A few people have mentioned that Mythic Flaws don't seem to mesh well with the whole "greater than normal" scope of Mythic play, and I got to thinking about it (in my copious free time).
Some people think they're overboard, some people think they're unbalanced, and it occurred to me that a trick may have been missed in the design of them (or more specifically their implementation).
An idea that popped into my head was to make Mythic Flaws optional, but have them carry a tangible benefit, too.
The two ideas I had were for each flaw to have an associated Mythic feat (or one of a selection of feats) that you can gain for taking a particular flaw, or to gain a number of uses of Mythic power (the number being dependent on the flaw).
Obviously, I am not a designer, and I don't want to suggest that there is anything wrong with Mythic Flaws as they are presented, but I thought I'd throw this idea out there for discussion.
I agree with making them optional. It's really something that should be worked player to GM. Maybe in certain cases, the GM could decide a weakness based on the method of ascension.
+1
I agree as well. I feel like I should say something more meaningful but really there's nothing I could say that hasn't already been said somewhat better.
I actually find the Mythic Flaws to be a very thematic addition to the game and fits well with the concept behind what I think Paizo is envisioning "Mythic" to be. The benefit one gains for choosing a flaw is the Mythic powers themselves.
In a bit more depth: The concept of the "epic" or "mythic" character, dating as far back as Greek mythology, and likely before as stories get stolen and recycled throughout society, is that the hero's downfall is also related to the thing that makes them great. That is to say by having a flaw and overcoming it they are a "mythic" character up until the point when destiny catches up to them, thus the flaw. Examples of this are seen through literature.
Achilles' heel, one of the more famous ones, comes from the source of his invulnerability; as a child he was dipped in the River Styx and he had to be held by his heel so he could be dipped in, thus his heel is his weakness.
Samson's great strength came from his hair, when it was cut off he was powerless until it regrew.
The one I've seen quoted a few times on these forums is Baldur from Norse mythology who was invulnerable to everything except his greatest weakness, mistletoe. His death to an arrow (in some versions a sword) made of mistletoe was the "Material Weakness" flaw exactly.
Other ones I can think of off the top of my head come from more modern sources: Hulk has Furious Rage; Kratos has Hubris; Popeye has Food Dependency(Spinach) <- honestly think about that one.
So in summation, I thing the Flaws are fantastic and should add a new dimension to your character, because otherwise it's like saying "I don't want to play Superman if I have to have a weakness to kryptonite." (Quote stolen from a friend who was talking about Mythic Flaws)
I actually find the Mythic Flaws to be a very thematic addition to the game and fits well with the concept behind what I think Paizo is envisioning "Mythic" to be. The benefit one gains for choosing a flaw is the Mythic powers themselves.
In a bit more depth: The concept of the "epic" or "mythic" character, dating as far back as Greek mythology, and likely before as stories get stolen and recycled throughout society, is that the hero's downfall is also related to the thing that makes them great. That is to say by having a flaw and overcoming it they are a "mythic" character up until the point when destiny catches up to them, thus the flaw. Examples of this are seen through literature.
Achilles' heel, one of the more famous ones, comes from the source of his invulnerability; as a child he was dipped in the River Styx and he had to be held by his heel so he could be dipped in, thus his heel is his weakness.
Samson's great strength came from his hair, when it was cut off he was powerless until it regrew.
The one I've seen quoted a few times on these forums is Baldur from Norse mythology who was invulnerable to everything except his greatest weakness, mistletoe. His death to an arrow (in some versions a sword) made of mistletoe was the "Material Weakness" flaw exactly.
Other ones I can think of off the top of my head come from more modern sources: Hulk has Furious Rage; Kratos has Hubris; Popeye has Food Dependency(Spinach) <- honestly think about that one.
So in summation, I thing the Flaws are fantastic and should add a new dimension to your character, because otherwise it's like saying "I don't want to play Superman if I have to have a weakness to kryptonite." (Quote stolen from a friend who was talking about Mythic Flaws)
I see the thematics of it quite well, I in fact also noticed the Popeye one and the obvious mythological references are there but some heroes didn't have a single flaw that was related to them. From all my readings I can't think of what King Arthur or Heracles' would be. Sure you could bull crap that Heracles had Furious Rage but this was caused by someone else and not anything innate to him and wasn't all the time only those few times Hera decided to be meaner to him than normal.
Some notables mythic heroes had flaws but not all of them did so that's why I think it should be an optional choice.
Many of the mythologic stories had purpose to explain natural events, and to also serve as reminders of human flaws to begin with. Hubris is a common one in the stories. I can also think of more stories with heroic flaws than without. Heracles was very quick to anger and flew into rages, but he also fell in love quite easily.
I'm in agreement that the flaws are pretty fun thematically. I also think they encourage a bit of metagaming to an extent. It shouldn't necessarily be optional, but I would like to see it have a graduating risk/reward type thing. The bigger the flaw, the better the powers.
I feel it should go the other way. You can choose not to have a mythic flaw, but then you lose some of the general mythic abilities. Immortality is obviously gone no matter what if you don't have a flaw, but then you also have to choose between either mythic power being reduced to 1d4-1d10 or lose the initiative boost from improved initiative (though keep whatever extra turn option there is)
Being able to not have a mythic flaw is actually a fairly big deal. I don't think just giving flawed characters a single extra mythic point will compensate for it.
...plus really, who is to say those characters all didn't have flaws that simply never came up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flaws stops the Mythic Characters from getting too cocky.
Otherwise they become unstoppable and it becomes an arms race who's more mythic than who.
An idea that popped into my head was to make Mythic Flaws optional, but have them carry a tangible benefit, too.
The two ideas I had were for each flaw to have an associated Mythic feat (or one of a selection of feats) that you can gain for taking a particular flaw, or to gain a number of uses of Mythic power (the number being dependent on the flaw).
I totally agree. It doesn't make any sense story-wise to make the Mythic flaw mandatory. I can understand the concept for a character "born mythic" such as Achilles, however if an existing character acquires a mythic tier at some point in his career, why would he automatically gain a flaw ?
In my opinion, it's up to the GM. Maybe the character came into contact with a powerful artifact that "tainted" him and the flaw is justified by the story. Maybe the character defeated a mythic opponent or creature, and I don't see why he should necessarily gain a flaw then.
In a nutshell, the mythic ruleset must support mythic stories, not the other way around. It's always the story which prevails.
I overall like and understand the Mythic Flaws, although I'd like to see a lot more options. Also, thematically Hubris would fit one my character concepts very well as a Cross-Blood Elemental Fire / Imperious Sorceress from Hermea who failed her test (-2 will save from CB) she has become very prideful to prove to herself that she's not a failure.
Then my other character I'm looking at for playtesting purposes is a werewolf gunslinger (heh), so while "material weakness" might be cool, it might also be overkill. Furious Rage might be fun... modify it slightly that when you piss her off she drops her pistols and goes raaawr! :P