The_Burninator's page

If I were your hypothetical paladin, I'd watch out for the Antipaladin 20 / Mythic 10 carrying a double hackbut and gunning for me.

Talk about an important initiative roll...

Further thoughts:

With respect to interpreting the Dual Path mythic feat, I think it's a matter of determining what exactly the designers are trying to achieve with it. Were they trying to make it a powerful feat that granted full tier access to another path, making it very much like multi-classing (what I'll call "the first reading"), or were they trying to grant some, but not all, of a path's abilities to a character not on that path, making it a little less than multi-classing (what I'll call "the second reading")? It's also a matter of where, precisely, they felt that the balance of the feat's worth came down. Did they feel the first interpretation is too powerful as compared to other feats? Did they feel the second interpretation is too weak as compared to other feats?

For my part, I tend to think that the designers are doing their best to keep the game balanced as they add new feats, abilities, etc. It's a heroic task, and one I don't envy them for. They have to make some very hard decisions, and no matter what they decide, some portion of the players are likely to think they were wrong. But they try hard and have done a pretty darn good job so far. And when it turns out that they made a bad call, they do their best to fix it. In fact, they're allowing us to participate in this playtest to raise issues like this so that they can consider them from a play balance standpoint before publication.

But this methodology and consideration is not unique to this situation. Let's look at two existing feats by way of example: Augment Summoning and Empower Spell. When Pathfinder was first released, people had difficulty interpreting them in every situation. Some people wondered, if you used Empower Spell on a Cure spell, would it multiply by 50% just the amount healed by the dice (the weaker reading), or would it multiply by 50% the amount healed by the dice and the amount resulting from caster level (the more powerful reading). Paizo ultimately answered this question in the Official FAQ, siding with the more powerful reading.

Similarly, with Augment Summoning, some people wondered whether you could use Augment Summoning to augment a creature you summoned from a scroll or a wand (the more powerful reading) or whether you could only augment a creature you summoned by casting the actual spell (the weaker reading). Paizo ultimately answered this question in the Official FAQ, siding with the weaker reading.

In both cases, the feat was phrased to leave some ambiguity as to its interpretation. The fact that people asked about the interpretation of these feats, and Paizo addressed these feats in their FAQ tends to support that assertion. (In fact, in both cases, Jason Bulmahn posted unofficial answers for these feats that were the opposite of what was ultimately posted in the Official FAQ.) But Paizo didn't uniformly pick the more powerful reading(nor did Jason). Rather, they looked at issues of balance and playability and picked the interpretation that seemed best to them.

Likewise, in the present situation, I don't think that using the second interpretation would be unduly limiting to people who want to multi-path. All it would do is put a limit on the power they could achieve in their second path. This interpretation would reflect a design decision that (for reasons of fairness and play balance) a character should face certain limitations in the second path they choose (i.e., being forced to expend a feat to gain the second path, being limited in the total number of abilities they can choose from both paths by the total number of abilities they would get in their first path, foregoing the tier ten ability in their secondary path, and being restricted from using those abilities in the other path that rely on tier level in that path). In essence, this would reserve some path abilities to those who chose that path as their primary path. This reading means that dual-pathing is not the same as dual-classing. It sets forth a position that your primary path really is the core of your mythicness, and that you can't properly be a character with two full paths, all you could do was shade your primary path with a secondary path. True, this position means that you can't multi-path the way you multi-class. But that may be what the designers intended - not as a way to hamper players who want to multi-path, but for considered play balance reasons (i.e., they thought true multi-pathing was unbalancing).

Let me say again, I make no claims to know what they designers were thinking when they wrote the Dual Path feat, only that I think the feat lends itself to some ambiguity. Based on what's written, I think that either the first reading or the second reading are supportable (though I tend to favor the second reading as being the more balanced interpretation).

I've addressed this question in a different thread. But this one has a much better title, which is directed to the main issue. Here are my thoughts.

As I see it, there are two possible interpretations of the operation of the Dual Path feat:

1.) You can select a second mythic path, other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension. You gain the 1st level ability of that path, and whenever you gain a path ability, you can select from the list of abilities presented for both paths, as well as from the list of universal path abilities. For the purposes of your secondary mythic path, you have an effective tier level equal to the tier level in your primary path. ["The first interpretation"]

2.) You can select a second mythic path, other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension. You gain the 1st level ability of that path, and whenever you gain a path ability, you can select from the list of abilities presented for both paths, as well as from the list of universal path abilities. For the purposes of your secondary mythic path, you have no effective tier level. This may limit the path abilities you can choose for the second path. ["The second interpretation"]

The first interpretation is obviously the more powerful of the two. It allows you to effectively operate as if you were a mythic character in that second path with respect to the 1st level ability and the abilities you choose. And that may be what Paizo intended by the feat. I don't pretend to have any insight into the original intent of the drafters of these rules. That makes it an excellent feat, and one that many people will want to take.

However, the second interpretation, while less powerful, still seems viable. It allows you to get some (really, most) of the abilities of the secondary path, though it reserves the most powerful abilities (those that rely on tier level) for characters who have chosen that path as their primary path. Characters with the Dual Path feat can still pick from a large number of path abilities, just not all of them. This makes Dual Path a nice feat to get in some circumstances, but hardly a "must have" feat. And while this certainly weakens the feat as compared to the first interpretation, I wouldn't characterize it as rendering the feat totally useless.

Consider a character contemplating the feat Dual Path: Guardian, a prime example, under the second interpretation. At the start, the dual pathing character must pick a Guardian's Call. Based on the second interpretation, Absorb Blow will not serve any purpose, since she doesn't have any tiers in Guardian. However, Beast Fury and Sudden Block are both completely viable.

Next, she has the option to pick Guardian path abilities when she gains access to a new ability. Devastating Smash, Mythic Companion, and Unmovable all have effects tied to your Guardian tier (though only Mythic Companion is totally useless without any Guardian tiers). However, Additional Call, Ally Defense, Call Arrows, Cage Enemy, Catch Hazard, Dimensional Grapple, Drive Back, Epic DR, Quick Recovery, Snatch Spell, and Sweeping Strike are all fully effective without any reference to Guardian tier.

Thus, under the second interpretation, the character that takes the feat Dual Path: Guardian can choose from 2 out of the 3 Guardian's Calls, and can choose from 11 out of the 14 Guardian path abilities. The loss of access to that one Guardian Call and those three Guardian path abilities may be frustrating. But I can't bring myself to say that it makes the Dual Path feat absolutely useless.

As an aside, I note that some path abilities have tier requirements before you can select them. However, in each case, they say "you must be at least [Nth] tier before selecting this ability." They never require levels in any particular tier. Thus, for example, a tier 4 Champion with Dual Path: Guardian could take Dimensional Grapple (which requires you to be 4th tier) since he is tier 4 - just in Champion, not Guardian.

In the end, I think it comes down to what Paizo was trying to accomplish with the feat. Were they trying to open up all the goodies from a chosen path (well, except for the bonus HP and 10th tier ability) to someone who takes the feat? Or were they trying to give people the option to add in some aspects of the chosen path, while reserving some of the aspects for those who chose that path as their primary path. Again, I could see it potentially going either way, though I tend to favor the second interpretation. So far no official answer, though.

I'll also add a final thought. One thing the designers seem to want to avoid is any sort of "must have" feat or ability. If a feat or ability is so good that everyone is going to want to have it in their build, then that fact raises a red flag for the balance of the feat or ability. In this case, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that Dual Path: Guardian, plus Absorb Blow is a "must have" combo, it is good enough to be extremely popular. That alone gives me pause in favoring the first interpretation over the second.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I don't think it's a matter of the designers trolling people. Rather, I think it's a matter of determining what exactly the designers are trying to achieve with a given ability, feat, etc. With the Dual Path feat, were they trying to make it a powerful feat that granted full tier access to another path, making it very much like multi-classing (what I'll call "the first interpretation"), or were they trying to grant some, but not all, of a path's abilities to a character not on that path, making it a little less than multi-classing (what I'll call "the second interpretation")? It's also a matter of where, precisely, they felt that the balance of the feat's worth came down. Did they feel the first interpretation is too powerful as compared to other feats? Did they feel the second interpretation is too weak as compared to other feats?

For my part, I tend to think that the designers are doing their best to keep the game balanced as they add new feats, abilities, etc. It's a heroic task, and one I don't envy them for. They have to make some very hard decisions, and no matter what they decide, some portion of the players are likely to think they were wrong. But they try hard and have done a pretty darn good job so far. And when it turns out that they made a bad call, they do their best to fix it. In fact, they're allowing us to participate in this playtest to raise issues like this so that they can consider them from a play balance standpoint before publication.

But this methodology and consideration is not unique to this situation. Let's look at two existing feats by way of example: Augment Summoning and Empower Spell. When Pathfinder was first released, people had difficulty interpreting them in every situation. Some people wondered, if you used Empower Spell on a Cure spell, would it multiply by 50% just the amount healed by the dice (the weaker interpretation), or would it multiply by 50% the amount healed by the dice and the amount resulting from caster level (the more powerful interpretation). Paizo ultimately answered this question in the Official FAQ, siding with the more powerful interpretation.

Similarly, with Augment Summoning, some people wondered whether you could use Augment Summoning to augment a creature you summoned from a scroll or a wand (the more powerful interpretation) or whether you could only augment a creature you summoned by casting the actual spell (the weaker interpretation). Paizo ultimately answered this question in the Official FAQ, siding with the weaker interpretation.

In both cases, the feat was phrased to leave some ambiguity as to its interpretation. The fact that people asked about the interpretation of these feats, and Paizo addressed these feats in their FAQ tends to support that assertion. (In fact, in both cases, Jason Bulmahn posted unofficial answers for these feats that were the opposite of what was ultimately posted in the Official FAQ.) But Paizo didn't uniformly pick the more powerful interpretation (nor did Jason). Rather, they looked at issues of balance and playability and picked the interpretation that seemed best to them. I don't think that they were trolling people who wanted to play summoning type characters, just because they put a limit on the feat Augment Summoning. (Nor do I think Jason was trolling casters just because he wanted to put a limit on the feat Empower Spell.)

Likewise, in the present situation, I don't think that using the second interpretation would be trolling people who want to multi-path. All it would do is put a limit on the power they could achieve in their second path. This interpretation would reflect a design decision that (for reasons of fairness and play balance) a character should face certain limitations in the second path they choose (i.e., being forced to expend a feat to gain the second path, being limited in the total number of abilities they can choose from both paths by the total number of abilities they would get in their first path, foregoing the tier ten ability in their secondary path, and being restricted from using those abilities in the other path that rely on tier level in that path). In essence, this would reserve some path abilities to those who chose that path as their primary path. This interpretation means that dual-pathing is not the same as dual-classing. It sets forth a position that your primary path really is the core of your mythicness, and that you can't properly be a character with two full paths, all you could do was shade your primary path with a secondary path. True, this position means that you can't multi-path the way you multi-class. But that may be what the designers intended - not as a way to troll players who want to multi-path, but for considered play balance reasons (i.e., they thought true multi-pathing was unbalancing).

Let me say again, I make no claims to know what they designers were thinking when they wrote the Dual Path feat, only that I think the feat lends itself to some ambiguity. Based on what's written, I think that either the first interpretation or the second interpretation are supportable. I'm not advocating one over the other. (In fact, I'd be happy if they came down on the side of the first interpretation.) All I'm saying is that there appear to be two distinct, yet perfectly valid, interpretations of how the Dual Path feat operates. In the legal world, when a law is unclear, it goes to the courts for interpretation. In this case, I'm posting to the playtest forum in the hopes that one of the designers (i.e., the court) will interpret this rule (i.e., the law) for me.

I agree. Just a sentence or two from on high could clear this up.

I believe the only logical and reasonable interpretation of dual path is that you count as your tier for the purposes of both tiers.

Then I suppose all we can do is agree to disagree. I recognize that it is a logical and reasonable interpretation of dual path that you count as your primary tier for the purposes of both tiers. But I also contend that it's an equally logical and reasonable interpretation of dual path that you count as your primary tier only for the purposes of your primary tier, and are tier 0 for your secondary tier. (For all the reasons I set forth above.) Meanwhile, I'll keep hoping for an official comment on my question.

I would also say that absorb blow is not a must have ability, or even an especially good ability at high levels. Indeed, it is an ability that is only really of benefit characters who are at risk from a single deadly blow (e.g. high AC at risk to a lucky crit).

That may be true. I haven't delved deeply enough into the nuts and bolts of a lot of mythic character builds to tell for certain. But one thing I have observed is that Dual Path seems to be a very popular feat (much as Dual Focus was before they changed the rules on how MP is determined). Is it too popular? Maybe not. But I was just tossing that out there as an observation.

Alithsar wrote:

My understanding is that a 4th Tier Dual Path PC has 4 tiers in both paths. On the other hand, he has a TOTAL of 4 path ABILITIES. Don't confuse tiers with tier abilities. Just because you have 4 archmage abilities, that does not mean that you have no guardian tiers. In fact, my archmage has 4 universal abilities including 3*Extra Mythic Power. That does not mean he has no levels of archmage.

This seems to be the only logical way to run this, and if it isn't RAI I don't know what is. Keep in mind this is a poorly polished playtest document, not a final release. There are going to be some rules ambiguities. Go with what seems reasonable, not what seems unreasonable (e.g. breaking the ability so it is absolutely useless).

I'm not entirely certain that I agree that it's the only logical way to interpret the Dual Path feat. It's certainly a way to interpret it. It's even a perfectly reasonable way to interpret it. But as you say, these are not meant to be final rules, and there are bound to be ambiguities in them. This, I feel, is one such ambiguity. In fact, that's why I raised my concern here in the Mythic playtest forums.

As I see it, there are two possible interpretations of the operation of this feat:

1.) You can select a second mythic path, other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension. You gain the 1st level ability of that path, and whenever you gain a path ability, you can select from the list of abilities presented for both paths, as well as from the list of universal path abilities. For the purposes of your secondary mythic path, you have an effective tier level equal to the tier level in your primary path.

2.) You can select a second mythic path, other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension. You gain the 1st level ability of that path, and whenever you gain a path ability, you can select from the list of abilities presented for both paths, as well as from the list of universal path abilities. For the purposes of your secondary mythic path, you have no effective tier level. This may limit the path abilities you can choose for the second path.

The first of these interpretations is obviously the more powerful of the two. It allows you to effectively operate as if you were a mythic character in that second path with respect to the 1st level ability and the abilities you choose. And that may be what Paizo intended by the feat. I don't pretend to have any insight into the original intent of the drafters of these rules. That makes it an excellent feat, and one that many people will want to take.

However, the second interpretation, while less powerful, still seems viable. It allows you to get some (really, most) of the abilities of the secondary path, though it reserves the most powerful abilities (those that rely on tier level) for characters who have chosen that path as their primary path. Characters with the Dual Path feat can still pick from a large number of path abilities, just not all of them. This makes Dual Path a nice feat to get in some circumstances, but hardly a "must have" feat. And while this certainly weakens the feat as compared to the first interpretation, I wouldn't characterize it as rendering the feat totally useless.

Consider a character contemplating the feat Dual Path: Guardian, our central example, under the second interpretation. At the start, he must pick a Guardian's Call. Based on this interpretation, Absorb Blow will not serve any purpose, since he doesn't have any tiers in Guardian. However, Beast Fury and Sudden Block are both completely viable.

Next, he has the option to pick Guardian path abilities when he gains access to a new ability. Devastating Smash, Mythic Companion, and Unmovable all have effects tied to your Guardian tier (though only Mythic Companion is totally useless without any Guardian tiers). However, Additional Call, Ally Defense, Call Arrows, Cage Enemy, Catch Hazard, Dimensional Grapple, Drive Back, Epic DR, Quick Recovery, Snatch Spell, and Sweeping Strike are all fully effective without any reference to Guardian tier.

Thus, under the second interpretation, the character that takes the feat Dual Path: Guardian can choose from 2 out of the 3 Guardian's Calls, and can choose from 11 out of the 14 Guardian path abilities. The loss of access to that one Guardian Call and those three Guardian path abilities may be frustrating. But I can't bring myself to say that it makes the Dual Path feat absolutely useless.

As an aside, I note that some path abilities have tier requirements before you can select them. However, in each case, they say "you must be at least [Nth] tier before selecting this ability." They never require levels in any particular tier. Thus, for example, a tier 4 Champion with Dual Path: Guardian could take Dimensional Grapple (which requires you to be 4th tier) since he is tier 4 - just in Champion, not Guardian.

In the end, I think it comes down to what Paizo was trying to accomplish with the feat. Were they trying to open up all the goodies from a chosen path (well, except for the bonus HP and 10th tier ability) to someone who takes the feat? Or were they trying to give people the option to add in some aspects of the chosen path, while reserving some of the aspects for those who chose that path as their primary path. Again, I could see it going either way. I had hoped that this question might get the attention of someone from Paizo so that we could get an official answer.

As it stands, I believe that there is an ambiguity in the rules as they are currently written, and I don't put forth either of the possible interpretations as being correct. All I'm arguing is that they are both valid interpretations that don't appear to violate the spirit of what the Mythic rules are trying to accomplish. Heck, I'd be happy if the first interpretation were the correct interpretation. In that case I'd go right out and take the Feat Dual Path: Guardian for my Mythic Archmage.

Of course, that brings me to my final thought. One thing the designers seem to want to avoid is any sort of "must have" feat or ability. If a feat or ability is so good that everyone is going to want to have it in their build, then that fact raises a red flag for the balance of the feat or ability. In this case, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that Dual Path: Guardian, plus Absorb Blow is a "must have" combo, it is good enough to be extremely popular. That alone gives me pause in favoring the first interpretation over the second.

Markus Freeman

Male Human Wizard(earth) 10 / Mythic 5
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
DEFENSE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
AC 24, Touch 16, Flat Footed 22 (+2 dex, +6 ac, +2 nat, +2 def, +1 ins, +1 lck)
Hp 95
Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +11
Special DR 10/epic; Resistance 5(all); 25% Fortification

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
ABILITIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Traits reactionary, ease of faith
Feats craft wondrous item, eschew materials, opposition research, persistent spell, piercing spell, scribe scroll, spell focus; conjuration, greater spell focus; conjuration, toughness
Mythic Feats dual path(guardian), mythic paragon, mythic spells
Skills acrobatics 10(+11), appraise 5(+17), climb 5(+5), diplomacy 10(+14), fly 5(+9), knowledge; arcana 10(+22), knowledge dungeoneering 10(+22), knowledge; history 10(+22), knowledge; planes 10(+22), knowledge; religion 10(+22), perception 10(+11), spellcraft 10(+22), swim 5(+5)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
SPECIAL QUALITIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Wizard cantrips, familiar(greensting), earth supremacy, acid cloud(12), earth glide
Mythic mythic power(14), hard to kill, amazing initiative, recuperation, mythic saves
Archmage/Guardian mythic spells, wild arcana, absorb blow, competent caster, deep understanding, metamastery(2), epic DR,
Favored Class wizard (+10 hp)

(Emphasis Mine)

I'm working up a mythic archmage for a playtest our group is getting ready to start, so I was particularly keen to see your wizard build. We're introducing things slowly to a game that's already at 10th level, so, at least to start, I'm dealing with a wizard 10 / mythic 1. I'm still getting up to speed on the mythic rules, and I wanted to check my understanding of a few issues.

One thing I was definitely looking at was taking the feat Dual Path: Guardian, just as you did with Markus. As you have clearly determined, both Absorb Blow and Epic DR are excellent path abilities. But in reading the descriptions of the Dual Path feat and the Absorb Blow path ability, I have some concerns. In particular, I'm not entirely certain that Absorb Blow applies as it seems to be generally accepted on these forums. But I've set those arguments forth in separate posts, so I won't repeat them here. For the sake of the following discussion, I'll assume that Absorb Blow applies fully to this build.

What I'm particularly interested in with respect to your build for Markus is how you got him up to DR 10/epic, and how he has Resistance 5(all). I can see how you get DR 5/epic from the Epic DR ability. But where does the extra DR 5/epic come from, and where do you get the Resistance 5(all)? My suspicion is that you're getting it from Absorb Blow based on the sentence that says "for every 10 points of damage prevented by this ability, you gain DR 1/epic and 5 points of energy resistance against all energy types (acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic)." Since Markus is tier 5, you conclude that Absorb Blow will block 50 points of damage, and thus gives DR 5/epic (i.e., DR 1/epic x 5). I'm still not sure how you get Resistance 5(all), since Resistance 5(all) x 5 = Resistance 25(all). But the Absorb Blow ability is the only way I can see Markus getting Resistance to all energy damage from any source.

As an aside, I'm not even entirely certain that this analysis is correct. Given the Mythic Paragon feat, Markus has an effective Archmage tier of 7. If these 7 tiers all applied to AB, it would give Markus DR 7/epic (total DR 12/epic) and Resistance 35(all). So I'm definitely a bit perplexed.

Regardless, I'm concerned that this isn't a proper application of the Absorb Blow ability.

In its entirety, the Absorb Blow ability reads as follows:

Absorb Blow (Su): You can expend one use of mythic power as an immediate action whenever you take damage from a single source, such as a dragon’s breath, a spell, or a weapon. You take 10 fewer points of damage from this source per guardian tier you possess. In addition, for every 10 points of damage prevented by this ability, you gain DR 1/epic and 5 points of energy resistance against all energy types (acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic) for 1 minute. This DR and resistances stack with DR or resistances you possess from sources other than this ability.

(Emphasis mine.)

Based on this, there appear to be two possible interpretations of the sentence I've highlighted:

(1) For every 10 points of potential damage prevention that this ability grants, you gain a permanent DR 1/epic and Resistance 5(all);

OR

(2) For every 10 points of damage that this ability actually prevents, you gain a temporary DR 1/epic and Resistance 1(all).

As best I can understand your build for Markus, you subscribe to the first interpretation. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm having to make a great many assumptions based on the character write up, and I could be way off-base.) However, I don't think that interpretation of Absorb Blow is supportable by the language of the ability. The main reason I think this is so is because of the language "for 1 minute" included in the line describing the grant of DR 1/epic and Resistance 5(all).

As shown above, Absorb Blow states that "for every 10 points of damage prevented by this ability, you gain DR 1/epic and 5 points of energy resistance against all energy types (acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic) for 1 minute." (Emphasis mine.) This final limitation seems to eliminate any possibility that the grant of DR and ER is permanent. Clearly, the DR and ER lasts for 1 minute starting at some trigger point. In this case, it seems to me, that the trigger point is the Absorb Blow ability actually stopping damage.

Thus, as I read the ability, the extra DR 5/epic would only be granted in a situation where Markus spent 1 MP to activate Absorb Blow, and the ability actually stopped 50 points of damage - and even then, it would only apply for 1 minute. So, if an orc attacked Markus, he spent 1 MP to activate AB, and the orc only did 9 damage (all stopped by AB), Markus would get no additional DR /epic or Resistance. If a wyvern attacked Markus, he spent 1 MP to activate AB, and the wyvern did 23 damage (all stopped by AB), Markus would get an additional DR 2/epic and Resistance 10(all) for 1 minute. Finally, if a dragon attacked Markus, he spent 1 MP to activate AB, and the dragon did 78 damage (50 points of which was stopped by AB), Markus would get the full DR 5/epic and Resistance 25(all) for 1 minute. But for most of the time Markus is walking around, he would have no Resistance, and only the DR 5/epic granted from the Epic DR ability.

Now, I'm still ramping myself up on these rules, so I'm not entirely familiar with them. Has anyone else looked into these abilities? Does my analysis hold water, or have I made an error or an oversight somewhere? As I said, I'm working on a wizard 10 / mythic 1 build and am seriously considering taking Dual Path: Guardian. Now, I don't want to short-change myself. But, on the other hand, I want to make sure I follow the rules as best I can.

Any comments or observations would be much appreciated.

Then again, it may not be completely absurd for an arcane summoner to take the Hierophant mythic path. It is all a matter of what his priorities are.

• The mythic spells a Hierophant receives on even levels must be divine spells. Thus an arcane caster gains no benefit from this ability.

• Two out of the three Divine Surge abilities (Inspired Spell and Recalled Blessing) require the Hierophant to be able to cast divine spells. The third requires that the arcan caster have a familiar. If he's taken a bonded object, he gains no effective Divine Surge.

• Of the 16 available path abilities, 2 relate to domains (which an arcane caster doesn't get), 2 require the Hierophant to be able to cast divine spells (which an arcane summoner cannot), 1 requires the Hierophant to be able to cast cure/inflict spells (which an arcane summoner cannot), and 2 require the arcane summoner to have a familiar (which he may or may not have). This can potentially reduce almost by half the useful Hierophant path abilities available to the arcane summoner.
  

Just throwing in a few things I've noticed making mythic characters.

First of all, especially for melee characters, they feel vary much like a glass cannon. I, and everyone so far that has tested champion, has duel pathed to guardian to get absorb blow and the DR. In fact, in a recent playtest with an Inquisitor 16/Champion 8 vs an orc army (200 level 9 ish orcs) we found that yes, while they could only hit me on a 20, the one that managed to get a lucky crit still hit for 1/3 of my health even after Epic DR.

I'm not sure that's a viable build choice, however. Absorb Blow gives you benefits based on the number of Guardian tiers you possess. But a Champion possesses no Guardian tiers. He only possesses Champion tiers. As a result, he should gain no benefit from the Absorb Blows ability. (At least as I read the ability.)

Dual Path allows you to take path abilities from a different path. But it does not appear to give you any effective tiers in that path. I think it may be overreaching to interpret Dual Path as allowing you to use the tier level of your chosen path as the effective tier level for your Dual Path.

But that's just my read on things. I'd be interested in hearing other peoples' view on this interpretation.

The feat could be phrased a little better, it's true. But I think that it does clearly set forth how it works. The feat reads as follows:

Toughness (Mythic)

You have legendary resilience and durability.
Prerequisite: Toughness, 1st mythic tier.
Benefit: Toughness provides you twice as many hit points. In addition, when you are below 0 hit points you gain DR 10/epic. This DR stacks with any other DR/epic you might possess.

The confusion arises, I think, in the fact that the base feat and the mythic feat have similar names. The base feat is called Toughness, while the mythic feat is called Toughness (Mythic).

The feat description for Toughness (Mythic) states that "Toughness provides you twice as many hit points." In other words, while Toughness (the base feat) would normally provide +1 HP/level (effectively), now it would provide twice that, i.e., +2 HP/level.

I am playing a 4th tier wizard, and chose Dual Path: Guardian as his first tier feat. His Guardian's Call is Absorb Blow.

I chose Dual Focus, too. but that is now OBE. If you chose Dual Focus and need to retrain, a wizard can't go wrong with Absorb Blow.

I was looking at the possibility of taking Dual Path: Guardian for my archmage, but I'm troubled by the language in Dual Path and Absorb Blow. The feat Dual Path reads (in part):

Benefit: Select a mythic path, other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension (see page 3). You gain the 1st level ability of that path (archmage arcana, champion strike, divine surge, guardian’s call, marshal’s order, or trickster attack). Whenever you gain a path ability, you can select from list of abilities presented for both paths, as well as from the list of universal path abilities.

While the Guardian path ability Absorb Blow reads:

Absorb Blow (Su): You can expend one use of mythic power as an immediate action whenever you take damage from a single source, such as a dragon’s breath, a spell, or a weapon. You take 10 fewer points of damage from this source per guardian tier you possess. In addition, for every 10 points of damage prevented by this ability, you gain DR 1/epic and 5 points of energy resistance against all energy types (acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic) for 1 minute. This DR and resistances stack with DR or resistances you possess from sources other than this ability.

(Emphasis mine)

My problem with this is that I don't have any Guardian tiers. All I have is Archmage tiers. As a result, a reading of Absorb Blow seems to say that when I use it, I take 0 fewer points of damage from a particular source (i.e., 10*0 = 0). Nothing in the description of Dual Path says that I can use my Archmage tier in place of my Dual Path tier (i.e., Guardian in this case), and I think it may be a stretch to read that feature into the feat.

Now, this still makes Dual Path useful, as there are plenty of excellent path abilities that are not dependent on tiers in that path. (See, e.g., Epic DR.) But, as I read the rules, Dual Path does not allow anyone but a Guardian to effectively use the Absorb Blow ability.

Does anyone else have a thought on this issue?

It's a great feat, but only if you want to pick path abilities from multiple paths. Some people will be perfectly happy filling up on the abilities from their chosen path.

I will admit, however, that there are some very nice off-path selections you can make no matter what path you choose.

So I have a curious question about the Pathfinder Savant prestige class. One ability it offers is Esoteric Magic:

Esoteric Magic (Ex): At each class level beyond 1st, the Pathfinder savant chooses a spell from any class’s spell list and thereafter treats it as if it were on the spell list of his base spellcasting classes; if his base class could not normally cast that spell, it is treated as 1 level higher. The spell’s type (arcane or divine) and save DCs function as normal for his base spellcasting class. All other restrictions of his normal spellcasting class apply. This ability does not allow other spellcasters to prepare, cast, or use spell trigger or spell completion items of esoteric spells (such as a sorcerer using a cure light wounds scroll).

On its face, this is clear: you get to add a spell to you class's spell list. If you're a sorcerer , for example, you might want to add Heal to your sorcerer class spell list. So far, so good.

What confuses me is the language about "if his base class could not normally cast that spell, it is treated as 1 level higher." Again, this is obvious on its face. In the example above, the spell Heal is not on the sorcerer class spell list, and so while it's a 6th level cleric spell, it would enter the sorcerer's class spell list as a 7th level spell. (Setting aside the cheesy attempt to use the Adept skill list to get it on at a lower level.)

What confuses me in particular is the "if" in that sentence. "If his base class could not normally cast that spell." That "if" implies that the condition following might or might not be true. In other words, the spell being added to the class spell list might actually be one his base class could normally cast. But if the spell were already one that the Pathfinder Savant's based class could cast, it would already be on his class spell list and wouldn't need to be added.

So what does the "if" mean? Am I missing a situation in which the the base class could cast the spell but it wouldn't be on the class spell list? Is it just a poorly worded description, and should read simply: "it is treated as 1 level higher"? Is there a situation in which a spell could be added without it being treated as 1 level higher?

In law school we're trained to interpret rules such that no portion is interpreted as being meaningless. Presumably the authors intended something by that phrase. But I'm having genuine trouble with the "if his base class could not normally cast that spell" portion of the Esoteric Magic description.

Can anyone offer any insight into this?