Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Also I am talking about enemy rolls, not my own.

Which are governed by the same rng, so what I said applies here. The bias is also the same. I doubt you wrote down all the times when your CC hit all the enemies and got mad "how can it be everybody failed their saves bla bla bla".
The problem with enemies saving in this game isn't the RNG but the fact that they have generally too high saves, which means they often don't have to roll very high to succeed.

 

[ArchAngel]

Also I am talking about enemy rolls, not my own.

Which are governed by the same rng, so what I said applies here. The bias is also the same. I doubt you wrote down all the times when your CC hit all the enemies and got mad "how can it be everybody failed their saves bla bla bla".
The problem with enemies saving in this game isn't the RNG but the fact that they have generally too high saves, which means they often don't have to roll very high to succeed.

I really don't remember last time my one save CC spells managed to do something like this. Usually when I color spray (most used one save cc spell) I get one or 0 enemies to fail the save and these are +2 to +4 will save enemies.
I have given up on using single target CC spells like Hold Person. Even when I used Chains of Light vs enemies with bad Reflex save I think I got them to fail it once.

I did notice enemies here and there roll 1 on their save roll, I notice it because I didn't expect them to fail the save as I knew it was their strong save but these are very very rare occurrences.

Enemies do fail Web and Grease a lot but that is because I always put my tanks just outside the AoE of those spells and force enemies to spend whole battles inside area of those spells.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Also I am talking about enemy rolls, not my own.

Which are governed by the same rng, so what I said applies here. The bias is also the same. I doubt you wrote down all the times when your CC hit all the enemies and got mad "how can it be everybody failed their saves bla bla bla".
The problem with enemies saving in this game isn't the RNG but the fact that they have generally too high saves, which means they often don't have to roll very high to succeed.

I really don't remember last time my one save CC spells managed to do something like this. Usually when I color spray (most used one save cc spell) I get one or 0 enemies to fail the save and these are +2 to +4 will save enemies.
I have given up on using single target CC spells like Hold Person. Even when I used Chains of Light vs enemies with bad Reflex save I think I got them to fail it once.

I gave up on CC spells as well, especially on hard or unfair, the problem is not the RNG however but the off the charts saving throws. You just said on a previous page regarding opening locks how easy it is to deal with bad rolls. Just make your skill so high you succeed even on rolling a 1. The same principle applies here. Make your DC so high you'll succeed even if they roll high. You can't? That's exactly the problem. Enemy saves are too high.

 

[Jaedar]

Of course there's one caveat for percentages. Say concealment 50%. I could say roll d1000 and if you're 500 or higher you succeed. Technically correct, but you can roll <500 for a LONG time leaving the impression of anything but a 50% success chance.
In such case you should use the smallest possible d, i.e. d2 in this example, for better results.

Having to roll 2 on a d2 or >500 on a d1000 is identical. The computer is rolling numbers in [0,1) and multiplying/adding to get the correct interval either way.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Of course there's one caveat for percentages. Say concealment 50%. I could say roll d1000 and if you're 500 or higher you succeed. Technically correct, but you can roll <500 for a LONG time leaving the impression of anything but a 50% success chance.
In such case you should use the smallest possible d, i.e. d2 in this example, for better results.

Having to roll 2 on a d2 or >500 on a d1000 is identical. The computer is rolling numbers in [0,1) and multiplying/adding to get the correct interval either way.

For a single roll yes. But I thought about long streaks of failing your roll.
You mean it's just as likely to roll 50x 1 in a row on a d2, as it is to roll 50x <500 in a row on a d1000?
I'm not much into probability but somehow this doesn't feel right.

 

[ArchAngel]

Also I am talking about enemy rolls, not my own.

Which are governed by the same rng, so what I said applies here. The bias is also the same. I doubt you wrote down all the times when your CC hit all the enemies and got mad "how can it be everybody failed their saves bla bla bla".
The problem with enemies saving in this game isn't the RNG but the fact that they have generally too high saves, which means they often don't have to roll very high to succeed.

I really don't remember last time my one save CC spells managed to do something like this. Usually when I color spray (most used one save cc spell) I get one or 0 enemies to fail the save and these are +2 to +4 will save enemies.
I have given up on using single target CC spells like Hold Person. Even when I used Chains of Light vs enemies with bad Reflex save I think I got them to fail it once.

I gave up on CC spells as well, especially on hard or unfair, the problem is not the RNG however but the off the charts saving throws. You just said on a previous page regarding opening locks how easy it is to deal with bad rolls. Just make your skill so high you succeed even on rolling a 1. The same principle applies here. Make your DC so high you'll succeed even if they roll high. You can't? That's exactly the problem. Enemy saves are too high.

I don't have a problem with enemy having high saves (at least not on challenging difficulty and I play on that one because I want my spellcasters to still be more than buff bots), but enemies with low saves too often rolling high rolls.
And unlike skill checks it is very hard to get your DC high enough to have enemies always fail except on natural 20.

 

[Jaedar]

Of course there's one caveat for percentages. Say concealment 50%. I could say roll d1000 and if you're 500 or higher you succeed. Technically correct, but you can roll <500 for a LONG time leaving the impression of anything but a 50% success chance.
In such case you should use the smallest possible d, i.e. d2 in this example, for better results.

Having to roll 2 on a d2 or >500 on a d1000 is identical. The computer is rolling numbers in [0,1) and multiplying/adding to get the correct interval either way.

For a single roll yes. But I thought about long streaks of failing your roll.
You mean it's just as likely to roll 50x 1 in a row on a d2, as it is to roll 50x <500 in a row on a d1000?
I'm not much into probability but somehow this doesn't feel right.

It is exactly the same i.e a Markov chain constructed from either source of random numbers looks the same.

One of the fundamental properties of a random number generator is that there is no correlation between the current result and the next*. Which is to say that if you agree that I am right for the first roll, you must agree I am right on the next roll as well (and so on). If your feelings tell you otherwise, I urge you to reconsider them and their validity.

*Reminder that computers are incapable of generating truly random numbers, but the rng's we do get are indistinguishable from the real deal for the purpose of vidya.

 

[Shadenuat]

I don't have a problem with enemy having high saves (at least not on challenging difficulty and I play on that one because I want my spellcasters to still be more than buff bots), but enemies with low saves too often rolling high rolls.
And unlike skill checks it is very hard to get your DC high enough to have enemies always fail except on natural 20.

I gave up on CC spells as well, especially on hard or unfair, the problem is not the RNG however but the off the charts saving throws. You just said on a previous page regarding opening locks how easy it is to deal with bad rolls. Just make your skill so high you succeed even on rolling a 1. The same principle applies here. Make your DC so high you'll succeed even if they roll high. You can't? That's exactly the problem. Enemy saves are too high.

Maybe you don't want to be wizards anymore

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Projas]

So wots the new dlc like? Do you create an entire party or do you have companions from the base game? Or new ones?

 

[Haplo]

Theoretically... it should not.

hence why dazzling display fear is better. there is no save. and it works on everything that isnt paladin or undead

Or insect. Also construct I suppose.

 

[Jaedar]

So wots the new dlc like? Do you create an entire party or do you have companions from the base game? Or new ones?

You get Varn and his mage, create your own pc and then recruit 3 mooks (the game has 3 premade if you prefer, or you can make them yourself).

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Abu Antar]

The new DLC is out? Anyone have any impressions?

Also, there's a 4.3GB update.

 

[Cael]

NWN's dazzling RNG has you rolling low and the enemy rolling high, which is a 50% distribution, except you die while the enemy is unscratched. Been there, seen that, laughed my ass off.

 

[razvedchiki]

can you import any items from the varnhold dlc?

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Haplo]

insect

i think i recall forcing spiders to run away, could be wrong though. Constructs are rare and die quickly to acid bombs so I dont even think about them honestly. Its really all about undead, especially since game throws undead bosses at you.

Quite many spiders too. Early on, centipedes too.
But I'm very far from discounting the aoe intimidation effects. In fact I make sure to teach all my melee chars Shatter Defenses to take advantage of the permanent shaken status of all viable enemy targets.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Yosharian]

The new DLC is out? Anyone have any impressions?

Also, there's a 4.3GB update.

My immediate impression is fuck you Owlcat I was in the middle of respeccing my Wizard. Had to fall back on the 'insert 50k gold into my account via 7zip/notepad++ and rehire' method.

 

[Gord]

So, about the Decide the fate of the Varnhold militia quest from chapter 4-ish:

Are there any long-term repercussions from either

Spoiler

giving in to their demands, or
making that elf who started the militia deal with the instigators of the revolt?

I guess the first option makes the elf, who's also a master artisan afaik, go away?
But other than that?

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[yolu]

I wonder how close is the story to the original AP? Do you have a chance to fight the lantern thing in the AP? If so would like to see its stat. I can only find stat of the nymph queen on internet.

 

[anvi]

Even a shitty LCG like the one used by rand() has adequate properties for a computer game. It is unlikely that the developers implemented their own RNG. They probably went with a generic one. Even improperly shortening the RNG cycle by modular division does not do noticeable damage in this kind of application.

I'd probably fire on the spot a developer who wastes man hours to implement own RNG in a computer game

I wish more people understood this. I hate hearing noobs say that RNG is not fair in games because computers can't do RNG.

 

[purpleblob]

I've been playing Varnhold's Lot for few hours now.

You start off the Varnhold's Lot as level 5, as one of Maegar Varn's companion. The DLC begins with ceremony where you (in the main game) and Maegar are both given the title of Baron/ess.

Its very linear but I'm enjoying it so far - in this DLC, you can't freely roam the world map, the game navigates your party.

I rolled Inquisitor this time and got following companions:
Rogue (Maegar), wizard (Cephal Lorentus), Scaled Fist (Monk), Herald Caller (Priest), Freebooter (Ranger).

I'm playing female human and there is a romance plot with Maegar lol. Didn't expect this.