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

[Yosharian]

The only thing that you'd wait for now is for the patching cycle to finish so that mod development/stability can kick up a notch

Just play the damn game

That's actually part of my reasoning. The trend in enhanced editions or major revising post release also encourages me to wait. I have a backlog that keeps me contented enough. I only really get to play through games once these days, so I try to maximize that run.

Fair enough

 

[razvedchiki]

so its only me or other fine folk find the lack of the favorite class/xp penalty on multiclassing a bad choice?
guess paizo was after the timmys who wanted to play as a paladin/wizard/monk/druid/rogue dual wielding a spear and a crossbow.

another random thought of the day,is the review ever gonna happen?i dont see any point waiting for more patches/dlcs.

 

[Haplo]

Well, instead of a penalty, you get a reward for sticking with your favorite class (+1 HP per level, alternatively you can choose +1 Skill point/level with the Eldiritch Arcana mod).

Admittedly, the xp penalty was far more crippling then the prize is rewarding.

 

[Sykar]

so its only me or other fine folk find the lack of the favorite class/xp penalty on multiclassing a bad choice?
guess paizo was after the timmys who wanted to play as a paladin/wizard/monk/druid/rogue dual wielding a spear and a crossbow.

another random thought of the day,is the review ever gonna happen?i dont see any point waiting for more patches/dlcs.

Would be nice, though I do not care that much about it. When I make a character I ask myself if that even makes sense. Paladin/Monk/+? No freaking way. I hate this approach to only look how to crank up AC or saves to 11 with no regard if that class combination would be sensible or allowed by a non-retarded GM. Call me whatever you like for such a self imposed restriction, I could not care less.

 

[Jarpie]

Game gets pretty easy even without munchkin approach, especially if you know what you're doing with the buffs, just cast displacement + greater invisibility + stoneskin + haste and you're good to go, enemies have hard time hitting you, with the bard's buff songs and other buffs, you can get stupidly high AB too.

 

[Haplo]

Well, I respect that approach.

But personally for me in crpgs easily half the fun (and often more) is designing characters, planning their development and watching them grow and fulfill their potential. Even if it sometimes means psychologically/logically/morally dubious combinations.
Although when I played on a NWN PW RPG server, I put some effort to justify and provide some story for my (eventually) 39 Druid / 1 Monk build.

I could care less about writing, story, graphics and such things. But good, impact-full chardev is vital in a crpg for me.

 

[razvedchiki]

Game gets pretty easy even without munchkin approach, especially if you know what you're doing with the buffs, just cast displacement + greater invisibility + stoneskin + haste and you're good to go, enemies have hard time hitting you, with the bard's buff songs and other buffs, you can get stupidly high AB too.

tell that to all the folk that left negative reviews because "muh difficulty",they start like "i have being playing crpgs since the 19th century/i come from an unbroken line of DMs" and proceed to cry about how the game doesnt pamper their egos by making unfair into story mode.

 

[ArchAngel]

All Reviews and Recent Reviews are now both at 70% and game finally has Mostly Positive status on Steam

 

[Daidre]

Would be nice, though I do not care that much about it. When I make a character I ask myself if that even makes sense. Paladin/Monk/+? No freaking way. I hate this approach to only look how to crank up AC or saves to 11 with no regard if that class combination would be sensible or allowed by a non-retarded GM. Call me whatever you like for such a self imposed restriction, I could not care less.

For me it is always struggle between power-gaming and creating believable person RP-wise. It may be weird, but I try to define alignment, background and prominent personality traits for my every PC and I am pretty strict about plot choices when deciding what this character would or wouldn't do.

I can design craziest multiclasses for fun and even write them down in excel but abandon them pretty early when I start to play another generic cool build #100500. I actually avoid Vivi for this reason. It takes quite specific person to choose this as your life calling, and taking 1-4 level in class just breaks my suspension of disbelief about my own PC.

 

[Tacgnol]

Is that game playable now?

Kingmaker? It is really solid, not many bugs left.

I played through in December on 1.1 and it was mostly fine. I think I had one minor bug in the final area with that mirror puzzle.

 

[Sykar]

Vivi has to be the most overrated splash in by far.

Well, I respect that approach.

But personally for me in crpgs easily half the fun (and often more) is designing characters, planning their development and watching them grow and fulfill their potential. Even if it sometimes means psychologically/logically/morally dubious combinations.
Although when I played on a NWN PW RPG server, I put some effort to justify and provide some story for my (eventually) 39 Druid / 1 Monk build.

I could care less about writing, story, graphics and such things. But good, impact-full chardev is vital in a crpg for me.

1! splash in can often be easily explained. What cannot be explained how the hell do you have 4+ classes mixed in of extremely conflicting basic concepts. Take Monk,Paladin and Thug. What do they have in common? Nothing, except for Monk and Paladin needing lawful alignment. That's it. Their fundamental core could not be more diametrically opposed. A monk is all about strife for personal perfection. Paladin is all about serving his god, the greater good and doing so while adhering to a strict code of honor. And now throw in Thug, a brutish opportunist who will do whatever he can get away with, including doing deeds a Paladin would not even dream of doing. How does that work from a RPG perspective? Answer, it does not, and no sane GM in the world would allow such a retarded character to exist. To some degree I miss the old restriction that once you leave the path of paladin or monk you cannot come back, it's all or nothing.
You know what is even more fun to me than just munchkin the shit out of an obviously flawed system? Maintaining a believable character while doing so.

 

[Perpetual Nothing]

Think about it not from the backstory perspective, but the character archetype perspective. It's not that your paladin suddenly became a thug - it's his beatings that became more effective. Quote from thug description: "A thug, on the other hand, cares nothing for finesse. Through both threat and violence, the thug gets what she wants by the promise of force, and has no problem making good on that promise as needed." It just so happens that what this particular thug wants is to make a better place. And he isn't afraid to use his fists to achieve that.

 

[Haplo]

I actually avoid Vivi for this reason. It takes quite specific person to choose this as your life calling, and taking 1-4 level in class just breaks my suspension of disbelief about my own PC.

I actually consider Vivi quite worthy of a 12+ level investment, so I don't have this problem.

But even 4 levels will provide a decently lasting mutagen and, for example, 50% crit/sneak Resistance or an additional Bite attack.

 

[Sykar]

I actually avoid Vivi for this reason. It takes quite specific person to choose this as your life calling, and taking 1-4 level in class just breaks my suspension of disbelief about my own PC.

I actually consider Vivi quite worthy of a 12+ level investment, so I don't have this problem.

But even 4 levels will provide a decently lasting mutagen and, for example, 50% crit/sneak Resistance or an additional Bite attack.

That was beside the point though.

Think about it not from the backstory perspective, but the character archetype perspective. It's not that your paladin suddenly became a thug - it's his beatings that became more effective. Quote from thug description: "A thug, on the other hand, cares nothing for finesse. Through both threat and violence, the thug gets what she wants by the promise of force, and has no problem making good on that promise as needed." It just so happens that what this particular thug wants is to make a better place. And he isn't afraid to use his fists to achieve that.

Nonsense. A thug deploys tactics any paladin would find abhorrent and, more importantly, dishonorable. It does not matter how you spin it, thugish tactics, outside of retarded munchkin, is a no go for a paladin but I guess any sorry excuse is sufficient for the average power gamer. A class is not just a set of abilities, it is a way of life for that character, a core part of his or her or its, in case of some exotic/monstrous character races, identity. Some combinations are easily justifiable, like adding fighter, since martial prowess is already a part of a paladins core identity and a few extra levels of fighter implies that the paladin takes extra effort to master his weapon.
What exactly justifies a paladin to "learn" thuggery? What exactly compels a paladin to go to the nearest den of villany and instead of purging the shit out of it asks the local thieves guild "hey guise, I heard being a thug is super effective! While we are at it, is there a monastery around? I need to learn that crane style!" Only to then decide hey vivisectionis sneak attacks and Jekyll/Hyde mutagens are so paladin like and effective, he got to have it, even though it is the lowest of the low tactics only employed by at best questionable characters.
But hey, anything goes and can be rationalized by a munchkin, regardless how retarded it might be, right?

 

[Perpetual Nothing]

Pathfinder is generally a more flexible system. Paladins are not stereotypical "refuse rewards, fight evil, be stupid, die". Their code of conduct depends on their god - paladin of Abadar (god of cities and merchants) should specifically ask for rewards, for example, as his god is basically a god of capitalism. Paladins of Irori (monk god, in short) had probably trained with monks half their lives.

The same is true with Thugs - a thug is a collection of abilities (frightening and brutal beating) that signify certain methods, not a villain archetype that you painted. It does not require you to be evil or do evil or dishonorable things (some classes or archetypes do, but not this one). It just means that your paladin relies on intimidation, sometimes supported by physical violence instead of just relying on physical violence. It actually makes sense if the paladin tries to achieve justice - a paladin may very well believe that some bruises and a healthy dose of fear can cause some bandit to reconsider his way of life and change for the better. Perhaps that paladin was even a bandit in the past (a common vocation in fantasy) and found the right way by receiving some. Often the alternative is to kill said bandits, which is hardly a less evil or more lawful option. Some might say that law works because it is supported by fear and punishment. You might also imagine said paladin as a "drill sergeant paladin," for example, going to a slightly different direction with this character.

Vivisectionist is far harder to justify though, which is why I did not try and instead had gone for the thug.

 

[Incendax]

Nonsense. A thug deploys tactics any paladin would find abhorrent and, more importantly, dishonorable. It does not matter how you spin it, thugish tactics, outside of retarded munchkin, is a no go for a paladin but I guess any sorry excuse is sufficient for the average power gamer. A class is not just a set of abilities, it is a way of life for that character, a core part of his or her or its, in case of some exotic/monstrous character races, identity. Some combinations are easily justifiable, like adding fighter, since martial prowess is already a part of a paladins core identity and a few extra levels of fighter implies that the paladin takes extra effort to master his weapon.

Perhaps you come from an enlightened nation where Paladins do not have to be Lawful Good, and instead make oaths of devotion, vengeance, or even swear loyalty to the fey themselves? The rest of the world just hasn't caught up to you, yet.

 

[ArchAngel]

Nonsense. A thug deploys tactics any paladin would find abhorrent and, more importantly, dishonorable. It does not matter how you spin it, thugish tactics, outside of retarded munchkin, is a no go for a paladin but I guess any sorry excuse is sufficient for the average power gamer. A class is not just a set of abilities, it is a way of life for that character, a core part of his or her or its, in case of some exotic/monstrous character races, identity. Some combinations are easily justifiable, like adding fighter, since martial prowess is already a part of a paladins core identity and a few extra levels of fighter implies that the paladin takes extra effort to master his weapon.

Perhaps you come from an enlightened nation where Paladins do not have to be Lawful Good, and instead make oaths of devotion, vengeance, or even swear loyalty to the fey themselves? The rest of the world just hasn't caught up to you, yet.

Nation called 5th.

 

[Cael]

Think about it not from the backstory perspective, but the character archetype perspective. It's not that your paladin suddenly became a thug - it's his beatings that became more effective. Quote from thug description: "A thug, on the other hand, cares nothing for finesse. Through both threat and violence, the thug gets what she wants by the promise of force, and has no problem making good on that promise as needed." It just so happens that what this particular thug wants is to make a better place. And he isn't afraid to use his fists to achieve that.

You forgot the "Good" part of a Paladin's alignment. "Threats of force and violence to get what she wants" is not Good behaviour. Lawful, perhaps if he fulfills his threats, but not Good.

 

[Cael]

Paladins are not stereotypical "refuse rewards, fight evil, be stupid, die".

Neither is the original Paladin. Just because idiot Lawful Stupid children play Paladins that way doesn't mean the Paladin is supposed to be like that. Gygax himself has stated Paladins are not like that.

 

[Sykar]

Pathfinder is generally a more flexible system. Paladins are not stereotypical "refuse rewards, fight evil, be stupid, die". Their code of conduct depends on their god - paladin of Abadar (god of cities and merchants) should specifically ask for rewards, for example, as his god is basically a god of capitalism. Paladins of Irori (monk god, in short) had probably trained with monks half their lives.

The same is true with Thugs - a thug is a collection of abilities (frightening and brutal beating) that signify certain methods, not a villain archetype that you painted. It does not require you to be evil or do evil or dishonorable things (some classes or archetypes do, but not this one). It just means that your paladin relies on intimidation, sometimes supported by physical violence instead of just relying on physical violence. It actually makes sense if the paladin tries to achieve justice - a paladin may very well believe that some bruises and a healthy dose of fear can cause some bandit to reconsider his way of life and change for the better. Perhaps that paladin was even a bandit in the past (a common vocation in fantasy) and found the right way by receiving some. Often the alternative is to kill said bandits, which is hardly a less evil or more lawful option. Some might say that law works because it is supported by fear and punishment. You might also imagine said paladin as a "drill sergeant paladin," for example, going to a slightly different direction with this character.

Vivisectionist is far harder to justify though, which is why I did not try and instead had gone for the thug.

Nonsense. Nothing I said means that the Paladin has to be stupid. Accepting a reward is perfectly fine. What he does with it is another matter entirely. Refusing rewards is only really a thing in case you help people who cannot give you a reward. The main point about this though is that tt is about doing the right thing regardless of the reward ultimately. A thug on the other hand would probably want a reward regardless and also use it for himself.
A thug is not necessarily a villain and I never implied as such. I merely said that a paladin would never deploy a thugs method, period. A thug has no problem stabbing people in the back, poisoning them, etc. These methods can be used to do good. That still does not change the fact that they are dishonorable and diametrically opposed to what a paladin would even consider of doing, unless he was desperate and even that would be a big maybe.

Ergo thug is a completely and utterly nonsensical splash in from a RPG perspective. The only time I would deem it fine is if the player starts out as a thug and has profound life changing experience which makes him wish to join a paladin order. This of course is not something you just get from a level up, this would require serious role play.

 

[Cael]

A thug is not necessarily a villain and I never implied as such. I merely said that a paladin would never deploy a thugs method, period. A thug has no problem stabbing people in the back, poisoning them, etc. These methods can be used to do good. That still does not change the fact that they are dishonorable and diametrically opposed to what a paladin would even consider of doing, unless he was desperate and even that would be a big maybe.

You are basically contrasting Law vs Chaos.

That is the problem with people playing Paladins. They focus on Law or Good, but never both, and then cry about alignment.

 

[Perpetual Nothing]

You forgot the "Good" part of a Paladin's alignment. "Threats of force and violence to get what she wants" is not Good behaviour. Lawful, perhaps if he fulfills his threats, but not Good.

So, let me get this straight:

• "Using threats of force and violence" - not OK
• "Using actual force and violence" - OK

Paladins use force and violence all the time to get what they want (ridding the world of evil, for example).

A thug is not necessarily a villain and I never implied as such. I merely said that a paladin would never deploy a thugs method, period. A thug has no problem stabbing people in the back, poisoning them, etc. These methods can be used to do good. That still does not change the fact that they are dishonorable and diametrically opposed to what a paladin would even consider of doing, unless he was desperate and even that would be a big maybe.

Again, you paint a picture of a thug that is very inflexible. Some thugs may have no problem stabbing people in the back or poisoning them. Most thugs actually have problems with poisoning them though, as they lack Poison Use by default (they need to get it as a talent). Stabbing people in the back is also not a requirement to join the thug guild (that does not exist). You aren't required to engage in dishonorable behavior to take the archetype.

 

[Rex Feral]

Lawful, perhaps if he fulfills his threats, but not Good.

Is this considering threats as promises?

By this logic, failing to fulfill a threat would be like breaking a promise or lying.

I can already imagine a good example:

"I will hang you by your entrails, bandit," threatened the Paladin

However, he (accidentally or not) gives the bandit a quick death.

*You failed to fulfill your threat of hanging the bandit by his entrails* -> Your alignment has shifted to chaotic, you have fallen from grace as a Paladin.

 

[Daidre]

I am always so sad that promise to Kalannah to make her eat her own entrails in slavers ambush just an empty threat It is head meets sword or electrocution from Reg for her but it is so boooring.

 

[Sykar]

You forgot the "Good" part of a Paladin's alignment. "Threats of force and violence to get what she wants" is not Good behaviour. Lawful, perhaps if he fulfills his threats, but not Good.

So, let me get this straight:

• "Using threats of force and violence" - not OK
• "Using actual force and violence" - OK

Paladins use force and violence all the time to get what they want (ridding the world of evil, for example).

A thug is not necessarily a villain and I never implied as such. I merely said that a paladin would never deploy a thugs method, period. A thug has no problem stabbing people in the back, poisoning them, etc. These methods can be used to do good. That still does not change the fact that they are dishonorable and diametrically opposed to what a paladin would even consider of doing, unless he was desperate and even that would be a big maybe.

Again, you paint a picture of a thug that is very inflexible. Some thugs may have no problem stabbing people in the back or poisoning them. Most thugs actually have problems with poisoning them though, as they lack Poison Use by default (they need to get it as a talent). Stabbing people in the back is also not a requirement to join the thug guild (that does not exist). You aren't required to engage in dishonorable behavior to take the archetype.

Are you serious? Sneak attack is a core part of the thief class, including the thug archetype. Likewise winning by any means necessary is also part of that package. Do you even realize what "thug" means?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thug

Definition of thug


: a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER, TOUGH

Quite literally a thug is a person involved in criminal behavior more often than not. Very few thugs or hell even thieves are genuinely "nice" or "good" in any way shape or form. They might exist, but they are the exception, not the rule. For a paladin this is essentially anathema to their core beliefs and code of honor. And no, not most thugs would have a problem with poisoning, why would they? They are essentially criminals growing up in a violent and criminal environment. But please keep continuing with your pathetic rationalizations living in some lala land where definition of words do not have strong implications.

Edit: Let us see what the Pathfinder P&P rules say about thugs:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo-rogue-archetypes/thug/
Some criminals steal with finesse, their victims only discovering the crime when the rogue is long gone and the coin already spent. A thug, on the other hand, cares nothing for finesse. Through both threat and violence, the thug gets what she wants by the promise of force, and has no problem making good on that promise as needed.

Huh, that is strange, again classified as a criminal who has no problem taking whatever he or she wants, just not with the same finesse as a classic rogue would. Now tell me again how likely would it be for a paladin to deploy criminal methods because that is the core of the class, regardless whether they are used for good or evil.
Oh and by the way, I never once said "thug guild" I wrote "thieves guild" and do most certainly exist. In other words learn to fucking read.
Oh and lastly, ALL rogues and in fact all classes can use poisons. There is no specific requirement, even fighters and paladins can use poisons. The advanced thief talents merely enhance the proficiency like for example not poisoning yourself accidentally which is what the Poison use feat does:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo-rogue-talents/poison-use-ex