Speculating on the 9 Mythic Destinies

[Jan Caltrop]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's possible that "Apocalypse Rider" is not associated with Szuriel or whichever horsepeople at all, and more tied to "what the legend people would tell about you is." Like someone who is a "walking apocalypse" who carries death and destruction wherever they go could be poetically described as an "apocalypse rider".

Similarly an eternal legend could be someone who is able to endure literally anything you throw at them, since you cannot end their legend as they are eternal.

You just shouldn't need to be tied to or draw power from the outer planes in order to be Mythic. Like Baba Yaga is one of the most noteworthy mythic individuals in Pathfinder and she has no ties to any outer plane (by choice.)

Like Vash the Stampede, the Humanoid Typhoon? (Trigun)

[Calliope5431]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's possible that "Apocalypse Rider" is not associated with Szuriel or whichever horsepeople at all, and more tied to "what the legend people would tell about you is." Like someone who is a "walking apocalypse" who carries death and destruction wherever they go could be poetically described as an "apocalypse rider".

Similarly an eternal legend could be someone who is able to endure literally anything you throw at them, since you cannot end their legend as they are eternal.

You just shouldn't need to be tied to or draw power from the outer planes in order to be Mythic. Like Baba Yaga is one of the most noteworthy mythic individuals in Pathfinder and she has no ties to any outer plane (by choice.)

I admit I'd be somewhat bummed about that - since I do like less generic abilities and features that are more tied into the setting. But I agree it's always possible.

[ornathopter]

Personally, I'd rather have mythic destinies that could be used without referring to much to the setting. I like Golarion a lot - more than a lot of default RPG settings - but I do still like to play in a completely homebrew setting, or use the engine for another fictional setting. And I'd like to be able to use mythic rules in games like that without having to file too many serial numbers off. It's one thing for archetypes to be closely tied in with different aspects, since there's tons and tons of them, but when we're only getting a few of a certain thing, I'd like them to be easy to transplant. That's just me, though.

[Gobhaggo]

For me it's the opposite, having Mythic destinies ties to specific characters or even planes sounds lame as f&%~. If it's a choice a character/player can make sure, no problem, or even as an inspiration.

[Perpdepog]

I'm a fan of a middle ground, with some options tied to places--big ones, like whole planes or real movers and shakers in said planes--and some being more generic, "best warrior," "most mage," "element person"--which I guess could also be tied to a place--and so on. I'd rather the starting point for flavor be broad enough that it's easily moldable and adaptable, because it's a lot easier for me to narrow down than broaden out. I'd have trouble if the mythic destiny was tied to one specific person, or a very specific organization if I wanted to make a character who wasn't affiliated with them.
I'd have an easier time using a generic Master of Magic-type mythic destiny to build a character who trained under, and one day is going to replace, Baba Yaga as the most powerful witch than make a more generic, "I will become the most powerful caster ever for X reason" character employing a mythic destiny specifically themed around Baba Yaga, for example.

[exequiel759]

I agree that I'm not the biggest fan of the new mythic destinies either, I liked way more when mythic paths were "the thing you are right now, but mythic". It made those characters feel like they themselves were some larger than life heroes that with their mere pressence could shake the battlefield. The new implementation seems more like "your character is taking traits from X" which is not bad by itself, but removes that individuality that made your character unique because YOU were the source of your powers, right now it seems you take them from somewhere else.

[Ryuujin-sama]

Would definitely like Swarm, though perhaps with more options for what kind of Swarm you are than what Owlcat's version had. Things like Aeon, Dragon, Elemental, maybe Golem, would be nice. Trickster would probably be good. It would make sense for some kind of Demon/Devil option and some kind of Angel/Azata style option.

Not sure if Eternal Legend is going to go more towards the Legend path of Owlcat's Wrath of the Righteous or not but the name reminds me of one of the Epic Destinies from 4e. I think it was actually called Eternal Legend and made the character 25% taller and 50% heavier, or something like that, gave them reach and some other stuff.

[ornathopter]

exequiel759 wrote:

I agree that I'm not the biggest fan of the new mythic destinies either, I liked way more when mythic paths were "the thing you are right now, but mythic". It made those characters feel like they themselves were some larger than life heroes that with their mere pressence could shake the battlefield. The new implementation seems more like "your character is taking traits from X" which is not bad by itself, but removes that individuality that made your character unique because YOU were the source of your powers, right now it seems you take them from somewhere else.

To be fair, this is all speculation at the moment. We have no idea what implementation is happening, we just know that one of the titles is a title another character has. We won't know how it's actually going to play out for months, certainly not specifically enough to say 'one of these is definitely you being mini-Szuriel.'

Personally I hope Apocalypse Rider is the mythic destiny for having a very, very metal steed that you can ride out on and inspire awe and terror in all who behold you. Especially if you also get to customize a mount so someone could have a Mad Max esque car or a dragon or whatever.

[exequiel759]

ornathopter wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I agree that I'm not the biggest fan of the new mythic destinies either, I liked way more when mythic paths were "the thing you are right now, but mythic". It made those characters feel like they themselves were some larger than life heroes that with their mere pressence could shake the battlefield. The new implementation seems more like "your character is taking traits from X" which is not bad by itself, but removes that individuality that made your character unique because YOU were the source of your powers, right now it seems you take them from somewhere else.

To be fair, this is all speculation at the moment. We have no idea what implementation is happening, we just know that one of the titles is a title another character has. We won't know how it's actually going to play out for months, certainly not specifically enough to say 'one of these is definitely you being mini-Szuriel.'

Personally I hope Apocalypse Rider is the mythic destiny for having a very, very metal steed that you can ride out on and inspire awe and terror in all who behold you. Especially if you also get to customize a mount so someone could have a Mad Max esque car or a dragon or whatever.

I mean, yeah, but if one of the mythic destinies has the exact same name a group of demigods has (Horsemen are known as Apocalypse Riders now in the remaster) I'm inclined to think it would likely be tied to either extraplanar races or their planes, though it is entirely possible its just Apocalypse Rider that works like that, while there could be others that work totally different.

[Calliope5431]

ornathopter wrote:

Personally, I'd rather have mythic destinies that could be used without referring to much to the setting. I like Golarion a lot - more than a lot of default RPG settings - but I do still like to play in a completely homebrew setting, or use the engine for another fictional setting. And I'd like to be able to use mythic rules in games like that without having to file too many serial numbers off. It's one thing for archetypes to be closely tied in with different aspects, since there's tons and tons of them, but when we're only getting a few of a certain thing, I'd like them to be easy to transplant. That's just me, though.

Yeah my issue there is that paradoxically the more generic something is, the less likely it is to be used.

As an example - how many published adventures use garden variety liches, dragons, or demons as the final boss? Theoretically balors should be an easy lift. They're made to be boss monsters. In practice, it's always some unique demon prince, evil high priest, or other NPC. I have never seen a pathfinder AP whose final boss just "an ancient red dragon, no modifications" or "a pit fiend from bestiary 1".

Heck, even most arc/adventure villains are unique statblocks rather than being torn straight from the bestiaries. People, GMs and players alike, often want their special thing to be tied into the world ("I am the high mage of WAR and SLAUGHTER!") rather than just being "the generic archwizard".

Same is true of deities. There's a reason everyone loves Sarenrae and basically nobody is that emotionally attached to D&D's Pelor. They're both good aligned sun gods of redemption who smite the undead, but Pelor has the personality of a wet noodle and Sarenrae has actual fleshed out character. In theory her connections with Desna, Asmodeus, Rovagug, and Shelyn would make her harder to co-opt into non-Golarion settings than Pelor (not to mention her Arabic aesthetic). In practice... she's far more widely used. Nobody complains that she's "too specific" to transplant.

Tl;Dr I hear people asking for generic monsters a lot on both sides of the screen, but I don't think people really get as excited for them as more specific concepts and content.

[ornathopter]

Generic monsters are different from versatile PC options - and so are deities. Sarenrae has a very specific personality, and that's great, but someone in a homebrew setting would have no issues using cleric domains to make their own completely different sun worshipper if that's what they wanted, because those mechanics work whether you're on Golarion or not. And people can enjoy Sarenrae a lot, but I have a feeling people would like her a lot less if she was one of the only 9 options you could ever play.

[PossibleCabbage]

Specifically I really didn't like the Owlcat Mythic Destinies. When I played their adaptation, the only ones I felt fit my character were "Trickster" (because it's suitably generic- you could be Loki, or Sun Wukong, or Coyote) and Legend (because it's maximally generic.)

I really don't like the whole notion of "you become mythic which makes your body weird". Like Old Mage Jatembe isn't weird!

As an adequacy condition, I would say the Mythic destinies should span the entire set of "people we know are mythic" (Baba Yaga, Sorshen, Jatembe, Hao Jin, etc.) without having them all having the same "archmage" one.

[Saedar]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Specifically I really didn't like the Owlcat Mythic Destinies. When I played their adaptation, the only ones I felt fit my character were "Trickster" (because it's suitably generic- you could be Loki, or Sun Wukong, or Coyote) and Legend (because it's maximally generic.)

I really don't like the whole notion of "you become mythic which makes your body weird". Like Old Mage Jatembe isn't weird!

Why can't OMJ be an Eternal Legend focused on magic? Like. Just because we used to have an incredibly generic Archmage doesn't mean we need the same thing now to represent the character.

[Perpdepog]

Saedar wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Specifically I really didn't like the Owlcat Mythic Destinies. When I played their adaptation, the only ones I felt fit my character were "Trickster" (because it's suitably generic- you could be Loki, or Sun Wukong, or Coyote) and Legend (because it's maximally generic.)

I really don't like the whole notion of "you become mythic which makes your body weird". Like Old Mage Jatembe isn't weird!

Why can't OMJ be an Eternal Legend focused on magic? Like. Just because we used to have an incredibly generic Archmage doesn't mean we need the same thing now to represent the character.

That's the point though, that there exist options, like Eternal Legend if that turns out to be one such, that give more of a generic feel so someone can fill in the cracks themself. It's easier to make a generic option more personalized than it is to do the opposite for some people.

Also using OMJ as an example of someone with a mythic destiny is slightly missing the mark, because he is an NPC; he doesn't need to be built with one of the mythic destinies.

[PossibleCabbage]

Saedar wrote:

Why can't OMJ be an Eternal Legend focused on magic? Like. Just because we used to have an incredibly generic Archmage doesn't mean we need the same thing now to represent the character.

You could definitely do Jatembe a lot of different ways, for sure. But one thing we know is that none of the mythic people we know on Golarion have don't have a Mythic destiny related to an outsider (Aeon, Azata, Angel, Demon, etc.) and don't have a Mythic destiny related to some non-human thing (Tar-Baphon was a lich before he was a mythic lich.)

So I specifically don't want to do the Owlcat thing where you're more like something from an outer plane as you become more Mythic, I'd rather my Mythicness be related specifically to what I do in the world where people live.

It doesn't need to be maximally generic, I just dislike the Owlcat approach, and would prefer we do things that are simultaneously evocative and broad in the style of "Eternal Legend" and "Apocalypse" rider instead of really specific things like "lich" and "angel." Like you could do a mythic path about being as quick as a shadow and just as hard to pin down and make that Protean or Velstrac themed, but it's better to not do that so it covers a greater range of characters (the version without planar theming covers a swordsman who can't get touched, a thief who can't get caught, and a mage who can think their way around any problem.) It's better to do one that's a "Guardian of the Gateway [between life and death]" than one that's specifically undead, since the former also covers healers and undead hunters (you're trying to keep everybody on the side of the gateway they're on).

[keftiu]

I will be very surprised if Apocalypse Rider is at all generic. It seems pretty clearly tied to the Horsemen/Abaddon/daemons.

[The-Magic-Sword]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Saedar wrote:

Why can't OMJ be an Eternal Legend focused on magic? Like. Just because we used to have an incredibly generic Archmage doesn't mean we need the same thing now to represent the character.

You could definitely do Jatembe a lot of different ways, for sure. But one thing we know is that none of the mythic people we know on Golarion have don't have a Mythic destiny related to an outsider (Aeon, Azata, Angel, Demon, etc.) and don't have a Mythic destiny related to some non-human thing (Tar-Baphon was a lich before he was a mythic lich.)

So I specifically don't want to do the Owlcat thing where you're more like something from an outer plane as you become more Mythic, I'd rather my Mythicness be related specifically to what I do in the world where people live.

It doesn't need to be maximally generic, I just dislike the Owlcat approach, and would prefer we do things that are simultaneously evocative and broad in the style of "Eternal Legend" and "Apocalypse" rider instead of really specific things like "lich" and "angel." Like you could do a mythic path about being as quick as a shadow and just as hard to pin down and make that Protean or Velstrac themed, but it's better to not do that so it covers a greater range of characters (the version without planar theming covers a swordsman who can't get touched, a thief who can't get caught, and a mage who can think their way around any problem.) It's better to do one that's a "Guardian of the Gateway [between life and death]" than one that's specifically undead, since the former also covers healers and undead hunters (you're trying to keep everybody on the side of the gateway they're on).

I agree with that, these destinies should essentially be a class that describes the set of powers that let you transcend mortal limits, its odd that Owlcat chose to go with Mythic power being "Become an Angel" or what have you, because well...

This thing is an angel and it's only Level 6.

So just being an "outsider" strikes me as unrelated to power. Meanwhile, things that describe what you do that's so powerful, or what you are in a grander cosmic sense (say, if it's indeed about becoming one of a given group of demigods) that makes you more powerful is much more appropriate.

It could also just be a mix, "this one makes you one of the Empyreal Lords, that one makes you an Archmage"

[Perpdepog]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

It could also just be a mix, "this one makes you one of the Empyreal Lords, that one makes you an Archmage"

What I'm hoping for, personally. Being an Empyreal/Demon Lord, Archdevil, or Apocalypse Rider hopeful has enough wiggle room for the character to describe their personal wants for me. Like you could try becoming an Empyreal Lord of just about anything you could think of.

Then on the other side I'd like some of the best of universal mythotypes to get hit, like a trickster being or greatest champion.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

(I have to say, my own reservations stated above, with the Runelords of Thassilon in this setting's history, there are way more than enough mythic-tier archmages to make the lack of some kind of archmage-type destiny a glaring oversight, should it come to pass that the only destinies are to become angels and demons and nothing for temporally-focused folk.)

[Perpdepog]

I could see a Runelord destiny showing up in a Lost Omens product. They had something similar in a PF1E mythic book as I recall.

[exequiel759]

I think the only mythic runelord is Sorshen, though I'm probably wrong on that one. I seriously doubt runelord is going to be a mythic option because runelord is a thing that literally any wizard can be. Its literally a class archetype for wizards currently.

[ornathopter]

If we (occasionally) get mythic destinies as part of APs, lost omens content, or other sourcebooks, then I'd feel better about one of them being tied in so much with a particular bit of lore. When there's more options, then some of them being more specific should be fine.

[Veltharis]

exequiel759 wrote:

I think the only mythic runelord is Sorshen, though I'm probably wrong on that one. I seriously doubt runelord is going to be a mythic option because runelord is a thing that literally any wizard can be. Its literally a class archetype for wizards currently.

Both Sorshen and Xanderghul were mythic, but the other five runelords were "just" high level wizards as far as I'm aware, with three of them (Zutha, Krune, and Belimarius) not even reaching 20th level.

I believe Alaznist also temporarily achieved mythic status as a result of actions taken during Return of the Runelords, but wasn't mythic during the time of Thassilon itself.

[Calliope5431]

Veltharis wrote:

I believe Alaznist also temporarily achieved mythic status as a result of actions taken during Return of the Runelords, but wasn't mythic during the time of Thassilon itself.

She was mythic at the time of Thassilon, actually! She got an extra 6 mythic tiers from the Scepter of Ages, but pretty sure she was mythic beforehand. Some references here and here .

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I specifically don't want to do the Owlcat thing where you're more like something from an outer plane as you become more Mythic, I'd rather my Mythicness be related specifically to what I do in the world where people live.

What bugs me about things like the old "Hierophant" and "Trickster" mythic paths is that they don't really advance the story at all. The narrative impact of taking them is pretty limited on the whole and is pretty easily replicated via slapping on an extra 5 character levels and calling yourself "mythic". The main impact is mechanics.

There's not a lot of qualitative difference between a 20th level rogue and a 15th level rogue with a few tiers in the trickster mythic path. Likewise, only someone with a death wish would tell Runelord Karzoug to his face that he wasn't an archmage because he didn't have the archmage mythic path. He did epic things, he's an archmage in all ways that count. That mythic path is mostly just an "extra cool" label in a lot of ways.

Meanwhile many characters in fiction we'd actually label mythic changed themselves in some way to earn it, rather than just being "an extra cool fighter." Hercules ascended to divinity. Voldemort ripped his soul apart and became an archlich. Sauron did something similar.

Basically, if you want to play an extra cool fighter, it feels like you could easily model that by just playing a higher level fighter. That's why we have character levels, after all - to differentiate between a random town guard and Beowulf. We don't need mythic for that, and making mythic function as "now have more levels" seems like a missed opportunity to do something the rules don't already cover. I find it difficult to justify the existence of a mythic system that is just another way to say "you're higher level".

Just my two cents! I know other people have different perspectives on this, but I'd argue that "extra cool fighter" is already covered in the leveling system, and if mythic is a different subsystem you'd think it would do something else. And like it would be truly transformative.

[qwerty3werty]

keftiu wrote:

I will be very surprised if Apocalypse Rider is at all generic. It seems pretty clearly tied to the Horsemen/Abaddon/daemons.

Seeing that the Apocalypse Rider is literally the new names for the Horsemen of Apocalypse, it'd be very weird if it wasn't

Monster Core pg. 72 wrote:

DAEMONIC DIVINITIES

Numerous powerful and unique daemon demigods, known collectively as harbingers, rule over swaths of Abaddon. Above these demigods,though, are entities of even greater power—the four Apocalypse Riders.

It's like if there's a mythic destiny called "The Eldest" and it's just about you being very very old and nothing to do with the archfeys.

[Dubious Scholar]

I think that some form of archmage path is a given. It's always going to be one of the obvious routes to mythic power, and we have Jatembe, Baba Yaga, etc. as examples of it. I would expect this destiny to let you bend the rules on spell lists and such, and ultimately stop caring - magic is magic. Th

[Wei Ji the Learner]

And now I'm thinking 'Intern of the Apocalypse', some poor unpaid soul that has to get Szuriel coffee every morning..

[Zoken44]

Lets see the themes of those seeing Immortality I can think of are Alchemy (both the medieval european variety, and the ancient Chinese versions)

Then the Heroic variety (which I think aligns to the Immortal legend) Such as Gilgamesh and Heracles

The Archmage idea is an interesting idea because we already have examples of those being them that seek immortality: The Rune Lords (And to a lesser extent the Tar-Baphon)

Another concept that could be unique to Golarion: The Star Stone.

The Faustian Bargan is another way people seek immortality.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Veltharis wrote:

I believe Alaznist also temporarily achieved mythic status as a result of actions taken during Return of the Runelords, but wasn't mythic during the time of Thassilon itself.

She was mythic at the time of Thassilon, actually! She got an extra 6 mythic tiers from the Scepter of Ages, but pretty sure she was mythic beforehand. Some references here and here .

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I specifically don't want to do the Owlcat thing where you're more like something from an outer plane as you become more Mythic, I'd rather my Mythicness be related specifically to what I do in the world where people live.

What bugs me about things like the old "Hierophant" and "Trickster" mythic paths is that they don't really advance the story at all. The narrative impact of taking them is pretty limited on the whole and is pretty easily replicated via slapping on an extra 5 character levels and calling yourself "mythic". The main impact is mechanics.

There's not a lot of qualitative difference between a 20th level rogue and a 15th level rogue with a few tiers in the trickster mythic path. Likewise, only someone with a death wish would tell Runelord Karzoug to his face that he wasn't an archmage because he didn't have the archmage mythic path. He did epic things, he's an archmage in all ways that count. That mythic path is mostly just an "extra cool" label in a lot of ways.

Meanwhile many characters in fiction we'd actually label mythic changed themselves in some way to earn it, rather than just being "an extra cool fighter." Hercules ascended to divinity. Voldemort ripped his soul apart and became an archlich. Sauron did something similar.

Basically, if you want to play an extra cool fighter, it feels like you could easily model that by just playing a higher...

One thing you're making me think about: when you have 'Mythic' what does that simulate? Is it an abstraction, or is it like Dragon Ball's 'God Ki' where its an actual categorical separation of the power you wield. Because that's an important component of this, whether that Runelord counts as an Archmage depends more on whether the definition of Archmage is fluid or not.

If it's just 'really skilled mage' or like a political rank then that's one thing, but if its about actually breaking through a kind of threshold, he might not actually be an Archmage. In fact even some Mythic mages might not be Archmages if their Mythic is keyed into a different source rather than from their mastery of mage's magic.

I tend to think of things like this as being simulative of something in the fiction of the game world myself.

[Dungeon Master Zack]

I don't know about anybody else, but the Eternal Legend reminds me of the The Eternal Champion series from Michael Moorcock.

[Sy Kerraduess]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

when you have 'Mythic' what does that simulate? Is it an abstraction, or is it like Dragon Ball's 'God Ki' where its an actual categorical separation of the power you wield

In Golarion characters tend to become Mythic by coming into direct contact with an external repository of mythic power, such as the shards of a god/demigod or an absurdly powerful artifact/ritual. So it leans very much towards being a separate category of power.

[Calliope5431]

Sy Kerraduess wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

when you have 'Mythic' what does that simulate? Is it an abstraction, or is it like Dragon Ball's 'God Ki' where its an actual categorical separation of the power you wield

In Golarion characters tend to become Mythic by coming into direct contact with an external repository of mythic power, such as the shards of a god/demigod or an absurdly powerful artifact/ritual. So it leans very much towards being a separate category of power.

Yeah the options in Mythic Realms for ascension include such things as "portals to Akiton", "the pit of Gormuz where Rovagug is imprisoned", "the dangerous kaiju Valashimai jungle", and such. So it seems more external than just "better wizard."

[exequiel759]

I mean, it is and it isn't. In PF1e you became mythic either though a really epic action or though a source of mythic power, but you still were you. The new mythic destinies effectively seem to be turning you into something else.

[Pronate11]

exequiel759 wrote:

The new mythic destinies effectively seem to be turning you into something else.

I am not sure how you are getting that based off of two names with no other context.

[exequiel759]

Pronate11 wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

The new mythic destinies effectively seem to be turning you into something else.

I am not sure how you are getting that based off of two names with no other

context.

Apocalypse Rider is literally the new name for the Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the remaster, which implies that at the very least you are becoming a pseudo-Horseman if you have that mythic destiny. I also earlier mentioned how I think Eternal Legend is likely referencing Gorum and / or Elysium, which if happened to be true, would turn you into a sort of celestial being.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

exequiel759 wrote:

Pronate11 wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

The new mythic destinies effectively seem to be turning you into something else.

I am not sure how you are getting that based off of two names with no other

context.

Apocalypse Rider is literally the new name for the Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the remaster, which implies that at the very least you are becoming a pseudo-Horseman if you have that mythic destiny. I also earlier mentioned how I think Eternal Legend is likely referencing Gorum and / or Elysium, which if happened to be true, would turn you into a sort of celestial being.

Still, a pretty substantial leap of logic based on really only one confirmed connection and no knowledge of the other 7 destinies. What I said I feared but didn't really expect seems to be what you believe has already happened. It may be worth waiting for more evidence before placing bets

[Perpdepog]

I hope we still have the ability to make a bespoke artifact as part of our mythic ascension. That was probably my favorite ability line from PF1E's mythic system.

[The Raven Black]

I think it is no random chance that Paizo gave us 2 destinies' names out of 9 that just happen to be very specifically tied to a specific type of creatures in the setting for one and extremely generic for the other.

Me, I still think 9 is because of the 9 alignments/outer planes.

My preferred hypothesis is that Paizo just did an awesome collaborative in-house brainstorming about what each alignment/outer plane could represent as a mythic quality/trope and went with the best idea for each destiny.

Or maybe they just used the alignments as AI prompts...

[CorvusMask]

I'm assuming eternal Legend is same concept as Owlcat's CRPG legend, aka "Man you are really badass mortal, like holy crap"

[VestOfHolding]

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm assuming eternal Legend is same concept as Owlcat's CRPG legend, aka "Man you are really badass mortal, like holy crap"

I'd bet money on this being true.

As far as the system in general, not gonna lie I'm gonna be riding the high of guessing correctly for weeks if it turns out it is indeed a free archetype adjacent system for these mythic destinies. The academy school subsystem in Strength of Thousands also provides a great template for these paths/destinies working from a common progression framework. A couple of the other ideas on Infinite, such as using more aggressive hero pointing to do more mythic stunts (sort of), and a way to progress past level 20, are interesting, but I'm very happy with the guess that I put out that appears from a distance to match what we're getting.

[WWHsmackdown]

I was so certain about a free archetype-like tack, too, but honestly stopping to think about 9 full destiny writeups with 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20th lvl feats for each seems like a LOT of page space for a book that also includes two whole classes and a whole books worth of other things. Now I'm not sure. Maybe it's prescribed bonuses or like 5 feats worth of destiny

[Zoken44]

It might archetypes that start at higher levels, like the Lich archetype.

[The Raven Black]

I wonder if we'll be able to retrain a Mythic Destiny. And if they will be available in PFS.

[Calliope5431]

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm assuming eternal Legend is same concept as Owlcat's CRPG legend, aka "Man you are really badass mortal, like holy crap"

Yeah that's almost certainly what it is.

As for being archetype-adjacent, it does make me wonder what that implies about the numbers progression. Do we actually have evidence that it's going to be archetype-style?

Since free archetype makes your abilities broader and more powerful, but doesn't fundamentally change your pluses. Your save DC and attack bonus still cap out at the usual places.

And I can only assume that creatures of level 25+ will actually have larger numbers.

[Saedar]

Calliope5431 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm assuming eternal Legend is same concept as Owlcat's CRPG legend, aka "Man you are really badass mortal, like holy crap"

Yeah that's almost certainly what it is.

As for being archetype-adjacent, it does make me wonder what that implies about the numbers progression. Do we actually have evidence that it's going to be archetype-style?

Since free archetype makes your abilities broader and more powerful, but doesn't fundamentally change your pluses. Your save DC and attack bonus still cap out at the usual places.

And I can only assume that creatures of level 25+ will actually have larger numbers.

Purely speculating, but I would assume that a hypothetical archetype-based system would have some different assumptions compared to conventional archetypes. Maybe they would some version of a proficiency boost (trained, expert, master, legend, mythic) or other direct numeric bonuses. Or they could provide abilities that have built in bad luck protection (rerolls) or enhanced success level upgrades (fails become successes in certain niches).

[Xenocrat]

The fact that Apocalypse Rider is the same name as the renamed Horsemen is to me very strong evidence that the mythic destiny has nothing to do with the daemonic entities.

Paizo has a hilarious, extremely long lived, and fairly embarassing history (either because they don't care or because they do care but still can't effectively stop themselves) of using the same names over and over again for unrelated things, whether class abilities, feats, archetypes, or even unrelated NPCs in two different APs.

I really feel like they're due.

[Perpdepog]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I was so certain about a free archetype-like tack, too, but honestly stopping to think about 9 full destiny writeups with 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20th lvl feats for each seems like a LOT of page space for a book that also includes two whole classes and a whole books worth of other things. Now I'm not sure. Maybe it's prescribed bonuses or like 5 feats worth of destiny

That's what I am currently leaning toward. An FA-style system makes loads of sense, and slots neatly into what PF2E is good at, plug-and-play character designs. My current assumption is you get five feats that will be chunkier than your typical feats, each subbing in for one of five tiers of power.

That, or it is still ten feats/feat slots, but half of them are more generic while the other half are destiny-specific. That'd grant more options while saving a bit on page space.

[exequiel759]

I'm pretty sure we would still have mythic "levels" as I'm pretty sure some of the mythic characters from PF1e still use them in PF2e. Don't quote me on the source since I can't find it, so probably I'm wrong on this one, but I'm sure to have seen mythic ranks somewhere in PF2e already.

[VestOfHolding]

exequiel759 wrote:

I'm pretty sure we would still have mythic "levels" as I'm pretty sure some of the mythic characters from PF1e still use them in PF2e. Don't quote me on the source since I can't find it, so probably I'm wrong on this one, but I'm sure to have seen mythic ranks somewhere in PF2e already.

Yeah, this is my guess as well for how progression can work. That's why I point to the "Life in the Academy" subsystem from Strength of Thousands. It's not directly attached to character level, so you can have significant story points where a mythic level would go up, and it has it's own common progression path no matter which school/mythic destiny you choose that says when you get more feats or a proficiency boost.

[Iron_Matt17]

VestOfHolding wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I'm pretty sure we would still have mythic "levels" as I'm pretty sure some of the mythic characters from PF1e still use them in PF2e. Don't quote me on the source since I can't find it, so probably I'm wrong on this one, but I'm sure to have seen mythic ranks somewhere in PF2e already.

Yeah, this is my guess as well for how progression can work. That's why I point to the "Life in the Academy" subsystem from Strength of Thousands. It's not directly attached to character level, so you can have significant story points where a mythic level would go up, and it has it's own common progression path no matter which school/mythic destiny you choose that says when you get more feats or a proficiency boost.

I’ve never read or played Strength of Thousands, so I had no idea about that subsystem… Now reading about it, I really hope they go down that path rather than FA. It would fit better with my Wrath of the Righteous Conversion, cuz the PCs don’t get Mythic until lvl 5. And gaining levels is through overcoming Mythic Trials, which is a cool concept.

<I also want to play Mythical Characters with Free Archetype >