Respondents in last week's Pensions Buzz said such pathways would help guide members and improve retirement outcomes.
The 112 commentators also answered questions on whether retirement wake-up packs should start from age 50, co-operate with investment administration, or retain the status quo.
Finally, a Pensions Buzz peer wanted to know whether hedge funds are still an appropriate asset class for a typical defined benefit scheme.
Seven out of 10 participating in last week's Pensions Buzz agreed with the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) recommendation - published in its Retirement Outcomes Review - that investment pathways are needed to help users in drawdown.
Of these, one said it would be a good starting point as there is a need for some sort of signposting that members can choose to follow.
Another said: "People need all the help they can with these complex issues".
"Why should every member have to reinvent the wheel? Definite need for this," said one more.
Some 12% disagreed. "If there's so much debate on individual circumstances and one size generally doesn't fit all, why a one size would fit all 'pathway' work?" asked a pundit.
Choice is needed as well as direction, said another.
"It is a complicated area and pathways will simply restrict thought and options," said one more.
One in five were undecided. "I worry that this will just add another layer of complexity - the "small print" will get longer and even less likely to be read," said one.
Three in five agreed with the FCA's recent recommendation that wake-up packs should start from age 50.
Of these, one said it was "the perfect threshold age when the vast majority of people re-evaluate a number of things in their lives".
"But there should also be some communication at 20, 30 and 40 to engage members earlier," added another.
"We need members to have their attention drawn to funding plans over the next 10 years plus. No age is perfect but this is a good starter, with periodic follow-ups," said one more.
However, one suggested that if it was sent any earlier, the pack would most likely be "discarded" and lost.
A quarter of respondents said 50 was too late. "Even 40 is borderline," said one.
Only one in 10 said it was too early, with one saying people should not be encouraged to expect an early retirement age.
"Minimum pension age should be raised to 60 and all protected pension ages revoked," said another.
The idea that Scotland should merge the liabilities, assets and administration of its 11 local government pension funds into one or more asset vehicles, was selected by a third of this week's respondents, compared to some 31% who were unsure.
Of those that suggested it should merge, one said: "And why stop there with Scotland? Why not merge all of the liabilities and administration into a smaller number of vehicles?"
Another suggested that size makes a difference and often means lowers overall costs.
Some 16% selected the option to promote cooperation in investing and administration between the funds.
Of these one suggested pensions need to adopt more innovative thinking as most funds are "far too cautious to meet what will be required".
Another said: "Co-mingled fund approach to investment has been around for decades and can work well with the right structure and governance."
Some 14% suggested pooling investments while keeping funds' responsibility for governance, liabilities, and administration, - a model that local funds in England and Wales have taken.
One said: "Delivery of benefits needs to be owned - asset management has benefit in being managed in scale as long as the participants can manage their assets aligned to their own liabilities."
Only some 5% selected to keep the status quo.
More than half of this week's respondents agreed that as a result of the disparities between net-pay and relief-at-source arrangements, the current pension tax relief system should be changed.
Of those that agreed, one said: "But only to look at disparities between net pay and relief at source. I'd rather the chancellor didn't mount another tax raid on pensions savings and/or confuse everyone totally with a major reform."
Another suggested it was "a historical anomaly that should be swept away as part of an overall review of the pension tax regime in general".
"Needs to be looked at, although any system will have winners and losers" said another.
Over a third disagreed. One said: "This could result in a negative change for most pension savers disguised as an improvement for some."
One suggested: "So let's remove the inequities by levying a flat rate of tax across all earnings with no tax ‘allowances', just tax relief for socially responsible spending which includes pension saving to minimise the eventual strain on the public purse."
"The low earners in net-pay arrangements should be helped out, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater to do it. There must be a better targeted way," suggested one more.
Hedge funds are still an appropriate asset class for a typical defined benefit (DB) pension fund, according to two in five of respondents.
"Hedge fund is a very broad term, so there are certainly appropriate investments that could be described as hedge funds. A liability-driven investment fund is, arguably, a hedge fund and is certainly appropriate for many schemes," said one.
Another respondent agreed, but said "given the complexity, in-depth due-diligence is required".
Some 29% disagreed. Of these, one pundit complained they are too expensive. "The risk management or diversification required can be achieved in other ways that are easier to understand," the respondent added.
Another said it may be suitable for some funds, but overall, it would not deliver a great deal.
Finally, some 28% of respondents were unsure. One said: "Depends on the risk appetite of trustees. Personally, I think that they've had their day".
Another said: "What makes you think there is still a typical DB fund?!"
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has substantially increased the usage of its powers against trustees – posting a sharp rise in the use of formal information gathering powers and High Court production orders during the three months to the end of September....
The Pension Schemes Bill has completed its third reading, crossing its latest hurdle in the House of Commons.
An amendment to the Pensions Schemes Bill which would have seen people given a pre-booked Pension Wise appointment ahead of accessing their retirement savings has been defeated.
A proposal to ensure savers receive a Pension Wise appointment prior to accessing their retirement pot has received cross-party support in parliament, while Labour seeks net-zero pensions by 2050.
Pension scams are not just about the money lost, but the lives devastated, says Nicola Parish, so the industry must unite to defeat this scourge.