Yep, it's his. Rosanne already has it in the load order in EET Tool. Edit: And m7multikit is very new. So. lol
BG2EET Load Order said:
3ed.ini said:
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat
- Thread starter Elex
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,978
PnPer TB purists are on a mission from Asmodeus or some shit. RTwP cRPGers are as bugs to be crushed under the mighty heel.
I mean.. only to the point where the foundation of your design should start from TB or RTWP. Pathfinder is already TB, and changing one variable changes a lot of variables. But that's simply how it's designed.
So when we look at RTWP, honestly, we just need to start from thinking about RTWP gameplay. I mean, the Move -> Turn is a staple in wargames. 40k. Etc.
At the same time, a RTWP computer game can't be turned into the same experience as a hypothetical TB game. Well maybe simultaneous. In which case you could should check out Frozen Synapse.
Nothing wrong with either but hopefully the designers understand that for any game, everything about the game is catered towards "genre."
Now, some certain developers are smart enough to "pick and choose" exactly the things that can be carried over... The Infinity Engine crew. It's like, you have to search for mechanics that you can best "emulate" into your system. So you gotta understand your system, encounter design, whatever. Gotta craft it based on the foundation it was built upon, not the imaginary one in the sky.
I think I am asking this question at least for the 5th time.
Are there interruptions of the turn in "wargames, 40k Etc."? In MtG they are, by the way, and they are called "instants". And they are in all turn based computer tactical games worthy of the name.
If they are in Pathfinder table-top rule set then they have to be implemented in the turn based mode for Pathfinder computer games. Obviously, they are not implemented in Kingmaker.
If they aren't then it is the shortcoming of the human's brain that had to be alleviated by the game rules, be it in wargames or D&D. There is no need to drag those shortcomings to computer games. CPUs calculate much faster than humans, so let them do just that: calculate and chose the strategy. If XCOM, JA, Phoenix Point, Gears Tactics can do that then Kingmaker, DoS, future BG-3 had to do that, too. Otherwise, use RTwP and present simultaneous flow of events to the player.
It is amusing that I, being an old fun of turn based strategies (starting from the original UFO: Enemy Unknown), have to argue for the RTwP mode.
Or - as an alternative - they need to make the turn even more granular. One turn to take the scroll from the pouch with the DEX roll to not drop it. Then the enemy can shoot off the hand holding the scroll. Another turn to unroll it with the DEX roll to not tear it in the middle. Again - the enemy's fireball can then burn the scroll in the hands of the caster. Then the turn to read it with the WIS or INT check to comprehend the text and the concentration check to be able to read a spell in the middle of the fight. The enemy can then decapitate the caster so there are no eyes to read, no mouth to say the spell and no brain to understand it. And only then the spell from the scroll would have been cast successfully.
If one does not want neither RTwP nor TB with interruptions then do that. It's a CPU, it does not get bored.
Last edited:
Well by wargames I really do mean the 40k tabletop type, not cards. This evolved right out of them. I mean, a very much older game but I'm just saying that the concept of "move-action" as separate phases is still orthodox in mainstream tabletop. It's just interesting, not a criticism.
Besides that, you'd be well off going through the Tactical forum; yes, this game is tactical, but the fundamental ruleset is about LARPing... Anyways so there are many more models of turn based tactics...
What keeps coming to mind is Silent Storm 1 and 2. When you talk about interrupts, yeah, many games take into account where your character is aiming on the enemy's turn, so even though it's not your turn, he ran in front of you and essentially reaction shot. That's typical/grognard Turn Based Tactics.
What's interesting is... there is a tabletop game that skirmish level and plays a lot like that. There are cones of fire. Overwatch down hallway. You build up the "battlefield" so there's movement in 3 dimensions or entering/exiting a building. And #1 thing in this game is to get cover lol. (Infinity)
Well, I had seen (sadly, only once) a proper Warhammer (not 40k) table top game, and it was amazing. They were manipulating units, though, and (mostly) not individual soldiers. A "move>action" sequence was quite relevant for wars - and wargames - before the end of WW-1 (when modern mobile war was first tried out).
But when it was scaled down to the level of 1 person instead of a unit - I think it lost its meaning. Archers can shoot from horsebacks - not only in "Game of Thrones" show, but in actual Mongolian invasion. A duelist, a wushu monk move a lot, all their fight is movement and action together. A rogue should be able to hide and move away - this is even implemented in Phoenix Point for Infiltrators as 1 turn action.
So may be D&D is flawed in its roots, and Gullap brothers were the first to realize it, so in the game where the turn is passed between individual soldiers instead of platoons - they at least added interruptions. And "do whatever you want until you're out of time units" logic as well, which then, sadly, was abandoned by XCOMs.
Last edited:
Yosharian
Arcane
Hmm yeah interesting, just being able to equip it with e.g. Vanquisher makes it pretty powerful. How does its BAB scale?
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,978
Just realized I’d never tried TB before. Wow that is really smooth. As Lann says though big part of my game is interrupting things. This would play out more like D:OS with enemy not getting chance to act much at all.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,978
All he’s got to do is make Bullseye Shot functionality same as True Strike (give it an extra turn before it expires if unused). In RTwP you’re not always, or ever, sure about where in the current turn you are. I had it on Autocast and it worked with regular shot but not Spellstrike for some reason.
Once I turned off all auto pause other than end of turn it worked.
Once I turned off all auto pause other than end of turn it worked.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,256
Yes, Pathfnder has various things you can do during an opponents turn. Attacks of Opportunity are one. Immediate actions are another, various specific actions you can do whenever. Casting Feather Fall is the classic example, you can do it even after you start falling if you have it prepared. The most important thing missing, however, are Readied Actions. By not taking action during your turn, you can set up a conditional one that will happen immediately when triggered. Couple examples: Your Fighter is next to an enemy Wizard. You can set up a Readied Action to attack him as soon as he starts casting to force a concentration check with the damage dealt adding to the DC . Or you can set up a Readied Action to fire your bow at whoever first steps through a door. You get the idea. Counterspelling also works with Readied Actions. And as you can imagine, replicating this system's flexibility in a cRPG is not an easy thing to do.
Well, the problem with DOS is that they didn't roll for initiative. You have to roll for initiative here so you can't guarantee order. Owlcat didn't design/choose the foundational framework, Paizo did, so you're stuck with that natural basis, whether turn based or rtwp.
Well I think he was asking in terms of the tabletop wargames who he eyes to the side of the room while playing MTG, while the larpers are in their own little room.
Actually I was playing Infinity (excellent tactical level game) and they played a shitload of Lord of the Five Rings. Yeah. It was like autist central.
Oh my god
They're actually painted ;_;
Yeah, though I think it's more tactical than RPG. I'm not sure how faithful it is to tabletop, I think it came in with the nu XCOM crowd.
But
Play Sanctus Reach
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,978
D:OS does too have initiative through the Perception stat. It was so good they had to cheat and make you take turns. P:K doesn’t and if I’m playing for keeps I don’t have to rely much on rolls either.
Not that I am against larping per se; I just find it extremely difficult to LARP when the whole group of archers does nothing while Octavia destroys them with a perfectly placed fireball. Here my imagination breaks.
Overwatch, huh.
Well, that's how the TB mode should have been implemented. And that is what Mr. Sawyer should have added to his TB addon and, in general, to his combat system.
Damn it, everything is already in the rules, and some... erm... very intelligent people praise the TB mode as a "table top way to play". While in fact it is implemented so poorly that it becomes a -1 difficulty level cheat. Figures...
[/quote]Huh. Mechanics are based on existing turn based game. If the mechanics were based on a real time game, then that'd be different. Just from the core it changes every design decision you make.
You can't just transplant things and expect them to work. Because it's dependent on other parts and other parts depend on it. So right now what they have is a complete emulation, intentionally no rule changes.
This isn't just Pathfinder - it plays basically the same as ToEE. 3/3.5e.
Either you stick with emulation (aka don't change the formula) or be brilliant like Black Isle and sufficiently capturing as much from D&D as possible within a different framework.
Technically you're just missing it being simultaneous. Well, there are simultaneous turn based games - again, Frozen Synapse.
I don't need simultaneous flow if there are at least some attempts to emulate it. As Gallups did with overwatches and, as Xamenos wrote, is already done in Pathfinder rule set. I know that adding TB to Kingmaker was, basically, polishing an existing mod, so nothing like that could have been implemented.
What I don't understand is how local tabletoppers do not see it. Or pretend not to see. Maybe they would have preferred to play Divinity: Original Sin instead of Kingmaker.
The only reason Pathfinder exists is because tabletoppers have paid for it for years. There would otherwise be no Pathfinder. Essentially, being the target customer, Pathfinder caters to those grognards'. They're the main customers of Paizo, not you or any videogamers (unless it turns into some kind of franchise).
Anyways, simultaneous flow is a type of gameplay, turn based is a type of gameplay. Neither one is better but they are not the same. One is guaranteed to be sequential and is designed around that fact a la Chess. It's a different type of game, you're gonna be thinking differently. Oddly, more discrete and abstract at the same time.
I'm OK with the Pathfinder system never existing; Mr. Sawyer had managed to create his own combat system which was boring, but worked. The failure of the second Pillars is neither in the system nor in the setting; it's the decision to continue the story that has been finished. Also, I read another Pathfinder target customer about what is in the original Kingmaker module and what was added to the game. It's like night and day.
I don't know how Kingmaker affected the Pathfinder franchise, but I assure you that the first time in my life I have heard about Pathfinder was when I read the title of the computer game. I wonder whether the total number of all Pathfinder book buyers is more than the sales of the game.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,978
Explanation for how Silksworn Occultist works with Dragon Disciple:
Usual Occultist has Psychic Spellcasting and Medium + Martial (several of the latest hybrids start with this). Silksworn has Arcane (what you need for Dragon Disciple) + extra Implements (akin to Spell Schools but you can combine them then all three give their own passive and active effects and focus powers).
Dragon Disciple doesn’t care about Medium + Martial because Dragon.
Looks like Disciple also squeezes all three Bloodline Feats into six (seven?) levels.
Usual Occultist has Psychic Spellcasting and Medium + Martial (several of the latest hybrids start with this). Silksworn has Arcane (what you need for Dragon Disciple) + extra Implements (akin to Spell Schools but you can combine them then all three give their own passive and active effects and focus powers).
Dragon Disciple doesn’t care about Medium + Martial because Dragon.
Looks like Disciple also squeezes all three Bloodline Feats into six (seven?) levels.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,978
If you want a unique Dragon Disciple experience try Silksworn Occultist. INT-based spontaneous.
Yes it does work and somehow the pieces fit together quite well if you go for the Warrior and Healer panoply you get a Move Action teleport and full BAB among about twelve other things.
Yes it does work and somehow the pieces fit together quite well if you go for the Warrior and Healer panoply you get a Move Action teleport and full BAB among about twelve other things.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 6,606
Well, you roll for Initiative, fair enough. The important thing is that when your turn comes up, you can delay it as much, as you want and control when (after which character) you will act. Which is very different from Deadfire Turn Based patchwork job for example, where delaying actions automatically puts you at the end of round queue - which is just lazy and sucks.
"Patchwork" is a good choice of words - PFK didn't patch it together or make their own mechanics. I'm not playing PF:K turn-based simply because it's turn based. It's more like personal preference. The PFK TB is good because it took an existing designed structure that has been successful for almost two decades now. They didn't HAVE to but it was the safer and smarter move to stick with something that's worked.
I mean, Pathfinder: Kingmaker is the closest to tabletop rules I've seen, next to ToEE. Except a lot less clunky than ToEE. And being more interesting.
For Pillars, unfortunately PFK was lucky to have a pre-designed ruleset, Pillars did not. But based on this scenario, TB in Pillars should've been a new creation that fits with their OWN pre-designed ruleset. You can't blindly throw in concepts like delaying initiative and think you have good turn based design. Instead you need mechanics that best fit the situation, that situation being RWTP Pillars.
Problem is Pillars is that even as RTWP doesn't try to make new mechanics that complemented RTWP. They still went in too much "tabletop convention" in their minds. But Pillars is a RTWP computer game, and designwork has to start from that angle. If you do that - actually focus on RTWP - then there's potential for much better RTWP.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.