Guys, how to beat Spider Queen?![]()
First time I saw that guy:And after she's taken care of you deal with the giant statue
Shame they never made the part two to that film, still it had the coolest Hercules to grace film in it.First time I saw that guy:
![]()
![]()
What movie is this?Shame they never made the part two to that film, still it had the coolest Hercules to grace film in it.First time I saw that guy:
![]()
![]()
Jason and the Argonauts from the 60sWhat movie is this?
Guys, how to beat Spider Queen?![]()
So just metagame shit out of Chalice 2 with right builds and its not hard?Anyway I would guess that some fights are unwinnable in archmage if you get bad initiative roll but obviously I cannot say this for sure. Minimizing rng is an interesting concept when the game has so many variables.
Currently playing fake ironman with archmage difficulty and the crashes are driving me insane. Think I take a break from chalice haven't seen any posts from Pierre for a while.
Oof this encounter might be too much for my ass party. Looks like the end of playthrough 1! Not too ruffled about this since I accidentally skipped like all of Finchbury and now know that Bards have a lot of dialogue options.
Funny you mention that because I remembered I had a Sirocco acorn and it fucking made it cake walk haha.Oof this encounter might be too much for my ass party. Looks like the end of playthrough 1! Not too ruffled about this since I accidentally skipped like all of Finchbury and now know that Bards have a lot of dialogue options.
Use the acorns.
I don't understand the logic behind crossbows— or the lack thereof, rather. Anyone who could use a crossbow could have gotten a bow for the same investment. Not only that, but crossbows also come with the feat tax of rapid reload, so it takes more investment to use a crossbow than a regular bow. The casters that would benefit from crossbows can't even take them because they would have to invest a feat for proficiency and then another to make them somewhat worthwhile, and even then they'd be better off just getting a bow instead.
So crossbows cost more than bows, they have the same range as bows, they don't get a 3X crit multiplier like longbows and warbows do, they do less damage than bows overall, I don't think I've seen a single unique crossbow at any point in augury, and the heavy xbow and arbalest don't even get iterative attacks (aside from rapid shot I guess) despite doing similar damage as the greatbow and warbow BEFORE strength bonuses.
They'd make some kind of sense if they were simple weapons, but even in that case it'd be a better idea to take bow proficiency than waste a feat on rapid reload.
Arbalest is, iirc, the highest damage range weapon. If you have a negative STR modifier (which you probably have on a wizard) it's even better compared to a bow. Wizard has a proficiency in Xbows but not bows. It only really matters in prologue and chapter 1, at some point in chapter 2 you start getting enough low level spell slots to cast spells most of the time, when it matters. As Desiderius said, iterative attack comes at level 11 when non-spell attacks for wizards are already obsolete anyway and reload matters a little, if a fight requires your wizard, you need to use spells anyway.I don't understand the logic behind crossbows— or the lack thereof, rather. Anyone who could use a crossbow could have gotten a bow for the same investment. Not only that, but crossbows also come with the feat tax of rapid reload, so it takes more investment to use a crossbow than a regular bow. The casters that would benefit from crossbows can't even take them because they would have to invest a feat for proficiency and then another to make them somewhat worthwhile, and even then they'd be better off just getting a bow instead.
So crossbows cost more than bows, they have the same range as bows, they don't get a 3X crit multiplier like longbows and warbows do, they do less damage than bows overall, I don't think I've seen a single unique crossbow at any point in augury, and the heavy xbow and arbalest don't even get iterative attacks (aside from rapid shot I guess) despite doing similar damage as the greatbow and warbow BEFORE strength bonuses.
They'd make some kind of sense if they were simple weapons, but even in that case it'd be a better idea to take bow proficiency than waste a feat on rapid reload.
XBows don't need STR so you can dump STR and still use one.
Wiz starts with XBow prof. Wiz doesn't get iteratives until late anyway.
Reload doesn't really come up much because you only use them every once in a while to save spell slots on non-challenging fights to get them done faster. On the tough fights you're casting. Not having any drops sort of makes sense because by that point in the game you should have enough casts to be casting all the time or using consumable or Meteors etc...
TL;DR: Agree with Desiderius. X-Bow = wizard. That's all.
Couldn't. Also, Kingmaker is a mess and you're annoying.I could give a shit about xBows.
A -1 or -2 damage roll malus is hardly going to make a difference when you're using your ranged weapon as filler, and handing that guy any non-crafted magic bow would make it even more irrelevant. The arbalest is a god awful weapon to use as filler (or in general) because of the full round reload. You will never fire that thing more than once per encounter unless you go out of your way to do so or take rapid reload. Regardless, the point was never whether a caster should spend a feat on crossbows or bows. Both options are obviously unappealing unless you plan to switch the feat before leveling or get the group proficiency for free to begin with. The point is that crossbows have no real niche or purpose. Why even place action economy-centric restrictions on them as though you need to contain the earth shattering might of 1d8, 1d10, and 2d8 with -1 to attack rolls? They're all around terrible and "just something for wizards to do for their first few levels" doesn't justify three weapon types and an exclusive feat. Hell, even slings have a niche of being able to apply bludgeoning enchants to a ranged weapon. Being able to instakill a ghost dragon by chucking ghost touched undead bane+destruction rocks at it is kosher, but simply wanting xbows to be viable in any way beyond being a slipshot wizard cantrip stand-in is silly?
A -1 or -2 damage roll malus is hardly going to make a difference when you're using your ranged weapon as filler, and handing that guy any non-crafted magic bow would make it even more irrelevant. The arbalest is a god awful weapon to use as filler (or in general) because of the full round reload. You will never fire that thing more than once per encounter unless you go out of your way to do so or take rapid reload. Regardless, the point was never whether a caster should spend a feat on crossbows or bows. Both options are obviously unappealing unless you plan to switch the feat before leveling or get the group proficiency for free to begin with. The point is that crossbows have no real niche or purpose. Why even place action economy-centric restrictions on them as though you need to contain the earth shattering might of 1d8, 1d10, and 2d8 with -1 to attack rolls? They're all around terrible and "just something for wizards to do for their first few levels" doesn't justify three weapon types and an exclusive feat. Hell, even slings have a niche of being able to apply bludgeoning enchants to a ranged weapon. Being able to instakill a ghost dragon by chucking ghost touched undead bane+destruction rocks at it is kosher, but simply wanting xbows to be viable in any way beyond being a slipshot wizard cantrip stand-in is silly?
I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.
One thing I disagree with though, 1/2 damage can make a huge difference, often, mostly in the village, some enemies will survive with 1 or 2 hp and it will allow them to act again, which could lead to a disastrous outcome.
Then again, if you absolutely want to use a crossbow but can't affort to spend one or two feats necessary and it makes you horribly mad, just change the feat settings once or twice for that char level up and then use crossbows.
What stopping you?
He's a mage but he spent some time hunting with a crossbow as a kid. He's not a sharpshooter but he's gifted, hence the 1/2 bonus feats.
It's as simple as that, you don't even need the justification as there's no GM to validate your choices.
Problem solved.
If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different
(not Darth, the dead horse beaters)
I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.
On that topic, Pierre is receptive to good arguments about weak classes and races.
For example, he might add something for the monks, no spoiler but it's really cool.
And some new sub-races for Dwarves and Salamanders. No spoiler either, small changes but really neat.
If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different