Mythic Flaw First Impressions


Player Feedback

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

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

I agree. Having campaigns where half the party is gimped isn't fun.

For instance, if I created a campaign where half the fights were against swarms(where the fighter is weak) and the other half is against magic immune constructs(where the wizard is weak), sure everyone might get to contribute equally, but it wouldn't be fun.


Beckett wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Something like that?

I don't know, I feel that a flaw getting worse as you get more powerful seems counter-intuitive to the idea of being mythic. I suppose I rather like where flaws at right now, although they could use some tweaking. Mostly dependence, which has always been a difficult concept to portray in RPGs.

Contributor

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

I'm sorry, you are a mythic character. Which means you're a legal target for Legend Lore in my books.

As soon as the bad guys realize you're mythic (NOT going to take long, because you far surpass anyone else of similar experience) and they use this spell to learn more about you, there is going to be seige engines up the wazoo, all of them aimed at you.

AKA, if one of my players ever tried to be sneaky like that, they'd be in for a rude awakening.


After my first playtest, I have to say that my players really didn't come into their mythic flaws, at all. Perhaps they'll come into play a lot more in long term and custom adventures, but even not knowing what the upcoming adventure was, not a single one of them came into play.


Alexander Augunas 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

I'm sorry, you are a mythic character. Which means you're a legal target for Legend Lore in my books.

As soon as the bad guys realize you're mythic (NOT going to take long, because you far surpass anyone else of similar experience) and they use this spell to learn more about you, there is going to be seige engines up the wazoo, all of them aimed at you.

AKA, if one of my players ever tried to be sneaky like that, they'd be in for a rude awakening.

Agreed. Honestly, designing rules to always assume the worst player abuse or pathetic GM impotence is destined to fail. There's a point where the designer has to give the GM some kind of credit to say no to things like "Weakness: Baby Rattles". Sure, you want the rules to be clear and as close to unabusable as possible. But, there is a certain point where it starts coming close to assuming that every GM is either too moronic or too etiolated to properly adjudicate things like that.

Scarab Sages Contributor

I'd say mythic flaws are becoming a terrible idea to me. For twink players, they are simply a challenge to overcome. For character roleplayers, you don't need mechanical enforcement of flawed character roleplay.

I don't see a point. Mythic players aren't all-powerful, if they were these flaws wouldn't really hurt. No one wants to play a game where their mythic mechanics are balanced by the same type of weapon group or energy damage every few encounters. The point of the book is to allow epic storytelling and powerful play. Punishing a playing group just for getting on that train makes it less worth the ride.

I wouldn't add a penalty in exchange for more tier choices or anything, either. Let's not create a system to get min-maxed. Let's create a system that please power gamers and roleplayers (and if you're like me, both) intrinsically without the need for balancing advantages and disadvantages.


my players are just now becoming mythic at the end of this battle, big exploding magical item coming. And I rolled randomly for them, so there was not munchkining and to really give the playtest a real test.

One is vulnerable to acid
One is dependent on Bread (I was sad about that roll coming to bread)
The other is Insane, which works because he was an insane goblin to begin with.


One thing I wanted to mention:

Mythic character with the hubris flaw, sleeping alone on top of a mountain, gets hit by Mythic nightmare from his archnemesis. He passes his save with his +4 and is now staggered for 24 hours as he brags about his abilities to no one.

Hubris is the most painful flaw of all flaws.

Level six mythic character? Six hit dice, 12 wisdom. DC 17 to intimidate you-- a group of six level 1 thugs roll up with Intimidating Prowess and like something else. One of them rolls intimidate every round with their +9, staggering you every round as you lamely shout about how you are the best while the other five full-attack you.


I don't have time to read the whole thread, but here's my two cents:

1) Mythic Flaws shouldn't be a "you have it and shut up", because not every legendary character of fiction has one (rather, very few of them do). They would work better as a "take this and you gain X additional uses o Mythic Power per day, or a +X to some ability score, or whatever else".
2) Regardless of the above, every character who's going to optimize shall take one of the less crippling flaws. For example, vulnerability to thrown weapons or wooden weapons, which are relatively unused and usually do low damage. You can afford to take more damage from weak weapons you'll rarely deal with.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TarkXT wrote:

Some thoughts on the flaws:

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

Well, it is what killed the original Rakshasa. :-P

Sure, choosing crossbows, close weapons or throw weapons would weaken the flaw but not in a critical way. The bonus to the attack and damage rolls are constant and not linked to the kind of weapon used. Only the critical multipler is really affected by the kind of weapon used.

Maybe our mythic hero would not fear another mythic character using a bow, but he would fear a score of militia crossbowmen.


I am opposed to Mythic weakness especially since the Mythic monsters do not have any Mythic weakness. Also, in comparing normal characters and the same characters with 1st tier Mythic it boiled down to "you are Mythic and are now easier to kill" for most of the weaknesses.

Also the Mythic weaknesses are not equal. The worst are school aversion, elemental weakness, material weakness & weapon weakness. Furious rage has the least effect for barbarian and fighter type characters. Dependency is more for a campaign not a playtest such as being captured and losing your Mythic powers in 3 days.

If Mythic weakness is to exist it should be OPTIONAL, in that for every Mythic weakness you choose you gain an additional Mythic ability or Mythic feat.


It seem that in general the problem with Mystic weakness isn't the flaw itself but perhaps it perhaps where it falls on the tier progression. A Suggestion is move Mystic weakness to tier 4 or 5 at the earliest.
Having both a feat that would allow a player to choose a flaws for bonus mystic use or having one that remove or ignore the effect of the flaw at least temporarily world work as well.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Odraude wrote:


Agreed. Honestly, designing rules to always assume the worst player abuse or pathetic GM impotence is destined to fail. There's a point where the designer has to give the GM some kind of credit to say no to things like "Weakness: Baby Rattles". Sure, you want the rules to be clear and as close to unabusable as possible. But, there is a certain point where it starts coming close to assuming that every GM is either too moronic or too etiolated to properly adjudicate things like that.

I think it is more prospective GM not wanting to have to fight with the kind of player that try to get every advantage. You can say "No!" to someone, the bothersome part is having to say "No!" ten times to ten different proposals, with the player whining because the master is stopping his clever ideas.

While that kind of problem will not arise when playing in my home campaign, when playing at the club, where the group is more open, it is possible to get that kind of player.

Killing the problem in the bud will be better that having to explain again and again that the clever idea to get a meaningless flaw is unacceptable.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Odraude wrote:


Agreed. Honestly, designing rules to always assume the worst player abuse or pathetic GM impotence is destined to fail. There's a point where the designer has to give the GM some kind of credit to say no to things like "Weakness: Baby Rattles". Sure, you want the rules to be clear and as close to unabusable as possible. But, there is a certain point where it starts coming close to assuming that every GM is either too moronic or too etiolated to properly adjudicate things like that.

I think it is more prospective GM not wanting to have to fight with the kind of player that try to get every advantage. You can say "No!" to someone, the bothersome part is having to say "No!" ten times to ten different proposals, with the player whining because the master is stopping his clever ideas.

While that kind of problem will not arise when playing in my home campaign, when playing at the club, where the group is more open, it is possible to get that kind of player.

Killing the problem in the bud will be better that having to explain again and again that the clever idea to get a meaningless flaw is unacceptable.

That's less of a reason to remove the flaw and more of a reason to educate the GM how to handle such situations (and the player on how not to do that). You cannot fix social issues like that with rules. You can lessen it somewhat, but the problem will not go away. All you can do is educate on how to deal with it and that is in the DMG realm.

There are just some things a GM and player have to learn for themselves. In that case, the player needs to learn to stop trying to be childish with the flaws, and the GM needs to learn to sit down and discuss with the player why their 'clever' suggestion isn't actually a flaw. Or clever.

Contributor

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I'd say mythic flaws are becoming a terrible idea to me. For twink players, they are simply a challenge to overcome. For character roleplayers, you don't need mechanical enforcement of flawed character roleplay.

I don't see a point. Mythic players aren't all-powerful, if they were these flaws wouldn't really hurt. No one wants to play a game where their mythic mechanics are balanced by the same type of weapon group or energy damage every few encounters. The point of the book is to allow epic storytelling and powerful play. Punishing a playing group just for getting on that train makes it less worth the ride.

I wouldn't add a penalty in exchange for more tier choices or anything, either. Let's not create a system to get min-maxed. Let's create a system that please power gamers and roleplayers (and if you're like me, both) intrinsically without the need for balancing advantages and disadvantages.

Tragic Flaws are part of mythic characters in terms of storyline; its a huge part of Greek and Roman Hero Legends, which is undoubtedly where it comes from.

I do agree that it would be better as an optional rule system, kind of like the Monk Vows from Ultimate Magic. You get a small benefit if you decide to take a flaw; if you don't, its not the end of the world.

I don't think these were ever intended to "balance" mythic characters, however. Mythic encounters and higher CRs balance Mythic characters.


Material Weakness: wood - how often are wood objects used against casters in the back of the party?


Mapleswitch wrote:
Material Weakness: wood - how often are wood objects used against casters in the back of the party?

Arrows I guess... But really, I think some of the flaws need some tweaking or some language clean up. But honestly, many of these flaws seem like they are supposed to not come up often or require some research to figure out.

EDIT: Y'know, the more I look at the flaws, the more I think that they aren't meant to balance out the power of Mythic characters. I will have to playtest more but I think you could just play Mythic without the flaws. Course, gotta find the time for more playtesting.

Scarab Sages Contributor

Totally on board with legendary characters having flaws or appetites that can cost them. I just prefer to let my players work those out themselves, or to create a perception of those flaws among NPCs. A system that requires those flaws just strikes me as bad design. If a ton of GMs will find themselves handwaving it, it doesn't belong. Unless, as some of you have said, it's actually an incentive for something else. In that case, though, a lot of these flaws have to be reworked to be harder on the PC. While I read the rage fury thing as costing the barbarian the advantages of raging, paladins shrugging off fear or barbarians raging through their flaw is certainly not acceptable if there's a trade-off.


MiniGM wrote:

my players are just now becoming mythic at the end of this battle, big exploding magical item coming. And I rolled randomly for them, so there was not munchkining and to really give the playtest a real test.

One is vulnerable to acid
One is dependent on Bread (I was sad about that roll coming to bread)
The other is Insane, which works because he was an insane goblin to begin with.

even if they are allowed to choose their own flaws as desired. it is hardly an issue. in fact, taking a power gamed flaw such as Dependency on a really easy to aqcuire and really reasonable food item (such as bread), is saying, "i really don't want to death with mythic flaws at the moment, so i will pick an easy weakness to deal with." and coming up with a grain shortages to justify that lack of a quintessential food item is going to be a difficult thing to excuse. in fact, most of the mythic flaws, make the mythic trade a bad deal until higher levels.

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / Player Feedback / Mythic Flaw First Impressions All Messageboards
Recent threads in Player Feedback