At the end of the day, Buffy and Crew didn't worry about whether or not the world would last forever. They couldn't. They could only avert one apocalypse at a time.
Yeah, those nosy kids. At least the bad guys had a plan...
I find myself in a similar predicament – though it's more of a moral quandary to me. Which I like! Obviously accepting his boon is what the AP wants of us, so I get to play Tiferet as being torn between her ideals and the greater good, all the while musing whether freeing one of the setting's Biggest Bads could really qualify as such.
I feel tempted to comment on that from Nathara's perspective, but I rather keep that in-game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure there is. "Is that wolf fur..?"
"Uncle Barky? NO!!!"
Hmmm. I didn't want to delay the game unnescessary, but I don't feel Nathara is quite ready for this.
It's an understandable dilemma. Nathara, Tiferet, and Morgraine all have reasons for being wary of the gift that Inire, Eirikr, and Evelyn don't. Morgraine and Tiferet both have immediate connections to Irrisen that would logically make them wary of anything connected to Baba Yaga, and it's been established that Nathara looks to Tiferet for moral guidance. And it's probably not a coincidence that the two morally neutral characters had the least qualms about going along with it.
On an unrelated topic, would it be okay if I made some slight changes to Eirikr’s description. Nothing major, I’ve just found some pictures that I think better represent what I originally wanted him to look like. And a mostly blondish party is dull anyways, right?
Evelyn won Mouse over via the internal argument of:
'Heroes make sacrifices. Even if this isn't directly good, the fact that we have made sacrifices in order to aid others in the past is no secret... as we will in the future. As we will now.' :)
I am starting to wonder whether we can say "No, I don't want to become what I despise." but that would probably mean that we won't get an epic level, and our epic path is central to the campaign. Of course Nathara was originally willing to take it... but then there would have been others to watch over her and stop her if she turns to evil.
Die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.
Avast ye Spoilers!
Or just be Dresden. Be the lesser evil, because your evil is significantly better than someone else's. :)
Sure there is. "Is that wolf fur..?""Uncle Barky? NO!!!"
And that, kids, was how Uncle Eirikr took his first level of Barbarian.
At the end of the day, Buffy and Crew didn't worry about whether or not the world would last forever. They couldn't. They could only avert one apocalypse at a time.
Story-driven morality is, I think, one of the things that aged the worst of those late '90s – early '00s shows. It allowed the good guys to hold on to their goodness by vindicating their actions whereas they would eventually be shown to triumph and therefore set things straight once and for all. It took away the very need of worrying about consequences, since those were in the very same hands who wrote the plot in the first place. Of course, APs tend to work on similar premises (provided don't get TPK'd), and "DnD morality leads to funny places" in the long run, so in our particular context the point is moot.
Evelyn won Mouse over via the internal argument of:
'Heroes make sacrifices. Even if this isn't directly good, the fact that we have made sacrifices in order to aid others in the past is no secret... as we will in the future. As we will now.' :)
The idea of making the highest sacrifice (our ideals, rather than merely our lives) in order to save the world is actually quite appealing (RPG-wise, of course), and it reminds me of one of my favourite short stories (Borges' "The three versions of Judas"). It's freeing Baba Yaga I'm a bit more recalcitrant about, even assuming it's the only way to stop eternal winter from engulfing Golarion. Going for the 'lesser evil' route, one might argue that freezing a single planet is well worth removing one of the greatest forces of evil in the multiverse – though one who apparently isn't interested in said planet beyond the tiny slice she's already conquered. Perspective is funny like that.
The really heroic thing would be to try to save everyone without ever compromise; though as Nathara surmised, accepting the boon is part of our becoming mythic, right?
Yup. It's mythic time.
To never compromise would be highly impractical and condemn one to hardly ever act all. The old image of the circle of philosophers.
Nathara might be willing to free Baba Yaga if they do not come up with a better alternative in time, which has less to do with morality and more with game theory. But to assume the mantel of a dark rider and thus giving onesself within her power, one might become a device of evil after all. And I am not sure whether that is worth it.
I am extremely hesitant to presume that a given course of action is without alternatives, especially if one hasn't even seriously looked for alternatives.
All very true. Though I suspect that the passing of the mantle may be less about picking up the cloth itself and more about the rider. We may have to decide while he is still with us, which probably means not having time to find alternatives. Though I wish I had thought of pursuing that question sooner before I wrote my post. lol
Well, there's also the fact that there is a very low probability that Baba Yaga will be our only source of mythic power. After all, there are only three riders to draw from, unless we eat her house, too. And then her mortar, and her pestle, and then it just gets wacky when we eat the russian tank in her living room...
Suffice to say, there are always other options. Just... some come with a cost. Inire doesn't know what the cost of the power is, but she knows what the cost of not taking it may well be. Maybe that cost will simply be less power.
Unfortunately, Inire has the same morality that I had a decade ago. That the good choice is to choose what benefits me least, but does not directly hurt others. Unfortunately, I am apparently the only one who likes banana flavored runts, and I was a jerk for always taking the red ones that I didn't like ;)
Hm. Banana-flavored morality...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To never compromise would be highly impractical and condemn one to hardly ever act all. The old image of the circle of philosophers.
In real life? Sure. In a game? We could pick the uncompromising, non-mythic route and still save the day. That's probably how the AP was originally written. The perks of heroic fantasy is that there's always a black-and-white, escapist vibe to it (though Wrath of the righteous is probably the right AP for that). Mind you, I usually like my fantasy to be grittier, so getting to role-play Tiferet being gnawed by self-loathing for having betrayed her ancestors and now serving their bitterest enemy is a plus!
Of course, we signed up for a Mythic campaign, so the first route is already barred. This restricts our alternatives considerably, at least in the short term.
Well, there's also the fact that there is a very low probability that Baba Yaga will be our only source of mythic power. After all, there are only three riders to draw from, unless we eat her house, too. And then her mortar, and her pestle, and then it just gets wacky when we eat the russian tank in her living room...
Shouldn't Mythic "level ups" be achieved through Trials? Basically, you need a source to become Mythic, but then it just takes doing cool things™ to get more Mythic?
Unfortunately, Inire has the same morality that I had a decade ago. That the good choice is to choose what benefits me least, but does not directly hurt others.
Talking about game theory, your stance would allow you to beat the prisoner's dilemma. So... nice job?
I'm actually kind of thrilled that people are enjoying the moral dilemma of this moment.
Re: Prisoner's Dilemma: Technically... no. While I certainly would not tell the cops that my friend did something that they did not do to save themselves, that does not mean that the same is true in reverse. I'm much more likely to be the victim of a Prisoner's Dilemma than to 'win' it. :)
Re: Black and White: Mouse is only just really learning that it's not always quite black and white. :)
And likewise, I definitely prefer the idea of gaining power from things other than just trials. Trials are cool and all, but there are so many more ways to do mythic than just 'really hard challenge', and so many more ways to flavor the acquisition thereof.
For example, maybe our next mythic level comes when we find a tree laden with golden apples after a harrowing quest. :)
Well, yes, by 'stance' I meant common strategy ;) More Inires for everyone!
Re: Trials, I agree. It depends on how the GM has set up the campaign, really. I wouldn't want to miss the only chance to become Mythic and consequently drag the whole party down, or even for a short while.
Well, now it gets confusing.
To make this more clear: The question is whether we can say "no".
As Tiferet pointed out we signed up for a mythic campaign, based on our intended path. So that's why I wrote that Nathara touches the cloak.
Given a choice I am inclined to say "no", because being a rider of Baba Yaga is diametrically opposed to everything Nathara stands for. Mythic level or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something that I linked in another thread, that we absolutely must fit into Tiferet's build. Because Returning Greataxe.
I feel like there's a realpolitik argument for taking the cloak but I'm not sure whether Eirikr would care enough to make it. Chaotic Neutral!
Throw Anything, 5 levels of Fighter, Quick Draw... But OMG that's the coolest thing ever!
The fighter practically pays for the feats!
It's not necessarily the best, but I like "mortal" for "sapient material plane humanoids"
I've added Ashen's statblock to Eirikr's profile and slightly tweaked Eirikr's description.
Well, now it would be helpful to have taken the option to have a tail.
Eirikr, your appearance description and the linked imaged didn't change, did it?
It's changed a bit, yeah.
As for 'human', if the sentence structure works, you can also substitute 'peoples'.
Is the 'extensively scarred by black marks, especially on his arms and hands' still applicable even after switching curse?
Thanks for the suggestions! I was going for human in the 'condemned to be free' sense: lost in a world he has but an imperfect knowledge about, forced to only rely on his free will to make decisions. 'People' is probably the closest analogue; too bad the term human is the one most burdened with philosophical significance, while still retaining its original species-related meaning.
Well, thinking about it, the 'human condition' is still very much human. Those fears innate to humanity, and those things that we all have in common are less true for the other races. Thinking of it in that way, maybe each race views their 'humanity' just as differently as the word they use for it.
After all, those things intrinsic and ineffable with dwarfkind are very different from elfkind, and so on. Perhaps it is most likely that they would refer to their own race in this way, to mirror that.
There's still the question of what to call those desires that all sapients share, but ultimately... Most of those are rights that all creatures should have.
It's an interesting concept, one which would require a much lengthier conversation to explore. If humanity is the sum of all qualities, social, cultural and biological that make an entity a human, it stands to reason the same concepts for elves, dwarves etc. should be defined in relation to their own peculiarities (though I have to admit your average Friendly Standard Fantasy Setting™, of which Golarion is more or less a straight example, tends to do a sub-par job at highlighting those differences, rather making other species Humans with Hats).
In a way, I still believe existential angst should be a sentiment shared by every array of electrons that happens to be involved in the act of the universe observing itself. It only takes the conscience of one's own finitude to emerge, and of the fact that, as a strict subset of that which it attempts to experience, the full deterministic knowledge of its surroundings will always be precluded to it.
Well, I was going to get things done, but then someone linked TVTropes again.
Those are a very large amount of big words, and while I understand each individually, I low half the sentence each time I pull up the definition of a another word mentally. That in mind...
I believe you are suggesting that introspection (and exploration of one's surroundings) of any kind, from any free-willed species, will eventually lead to the knowledge that we simply don't, and can't, know everything while still functioning within the whole?
Well, I was going to get things done, but then someone linked TVTropes again.
BWAHAHAHA!
Those are a very large amount of big words, and while I understand each individually, I low half the sentence each time I pull up the definition of a another word mentally. That in mind...
I believe you are suggesting that introspection (and exploration of one's surroundings) of any kind, from any free-willed species, will eventually lead to the knowledge that we simply don't, and can't, know everything while still functioning within the whole?
Sorry :( Mastery of the language means that one should be able to effectively convey concepts in simple form, and I obviously lack that. Upon re-reading, I realize it's an absolute mess.
Though basically, yes, that's exactly the point. A potential God-mind who could observe our universe from the outside might see it as an incredibly complex clockwork, but completely deterministic in function. Since, on the other hand, every intelligence within the universe is part of that very same universe, and is hopelessly entangled with the object of its own observation (be it the external world or its own internal consciousness), such a perfect knowledge would be beyond its grasp. Introspection-wise, one can't predict his own future choices, and thus thinks of himself as free-willed, nor he can predict the outcome of his actions once they start interacting with other consciousnesses similar to him. Being always alone with ourselves at the time of choice, without a strict framework that could tell us if we'll come to regret our decisions or not (i.e. wishing we would have ruled otherwise as our consciousness as well as our knowledge evolve), is what existentialists called angst. I believe that such a condition would be common to every intelligence that could emerge within our universe (or... fantasy multiverse – though we should reformulate Quantum Mechanics to work with magic. Oh and healing spells with the Second Principle of Thermodynamics).
Well, I realize that were just more big words on a pile of other big words. Einstein said that 'until you're able to explain it to your Grandma, you haven't really understood it'. You're surely smarter than my Grandma, which means I'm probably at fault here. Though I cite language barriers in my defence! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understood that one significantly better. I was a teenager once. I know all about angst. ;)
I don't like the thought of a deterministic universe. And it appears our real universe is not entirely deterministic either, given Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. Einstein was not comfortable with that... "Gott würfelt nicht." (German: "God does not roll dice.") But as far as modern physics are concerned, if there is a God, it appears he does. There are categorical limits to predictability. There are limits to reality where it blurs and is no longer well defined.
The non-deterministic part, however, only happens during measurement when the wave-function collapses. Other than that, Quantum Mechanics is perfectly deterministic. Einstein proposed a hidden variable theory, and Bohmian mechanics elaborates on that. Both have the drawback they're explicitly non-local, unless one assumes the measured object 'knew' in advance which kind of measurement would be performed upon it.
It also bears noticing how the cumulative wave-function observer+observed never truly collapses and behaves deterministically. The universe, as a whole, also evolves deterministically (according to its global Hamiltonian). It just doesn't appear such to us who are living inside it. (White noise interaction can simulate the collapse of a partial wave-function, while the entangled one experiences no such thing, for example).
Hmmm... I am not quite sure whether I can follow you there. A "global Hamilton"? "Bohemian mechanics"? But I think the argument is that god may have the key to the wave function which describes the superposition of quantum states, if I get that right? Like it isn't really random, but a pseudo-random sequence which we just haven't seen though yet.
Also by "observer+observer" you mean any classic system?
While a classic system behaves deterministic the tiniest deviations can add up. That there are in fact galaxies and stars out there is a consequence of that. If it were not so there would not be any deviations at all in the background radiation and matter and energy would be perfectly evenly distributed throughout the universe in perfect entropy. (I am not quite sure whether would even be matter in such a universe.) A lotto machine gains its randomness from quantum effects which... (hmmm... "potenzieren sich") go to the power of the term that describes the system's behavior and thus make it categorically unpredictable after merely 20 pushes.
In classic system there are gazillions of quantum system, wave functions collapse constantly and the effects statistically even out (which is why I don't like the example of Schroedinger's cat. A cat is a classic system, its decoherence time is way shorter than the time span you could biologically define the moment of its death - whether or not you have an outside observer is irrelevant, the cat is its own observer, made up of a huge number of quantum systems which constantly interact with each other. Plus, I like cats and don't like even thinking of killing them. ;) )... but that's pure statics, sometimes there are slight deviations and those can add up.
The Hamiltonian is, basically, the operator H whose eigenvalues are the total energy of the system in the various eigenstates. It is also the generator of time-translations (as momentum is the generator of space-translations), so a wavefunction of a state with definite energy will evolve by simply getting a phase proportional to time passed x energy (a generic state would just evolve according to exp(-iHt/ħ) times the original state).
Bohm and Einstein's argument is that what you see as 'randomness' (i.e. same initial conditions, different results) could be interpreted by the initial conditions not really being the same, because there are some 'hidden variables' you failed to take into account (and which an omniscient God would know).
What you say about deviations adding up is obviously true, though it's more about chaos than non-determinism (chaos = very hard to predict, Wave-function collapse = impossible to predict, to put it succinctly).
To be fair, the Schroedinger's cat argument is often misrepresented: in the original formulation, the point was about an atom of unstable Uranium being put in a box. After a while, it exists in a quantum-state which is the superposition of decayed / non-decayed (with a decreasingly exponential probability). There's a Geiger counter in the box, and if it reads a radiation it triggers a vial of poison to break and kill the cat. So the whole system is made of the entangled wave-function |U decayed>x|cat dead>+|U non-decayed>x|cat alive>. Of course, as a gedankenexperiment, it requires perfect isolation.
On that note, spontaneous collapse occurs continuously in nature, but this is the effect of the surrounding noise causing decoherence. The global wave-function still remains unperturbed, and evolves deterministically (of course, there are also spontaneous collapse models flying around).
I don't see why god wouldn't roll dice. It's the same reason I don't understand religious folks not believing in evolution. If I were infinitely wise, I would think that adding a little bit of random chance (for example, giving out free will), and a way to survive harsh conditions we weren't initially made for... is just things I would do.
Other than that... you have both walked firmly outside of my paygrade.
The blasted forum ate my reply. :/ Well, it appears you know more about this stuff than I do, which makes the argument somewhat frustrating. This Hamilton thing appears to me a somewhat philosphical thing because it does not seem falsifyable. But, your point as such, that it is thinkable (and that it is thinkable is certainly enough in the given context) that the universe is deterministic from the perspective of an outside beholder with full knowledge of the universe is certainly made.
Even though the term you showed was a bit confusing... that leads to complex results unless Ht/h is a multiple of 1/2 in which case it would be either 1 or -1...
However, one point I would like to address (I know it's a bad habit to pick a single point out of a complex post) is that chaos vs. wave function thing. In the example of the lotto machine the system is chaotic to the degree that quantum effects begin to matter. If the input of a chaotic system is a wave function then it is impossible to predict. It serves to polarize those quantum effects, even if the deviation caused by quantum effects may seem negligible compared to the heat energy that the atoms have.
Also, I noticed an error in my previous post. When I wrote "universe in perfect entropy" I really meant "universe without entropy", and thus without time.
I don't see why god wouldn't roll dice. It's the same reason I don't understand religious folks not believing in evolution. If I were infinitely wise, I would think that adding a little bit of random chance (for example, giving out free will), and a way to survive harsh conditions we weren't initially made for... is just things I would do.
Other than that... you have both walked firmly outside of my paygrade.
That's what I think. One does not have to give up all faith just because certain aspects of the universe are random. Otherwise there would be no free will.
Morpheus: Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
As for my knowledge... well, I like watching YouTube videos and sometimes read a book on popular science. I don't really know more. I know a bit statistic, since I like to write computer programs that calculate some statistical properties of attribute generation modes and I know the basics of encryption algorithms (haven't got my head around elyptic curve algorithms, though... well as soon they build quantum computers on a large scale, modern encryption will be obsolete, anyway), but that's as far as my knowledge in mathematics goes.
The blasted forum ate my reply. :/ Well, it appears you know more about this stuff than I do, which makes the argument somewhat frustrating. This Hamilton thing appears to me a somewhat philosphical thing because it does not seem falsifyable. But, your point as such, that it is thinkable (and that it is thinkable is certainly enough in the given context) that the universe is deterministic from the perspective of an outside beholder with full knowledge of the universe is certainly made.
You probably mean Bohm – the Hamiltonian function is just energy. In QM, it becomes an operator, function of the position a momentum operators. H|psi>=iħ(d/dt)|psi> is the Schroedinger's equation (where H is just p^2/2m + whatever potential your particle if subject to).
Yes, in a way these are just different interpretations of QM (though Bohmian mechanics make slightly different predictions in some limited cases), and thus all equivalent to its standard formulation. One thing to notice is that hidden variables theories violate Relativity, as those hidden variables are required to interact superluminally for the theory to work (though on could argue this is only true if the observer's choice aren't known in advance).
Even though the term you showed was a bit confusing... that leads to complex results unless Ht/h is a multiple of 1/2 in which case it would be either 1 or -1...
Yes. The Schroedinger's wave function is a complex function. Better yet, in QM you use complex representations of the algebra of observables, by means of operators which act upon a C-space (whose vector elements are your individual psi functions, and whose modulus gives you the probability of finding a particle in that particular state).
However, one point I would like to address (I know it's a bad habit to pick a single point out of a complex post) is that chaos vs. wave function thing. In the example of the lotto machine the system is chaotic to the degree that quantum effects begin to matter. If the input of a chaotic system is a wave function then it is impossible to predict. It serves to polarize those quantum effects, even if the deviation caused by quantum effects may seem negligible compared to the heat energy that the atoms have.
Sorry, missed that. Yes, if you can feed a machine a quantum input and them make it evolve so its original intrinsic quantum uncertainty is amplified by a chaotic evolution, you'd have true randomness.
As for free will, I believe and don't believe in it depending on how it's defined. With time just being an extra dimension, you can always think of a slice of universe made of all the instantaneous moments of one's life. This thing exists just as you could freeze the universe in a particular instant and say: now, at some spatial distance from me, Saturn exists. Further still, Sirius, and then the Andromeda Galaxy etc. etc.
On the other hand, can that slice be projected on the present, i.e. given all the possible knowledge of the universe as it is now we can obtain, is its evolution fixed and immutable? This is what is often called determinism, and I don't believe it to be so for all the reasons we've been discussing. So in a way I consider Fate like the old tree that no-one heard falling: something which is out there, but that we can't intrinsically know about. So can we even say it is there?
EDIT: ok now for the really complex stuff. I have to learn about mythic rules :o
Any suggestions? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was not the conversation I was expecting to come back to, lol.
I can't believe I missed the burned thing again, I've edited it out for real this time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely lost track of what was going on a while ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next on the agenda: we discuss the hermeneutics of mythic advancement through a deconstructionist/post-structuralist lens. Of course, this is folly, as deconstruction is not a method of interpretation and the mythic rules naturally deconstruct themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marshal is rather odd in that it covers a very, very wide variety of options. There are options for bards, rangers, paladins, and bits and pieces of everything else.
The following are the -short- versions of abilities. If they look interesting, i can share the long version. (M) means it uses MP for a (relatively) major part of the ability.
Banner Bearer (M): Cavalier or Bard stuff. Grants bardic benefits to the bearer of your banner.
Expert Aid: Can use aid with reach weapon, and don't need to be adjacent to the enemy. Add half your tier to the benefit granted. You can spend a mythic surge to grant the target a surge to use on anything before the end of their next turn.
Hold the Line: Grants benefits to CMD v. being moved/tripped as an immediate action, works better on adjacent allies, but can be used up to 30 feet.
Inspiring word (M): Single target, much quicker to activate Resurging Words. When an ally uses total defense, withdraw or gains the benefit of aid another, you can use it as an immediate action without spending mythic.
Teamwork Feat Mastery (M): Gain 1/2 your tier (minimum 1) in team work feats by practicing for an hour and spending a mythic point. at 6th tier, you can spend two mythic to gain a teamwork feat with 1 minute of practice.
*Unbroken Will (M): When affected by an intimidate or mind-affecting effect, gain +2 to attacks and saves until the end of your next turn. If that effect normally results in a penalty, they are suppressed until the end of your next turn. The (non-mythic) person who targeted you is considered flatfooted against your attacks during this time. A mythic character can avoid the flatfooted by making a sense motive check (DC 15+cha+tier). At 4th Tier you can spend one mythic as an immediate to grant this to someone within 30 feet that can see or hear you. At 8th, you can spend 2 uses to grant it to all allies that can see or hear you.
Warmind: Cavalier stuff.
3+:
Conflicting Orders (M): As an immediate action you can cancel the benefits of a teamwork feat, aid another, or handle animal action (and doing the same to all enemies within 10 feet of the target). This only works on people with your mythic tier or less (including 0). It also has some anti-summon/call/charm/compulsion stuff. Basically saying 'no' to a creature's orders, costs mythic.
Deadly Dance (M): You can reposition a creature who is flanking you that attacks you as an attack of opportunity. That creature becomes flat footed to you. You can also use ki or rage instead of AoO's to activate this. You can also use a point of mythic power as an immediate action when attacked by a creature flanking you to make a reflex save with a bonus equal to your tier, DC is their attack roll. On a successful save, the creature hits both you and its ally. You both take half the damage and are afflicted fully with any additional effects of the attack.
Friendly Flanking (M): If another ally is adjacent to an enemy you're adjacent to, you count as flanking. You can spend a mythic point as a swift action to share this with allies equal to half your tier for a number of rounds equal to your tier.
Healing Surge (M): When you heal (or grant temporary hp to) an adjacent ally, you add your surge die to the amount healed. If you spend 1 MP, it affects all allies you affect, not just the adjacent ones. When an adjacent ally uses a mythic surge, they heal an amount equal to the surge, and you may use an MP to do so on an ally within 30 feet. ***This is probably a lot too strong.***
Shatter Resistance (M): When you hit an enemy, you can spend 1 MP to reduce its Spell resistance by an amount equal to your tier for one round. This doesn't stack.
Soaring Banner (M): Gain the banner class feature, with a cavalier level equal to your tier (minimum 5). If you already are a cavalier, add your tier to your level for terms of banner and the benefits apply to all allies with line of sight to your banner. Either way, you can spend an MP to make your banner rise into the sky and become visible to people within 1 mile per mythic tier, unaffected by concealment (though anything above that still prevents it).
To Me!: When you charge or with draw, you can move up to half your tier in allies to be adjacent to you at the end of the movement, but they can't move further than their speed or your speed (whichever is lower), and their movement doesn't provoke Attacks of Opportunity.
6th:
Borrowed Boon (M): When you grant a morale or competence bonus to an ally, you get a copy of that effect. When you create any other beneficial effect that affects allies but not you, you can expend an MP to get a copy of that effect. When you use an SLA or SU ability (or a personal spell) that only affects you, you can spend 1 MP to share it with an ally.
Loyal to the End (M): Requires To Me! You can spend one MP as an immediate action to make an adjacent ally take a hit for you. If you spend two MP, you can choose an ally within 5 feet per 2 tiers, and this takes away their immediate action as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here are the pitfalls I've ran into as a Mythic Marshal (only tier one):
Advance is amazing on paper, at a table. It's just really cool. Unfortunately, on a PbP forum, using it either requires explicit trust from the players, or for you to wait for everyone to move each time you use it. I, as a player, would not be willing to use it, because if anything bad happened, I would blame myself.
Rally is also amazing on paper... but frequently it goes mostly unused. Because Natural 1s are a ton worse than even a 2. It makes it really scary to use for players. I think it'd work a lot better if it could be used as a swift or immediate action, because being able to trigger it when an ally rolls a 1 would be amazing. I've spent roughly 10 mythic power on this, and gotten roughly 10 rerolls out of it... excluding my 'autoreroll 1s from attacks of opportunity')
Decisive Strike is the safest, as you can basically just use an ally's dice to attack during your turn, but it's also probably the weakest.
Tentative mythic choices for Eirikr
Feat: Mythic Power Attack
Guardian's Call: Sudden Block
Ability: Armored Might
Waffled enough on this.
Inire gains:
Hard to Kill
MP: 5
Surge: 1d6
Inire is taking:
Trickster Path (+4 HP)
Trickster Attack: Surprise Strike
Mythic Paragon (Mythic Feat)
Path Dabble: Enduring Armor (Su) (+6 AC [Force] Armor) (Path Ability)
I was torn between going with Scribe as Legendary to start and something else... ultimately 'absorbing the mantle' sold me on this route.
These changes aren't listed on her sheet, yet.
I forgot how ludicrously useful Mythic Paragon is.
There aren't really any good mythic feats for Inire. They exist but I'm just... meh. As for Mythic Path abilities... I desire more than I can possibly get. :) So my mythic feats look something like: Paragon, Extra Path Ability x4. :)
I thought about Dual-Pathing Genius and picking up the knowledge and blade of knowledge abilities over there... but then I remembered I already have too many things I want. :P
Don't need Mythic Weapon Finesse and your other feats... right. Uh... you could... yeah I have nothing. Have fun with your terrifying number of extra path abilities.