any other creature that you had to figure out the special way to kill. I personally like the flaws and would love to be able to take more of them (although I also agree that dependency seems a bit weak of a flaw). Anyway, that's my 2 cp. Continue on.


Realmwalker wrote:
Chuckg wrote:

My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.

Many of them did however, Heracles (Violent Rages), Achilles (Vulnerable Point), Samson (Cut Hair), even non-mythical Highlander Immortals not being able to fight each other on holy ground. I like the Mythic Characters having to choose these types of flaws.

IIRC, Heracle's violent rages were brought upon thanks to Hera. She cursed him into a rage on a couple of occasions. It wasn't a flaw of his, it was a God saying, "F@!$ you!"


If I'm playing a Drunken Master would anyone shake their head in disgust if I just went with Dependency: Alcohol?


Minion GM wrote:
mark kay wrote:
Quote:
Plus, most mythic figures have some sort of foible, even if not in the classic greek model.

It's actually pretty variable. Hell, Launcelot's foible was "adultery", and Galahad was entirely without flaw (or Perceval, depending who you want to go with there) for every Gawain choking on rage-o-hol. Arthur's own "flaw" if you will, was basically a lack of clear judgement when it came to his friends and wife, in most versions of the story. Gareth Beaumayn, several other knights that got major story time and were some of the worthies of the table round similarly, nothing like this sort of thing.

Hektor didn't so much have an innate flaw as "the Gods liked to take Hektor's brain and play it like a bongo drum if things weren't 100% going how they liked". Hektor's lack of greek style personality defects was part of why he was such a tragic character, this decent man in this situation that was going to inevitably destroy him, and if it ever seemed otherwise, the hand of god from on high (literally) would come down to monkey with him, right into his thoughts if needs be.

Some of the Fianna had some unfortunate personal deals, and a bunch had none. Similarly the Red Branch.

Even getting into fiction, Corum of Moorcock's stuff had none particularly, especially on this scale (his magic hand did some funky stuff once or twice, but that was more 'temporary ownership of a cursed artifact').

If it was an option, that would be one thing. To have to deal with it no matter what, I just don't see what that adds of absolute necessity to the experience. It feels like a sop to people not keen on this level of play being viable in the first place.

I guess if you could devote a feat or path power slot to ameliorating it or something, that would itself be something.

Really, the way I think of it is that most mortal beings of power have some weakness, not all, true, but still that most would. The system is also for monsters so you could think of Smaug or the Hydra (although...

Most feels going too far with it. Many, sure. But a wide variety of stories/figures/personalities/monsters in myth and what might be viewed as epic fiction don't end up trucking in such things.

I'd besides that rather the game not have to be weakness intuiting speed chess on either side as the way to get by as far as the idea put forward of that this is what stops characters from being unstoppable or some such. A lot of fictional/legendary characters just don't truck in this stuff, and if someone wants them as their guiding star when trucking in a mythic game, the answer of "nope, too bad, you're stuck with this", seems to ding the idea of what the scope of the game is.

The option being there for people who do want that element is fine by me, but I don't know what the game loses by also having those who don't want it be able to ignore it or at least mitigate it without having to convince someone to house rule.

I mean.. even something like the Silmarillion, you had on the one had Feanor with his issues of rage and pride, but on the other you had Hurin of the epic doomed stand against Morgoth's entire army to buy his allies time to escape, who had no particular "flaw" at the time other than being the kind of guy who would take on an army to save the lives of his friends (and do so spectacularly, for all that he ultimately loses). You had Turin, his son, who was a basket of issues+ a cursed sword, and then you had guys like Finrod, who were not, but were all the same people of great, epic deeds and moving pathos and whatever else.

It's a pretty varied palette, the people and things of myth and epic, and to say it one way, some days I want to play Finrod.


Rynjin wrote:
If I'm playing a Drunken Master would anyone shake their head in disgust if I just went with Dependency: Alcohol?

i wouldn't shake my head. a drunken master who depends on alchohol makes sense.


Yeah, we're not saying 'eliminate all flaws!', we're saying 'where's the opt-out?'


If you're going to choose a material, I'm not sure why anyone would choose something other than wood. What kinds of weapons are made of wood anyways? Clubs, greatclubs, and quarterstaffs. I think that's about it really. And they are WEAK weapons, so it kind of counterbalances a bit with your weakness.


Plus the Forest Dragon's breath weapon and that animated tree monster I'm not looking up how to spell right now.

But yeah, pretty uncommon.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

I would choose pudding as a material. That way only people who weaponise puddings (and I suppose some oozes) could hurt me.


Ravingdork wrote:
If you're going to choose a material, I'm not sure why anyone would choose something other than wood. What kinds of weapons are made of wood anyways? Clubs, greatclubs, and quarterstaffs. I think that's about it really. And they are WEAK weapons, so it kind of counterbalances a bit with your weakness.

It says any weapon MOSTLY MADE OF wood.

That includes arrows.


Do they? I don't think they qualify for being made of special wood materials.


deuxhero wrote:
Do they? I don't think they qualify for being made of special wood materials.

Well it doesn't say SPECIAL wood on there, and I don't see why it would have to be. Arrows are wood fitted with a metal/whatever other material tip.

So they are primarily made of wood.


Rynjin wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
Do they? I don't think they qualify for being made of special wood materials.

Well it doesn't say SPECIAL wood on there, and I don't see why it would have to be. Arrows are wood fitted with a metal/whatever other material tip.

So they are primarily made of wood.

Yeah, that was my take on it as well. Spears and lances, too. Silver would be the go-to. Not many folks carrying silver weapons around other than werewolf hunters.


Rynjin wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If you're going to choose a material, I'm not sure why anyone would choose something other than wood. What kinds of weapons are made of wood anyways? Clubs, greatclubs, and quarterstaffs. I think that's about it really. And they are WEAK weapons, so it kind of counterbalances a bit with your weakness.

It says any weapon MOSTLY MADE OF wood.

That includes arrows.

Yeah but archers are useless once you get access to fickle winds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Yeah but archers are useless once you get access to fickle winds.

Make up your mind Pathfinder forums, are archers the most (non-magical) OP thing ever or are they not?


Rynjin wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Yeah but archers are useless once you get access to fickle winds.
Make up your mind Pathfinder forums, are archers the most (non-magical) OP thing ever or are they not?

They are completely useless as NPCs once your players hit a certain level. As player characters they are stronger because GMs generally won't give every enemy fickle winds. If they do, your archer will simply never get to arch.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chuckg wrote:

My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.

This, right here.

I can appreciate the idea of Mythic Flaws, but like Mythic Immortality it seems like it is stretching something that should be tied to one idea across all mythic characters. I don't like that.


I am planning out my first Playtest and was making some pre-generated pc's and I just rolled randomly for each pc's flaw... I like the randomness because that way you arent picking on any player by picking something crippling and also I prefer a DM picking the flaw as opposed to players(unless you really trust them)in order to avoid them going for the insane optimization...

I also like the idea of leaving things unknown to the players... I was going to run the Fury of Nature adventure in the back and when the players gained their Mythic-ness, just hand out a sheet with what they get... I will probably have a hint or allusion in each one to give a warning about their flaw but not outright say, WOOD IS YOUR ENEMY! FEAR THE TREES!

Oh and btw, I am much more worried about players picking dependency blood than urine... because it sounds like a hard thing but in actuality it gives the player a chance to be dark, broody, and an a$~&*&~(Why did you kill that guard? Er... my blood lust took over)


Tels wrote:
Realmwalker wrote:
Chuckg wrote:

My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.

Many of them did however, Heracles (Violent Rages), Achilles (Vulnerable Point), Samson (Cut Hair), even non-mythical Highlander Immortals not being able to fight each other on holy ground. I like the Mythic Characters having to choose these types of flaws.
IIRC, Heracle's violent rages were brought upon thanks to Hera. She cursed him into a rage on a couple of occasions. It wasn't a flaw of his, it was a God saying, "F+*& you!"

It happened often enough that it could be considered a permanent trait. And what are the chances of any hero becoming that powerful without making an enemy of at least one god? Pretty much every d20 supplement based on Greek mythology has had every character who had the favor of one god gaining the enmity of some other god.

Qadira

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gallifrey wrote:
I will probably have a hint or allusion in each one to give a warning about their flaw but not outright say, WOOD IS YOUR ENEMY! FEAR THE TREES!

THEY BE COMIN' FOR YE, LADS!


David knott 242 wrote:
Tels wrote:
Realmwalker wrote:
Chuckg wrote:

My first impression is 'Why were these made mandatory, as opposed to making them optional in return for extra mythic points or an extra ability or something'?

Not all mythic heroes were the classical Greek. Heck, even some of the classical Greek ones didn't have a huge thematic weakness. Perseus, for instance. As I recall, his only weakness was his enemies list.

Many of them did however, Heracles (Violent Rages), Achilles (Vulnerable Point), Samson (Cut Hair), even non-mythical Highlander Immortals not being able to fight each other on holy ground. I like the Mythic Characters having to choose these types of flaws.
IIRC, Heracle's violent rages were brought upon thanks to Hera. She cursed him into a rage on a couple of occasions. It wasn't a flaw of his, it was a God saying, "F+*& you!"

It happened often enough that it could be considered a permanent trait. And what are the chances of any hero becoming that powerful without making an enemy of at least one god? Pretty much every d20 supplement based on Greek mythology has had every character who had the favor of one god gaining the enmity of some other god.

And if someone isn't looking to do those particular bits of Greek mythology, but any number of legends or works of epic fiction where such flaws as these don't remotely come up?

Even something really simple like a feat that allows a character to ignore such things in exchange for having to do more trials per tier or something like that would at least allow for the option.


I think Hubris looks like a pretty good default flaw for characters who are not already immune to fear.

What we are lacking is a good default flaw for paladins and other characters who are immune to fear. Maybe a reduction in mythic power uses like the one given for the Heroic Arrogance mythic feat? That seems like it would serve as an acceptable flaw for supposedly "flawless" superheroes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought of an additional flaw, figured I'd post it here. Likely needs to be hit with a balance mallet:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

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.)

1 to 50 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.