Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
I've played the game as someting between LN and LE, didn't feel anything really jarring or wrong (apart from the broken hellknights quest, it basically had only one resolution ('nothing personnel kid')), I guess it's just non-Russian people have very different notion what is 'lawful' and what is 'good'.
Hellknights quest was universally seen as terrible afair. It's an example of what I said about designers dropping the ball. It's especially egregious because in the rest of the game they usually aren't so bad with quest design, it's like that whole quest was written by a backer or something. The railroading was ridiculous--when designers want to do something like that I'd rather they just remove all other dialogue options if they are false choices. At least then you know what's going on.
Okay, there you go. I thought I remembered something like that, but wasn't sure. Just more proof that backers literally ruin games when they are allowed to. Owlcat was more restrained in allowing backer content than Obsidian thank god.
by this logic, shouldn't we also be forbidden from coming up with a build ahead of time? if char dev is a lifelong progression informed by experience, how could a level 1 fighter *really* know what he would look like as a level 20 fighter? it would take that leveling up to know what excellence actually looks like for him.
This IS what character classes represent and facilitate. Having a character class means they have trained just enough to become competent in that vocation—the assumed amount of time it took would be different between classes, but the wizard can cast a spell, and the fighter is not wholly defenseless with a weapon. This is (or can be) interpreted to explain why classes are barred from certain skills or abilities; game mechanics aside (the real reason), would a wizard who spent a decade or more to learn offensive spells, take [ie. waste] the time training to become proficient swinging a sharpened stick?—and be okay with being seen to win not by use of magic, but by hitting their enemy with a rock? Vise versa with a veteran warrior being reduced to using cantrips to win duels by —cheating—.
It extrapolates not why they can't learn to use it, but why they would never choose to learn to use it.
I feel you on narrative integrity - the game has to make sense or you lose immersion. but if we have to tolerate some degree of meta (like character level up decisions), there is much to gain and little to lose if we use that meta to respec our companion's to something both lore appropriate and gameplay viable? minsc would have to stay a barbarian of course. but does immersion require our fighter to have an odd intelligence score? changing a 15 int 13 dex fighter into a 14 int 14 dex fighter clears up meta nonsense but surely that does not harm story integrity?
Limited respec? The simplest way is to not give the option, and have the player accept people as they are. Using Minsc as example, suppose that odd level intelligence was to —ensure— they could not gain the bonus immediately.
The worse problem is the developers who design respeccing into the game from the outset, even building the gameplay around it! It limits and cheapens the PC, and NPC alike, for no commitments have any weight —or teeth when they are decided. Nothing is written in stone, and anything can be backpedaled out of. That is when the characters truly become just a list of optional numbers; interchangeable ones at that. For with that, one can no longer write a personality based on the statistics; the game doesn't hold you to their consequences.
For a first run, I can understand that, the rp aspect does carry some weight. But you should be able to unlock unlimited respecs after you've completed the game once - by that point people have smelt the roses and are starting to just play around with builds.
Also, the rationale for no respec at all only makes sense if the player understands the system, but that's precisely what a new player doesn't. And yet the character would (they would know their class, its potential and further capabilities).
That being the case, having at least a limited number of respecs for your first run (maybe 2 or 3), but within the class/profession you've chosen, seems to me to be a happy medium - otherwise one is being too strict and obsessive about the rp context. It also makes in-character sense too, because if you're in a class, you have mentors, etc., you know the capabilities of the class and what you've got to build towards - and again, that's something your character would know, but you as a player don't, so it's unfair to limit the player in a way that the character himself isn't limited.
(This is actually a beef I have with many games that plonk the player in an unknown context where clearly the character themselves would have the relevant knowledge.)
Planning the future of a character is completely different from retconning one. Also the retraining option is enabled by default for easier difficulties, so clearly the devs agree that its fine for newer players. But its not for tabletop IMO and it doesn't fit the narrative that you can spend a year adventuring to gain experience then completely swap that out overnight later.
I did check and there are apparently retraining rules for Pathfinder.
Which seem pretty dumb to me and would be wildly imbalanced compared to the amount of time and wealth you have in PFKM.
One of the most critical choices you can make about your character is what class to choose when you gain a level.
In general, it takes 7 days to retrain one level in a class into one level in another class. Some classes are more suited for this kind of retraining, as they have a similar focus or purpose—this is called retraining synergy. If your old class has retraining synergy with your new class, retraining that class level takes only 5 days instead of 7 days. Determine class retraining synergies according to Table 3 –8: Retraining Synergies.
Most prestige classes have retraining synergy with base classes that share their common class features. For example, the arcane trickster prestige class requires and advances arcane spellcasting, so it has retraining synergy with all arcane spellcasting classes. It also requires and advances sneak attack, so it has retraining synergy with classes that grant sneak attack. The GM is the final arbiter of whether or not a prestige class has retraining synergy with a base class, but should err on the side of generosity—if you would rather spend time retraining levels over and over again instead of adventuring, that is your choice.
Yeah, a few weeks to completely rewrite a character would be pretty broken in game.
If you are a spontaneous spellcaster (such as a bard, oracle, sorcerer, or summoner), you can retrain a spell known. This retraining takes 2 days per spell level of the new spell (or 1 day in the case of a cantrip or orison) and requires a trainer who can cast the spell you want. The trainer must cast the same kind of spells as you do (arcane or divine).
The spell with which you’re replacing the previous spell must be another from your class spell list. The new spell must be one you could place in the old spell’s spell slot. Note that this retraining is unrelated to the ability of sorcerers (or other spontaneous spellcasters) to learn a new spell in place of an old one at certain class levels. That class ability is free, happens instantly when the character gains an appropriate level in the spellcasting class, doesn’t require a trainer, and can happen only once for any appropriate class level. Retraining a spell known requires you to spend gp, takes time, requires a trainer, and can happen as often as you want.
Totally breaking class balance if you can just retrain the direct counter to your current situation in 2 days (even a wizard would take 1 day to rest and memorize a different spell list), then spam it as you please with all the sorcerer's advantages.
Sometimes the dice aren’t in your favor when you gain a level and the hit points you roll are especially low. Unlike retraining other character abilities, retraining hit points doesn’t involve replacing an existing ability with a new one, it just increases your maximum hit points.
Retraining hit points takes 3 days and requires you to spend time at a martial academy, monk monastery, or with some kind of master of combat who is at least one level higher than you. At the end of the training period, increase your hit points by 1. You can retrain hit points only if your maximum hit point total is less than the maximum possible hit point total for your character.
Example: If you are a fighter 5 with Constitution 14 and you haven’t allocated any of your favored class bonus to hit points, your maximum possible hit point total is 60: (d10 HD + 2 from Constitution) × 5 levels. If your maximum hit point total is already 60, you can’t retrain hit points because you are already at the limit. If you took the Toughness feat, you would gain 5 hit points and your maximum possible hit point total would also increase by 5, which means your ability to retrain hit points would be the same as without the feat.
Just lol. In a PFKM context where half the party members are sitting in the capital all the time this would basically just be free maximized HP for everyone. Clearly this stuff isn't balanced for anything but a very strictly time-limited adventure.
I did like the aspect of sucking up to an LE chick just making the abuse worse. People spinning their wheels against that trying to figure out how exactly to submit to make the dominatrix like them was at least amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were an alternative resolution that involved abusing her at every opportunity.
The other strength was that the inn fight was probably the most challenging ambush in the game on higher difficulties.
I did like the aspect of sucking up to an LE chick just making the abuse worse. People spinning their wheels against that trying to figure out how exactly to submit to make the dominatrix like them was at least amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were an alternative resolution that involved abusing her at every opportunity.
The other strength was that the inn fight was probably the most challenging ambush in the game on higher difficulties.
You actually can oppose her at every turn. It just isn't handled very well imo. Either way you're railroaded by one of them--the options to tell them both to fuck off (which is your right as a ruler) don't really work, either way one of them "gets one over" on you which doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to the rest of the game where they actually do treat you like you have agency as a ruler.
The worst part of it is I'm not even a "fuck hellknights" guy I like them thematically, but she's such an asshole and oversteps her bounds that I'd want to side against her despite generally liking the hellknights.
I think the easy solution would have been just to let you kill both of them. But clearly the guy writing it really loved his super amazing characters.
I did like the aspect of sucking up to an LE chick just making the abuse worse. People spinning their wheels against that trying to figure out how exactly to submit to make the dominatrix like them was at least amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were an alternative resolution that involved abusing her at every opportunity.
The other strength was that the inn fight was probably the most challenging ambush in the game on higher difficulties.
You actually can oppose her at every turn. It just isn't handled very well imo. Either way you're railroaded by one of them--the options to tell them both to fuck off (which is your right as a ruler) don't really work, either way one of them "gets one over" on you which doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to the rest of the game where they actually do treat you like you have agency as a ruler.
The worst part of it is I'm not even a "fuck hellknights" guy I like them thematically, but she's such an asshole and oversteps her bounds that I'd want to side against her despite generally liking the hellknights.
I think the easy solution would have been just to let you kill both of them. But clearly the guy writing it really loved his super amazing characters.
Either the leveling is so slow, or the game is very long and i barely scratched the surface. Also devs probably think you should fight every encounter which i craftsly avoid by savescumming. Im at troll king lair and ive already clocked like 40 hours of the game. Apparently it's 1/4 of the game. With my pace i will play this game for months, because i can't binge play it -the game somehow offputs you after few hours and you need a break.
I did like the aspect of sucking up to an LE chick just making the abuse worse. People spinning their wheels against that trying to figure out how exactly to submit to make the dominatrix like them was at least amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were an alternative resolution that involved abusing her at every opportunity.
The other strength was that the inn fight was probably the most challenging ambush in the game on higher difficulties.
You actually can oppose her at every turn. It just isn't handled very well imo. Either way you're railroaded by one of them--the options to tell them both to fuck off (which is your right as a ruler) don't really work, either way one of them "gets one over" on you which doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to the rest of the game where they actually do treat you like you have agency as a ruler.
The worst part of it is I'm not even a "fuck hellknights" guy I like them thematically, but she's such an asshole and oversteps her bounds that I'd want to side against her despite generally liking the hellknights.
I think the easy solution would have been just to let you kill both of them. But clearly the guy writing it really loved his super amazing characters.
Can you kill the pirate? I never saw any opportunity to do so, isn't he only in cutscenes/dialogues? Or is that some sequence break where you agree to get rid of him for her and then go after her? I dunno, I only just said fuck off to the both of them which resulted in killing the hellknight squaddies and the pirate saying "fufufu just as keikaku"
Sounds like you’re playing on too hard of a difficulty for your level of mastery. Fights go fast if you’re using your strengths to attack enemy weaknesses.
If you’re trying to beat the whole game with Grease and Magic Missile and Healbots and tanking Trolls it’s going to be a slog.
Hint: Bards can sing and cast fight at the same time and their best buffs/spells are unique.
IMO spellcasting in Pathfinder is way weaker than in OG D&D. At least as far as powernukes go, there isn't anything like BG2's "everything on screen dies instantly". I always saw the biggest damage from fighters, at least as far as single target goes.
Spellcasting so far is very weak. Amiri is the biggest damage dealer, even my tank deals more damage. There aren't even that good CC spells, or debuffs with huge maluses. For example you need to land some spell, but first you need to lower target defenses. Your debuff spell doesn't work and then your primary spell also fail. Shitton of scrolls that add some measly +1 to resistance/roll, WTF is this worthless shit? I have to stack these from four sources, to get +4. Rolls of course can screw you easily. I've dropped the diff from challenging to normal because for a first playthrough i thought it was going too slow/hard/too much micromanaging this shit.
No, we should not. At least in CRPG's - a dungeon master can do lots of things.
When an NPC joins the party her/his life becomes dependent on the main hero. In Kingmaker the main hero is a ruler of the land with the right of pit and gallows - so without plot armor a 1 level fighter can be executed right away, exiled or made 1 fighter / 19 thug. And, depending on the tasks assigned, this NPC will change his attributes - though it is abstracted to pressing buttons on the level up screen.
I agree that's what that DLC is for, clearly (and I've had a lot of fun with it for that ). But it wasn't always there, and I'm thinking more in general terms for RPGs at large. I really don't see much point in withholding full respecs after your first character and you know the story more or less. If someone's that keen on rp flavour just use discipline at that point. The story/rp function has been served by being judicious about respecs for the player's first run, when everything is new, fresh and exciting. Lack of respecs after that point is just a meta irritant.
Also, the rationale for no respec at all only makes sense if the player understands the system, but that's precisely what a new player doesn't. And yet the character would (they would know their class, its potential and further capabilities).
This is what a game manual is for; be it in-game, PDF, or even a printed book. Also it's what in-game tutorials and in-game descriptions are for—to teach the player what they need to know going into the game. The alternative is... utterly simplistic gameplay, and the respec kludge.
The [dev] mentality of, "They should learn just by seeing it!" works for D00M, and equates to learning the use of a fork & spoon, as opposed to learning the use of a multi-meter. Somethings necessarily require instructions.
...so it's unfair to limit the player in a way that the character himself isn't limited.
Is this not contrary to the essential concept of roleplaying? The player chooses the PC to either be free of their own limits, or to vicariously experience the PC's limitation. The very intention is to restrict the player to a different set of bounds.
*But to your point, again... RTFM, no? It's not the game's fault unless the information isn't provided; it usually is.
Also, the rationale for no respec at all only makes sense if the player understands the system, but that's precisely what a new player doesn't. And yet the character would (they would know their class, its potential and further capabilities).
This is what a game manual is for; be it in-game, PDF, or even a printed book. Also it's what in-game tutorials and in-game descriptions are for—to teach the player what they need to know going into the game. The alternative is... utterly simplistic gameplay, and the respec kludge.
The [dev] mentality of, "They should learn just by seeing it!" works for D00M, and equates to learning the use of a fork & spoon, as opposed to learning the use of a multi-meter. Somethings necessarily require instructions.
...so it's unfair to limit the player in a way that the character himself isn't limited.
Is this not contrary to the essential concept of roleplaying? The player chooses the PC to either be free of their own limits, or to vicariously experience the PC's limitation. The very intention is to restrict the player to a different set of bounds.
*But to your point, again... RTFM, no? It's not the game's fault unless the information isn't provided; it usually is.
Ideally yes, but the days of doorstop manuals, lovingly made and illustrated, is long gone, and developers seldom seem to see the need to reveal the full range of skills, etc. (A notable recent-ish case in point was nuXCOM - wtf is the point of hiding the later perks, when that's usually what you're going to be aiming for synergies around, so you need to know what they are?)
Further thought: on reflection, I think i'm in the middle position betwen rp fag and combat/buildfag. I love the rp side of a game when I first go through it, but let's face it, the illusion of a virtual world is paper-thin in videogames and only lasts so long as everything's new. Once I've immersively experienced most of what the game has to offer in terms of story and world building, from then on the thing that keeps me playing is builds and combat.
If someone's that keen on rp flavour just use discipline at that point. The story/rp function has been served by being judicious about respecs for the player's first run, when everything is new, fresh and exciting. Lack of respecs after that point is just a meta irritant.
There is a mod for that. If one wants to change the game beyond the vision of the developers then mod it. And, if you can't mod, you can spend time learning how to do it instead of complaining about the lack of built-in functionality.
However, most of these can be found either in-game or on the D20 Pathfinder site. Only some fine details about Kingmaker idiosyncrasies require separate investigation, and there are not that much of them.
It is different for the entirely new and unique subsystem like Kingdom Management.
IMO spellcasting in Pathfinder is way weaker than in OG D&D. At least as far as powernukes go, there isn't anything like BG2's "everything on screen dies instantly". I always saw the biggest damage from fighters, at least as far as single target goes.
BG2 starts you off at a level that requires 20 hours to reach in PFKM, so its hard to compare. BG2 also allowed you to flout a lot of the PnP rules. "nuking" in D&D has traditionally been worse than disabling/buffing/debuffing. This goes double for PFKM since you can sustain a lot more fights per day with long buffs on fighters and a few spot disablers on stronger enemies as compared to blowing up half your highest level spell slots on each battle.
That said the best straight damage seems to be from abusing sneak attacks which are way easier to get than they should be. Which can be from melee, ranged, or a magic based character.
Spellcasting so far is very weak. Amiri is the biggest damage dealer, even my tank deals more damage. There aren't even that good CC spells, or debuffs with huge maluses. For example you need to land some spell, but first you need to lower target defenses. Your debuff spell doesn't work and then your primary spell also fail. Shitton of scrolls that add some measly +1 to resistance/roll, WTF is this worthless shit? I have to stack these from four sources, to get +4. Rolls of course can screw you easily. I've dropped the diff from challenging to normal because for a first playthrough i thought it was going too slow/hard/too much micromanaging this shit.
Uhh...
Grease (Fucks up everything and gives your fighters free AoOs when things try to stand up, doubling their damage output or more if they have combat reflexes)
Enlarge Person (makes your fighters stronger, their weapon stronger, and gives them more range so they can stand next to grease and smack shit inside it)
Glitterdust (blinded enemies take huge penalties, and it reveals invisible enemies).
Web (just generally fucks a lot of shit up in a wide area).
That's just up to level 2. Level 3 spells start to break the game with stinking cloud. Stinking Cloud + poison immunity or grease/web + freedom of movement = easy win for 95% of encounters as your melee just walks around freely beating the shit out of helpless enemies.
What debuff are you trying to land before using your normal spells? Most of the time you're just better off casting something twice if it fails the first time. Two 50% chance to hit spells are better than debuffing to give one spell a 60% chance. There's a few enemies like the dragon in Kamelands which has huge saves and requires some special tactics if you want to beat it early but aside from that most enemies are very likely to go down to normal spells with a good casting stat and greater spell focus: conjuration.
For tough enemies like aforementioned dragon I used Enervation (level 4) which subtracts levels with no save and a ranged touch attack. If you want to be sure not to miss that attack you can buff with true strike, though normal buffs should suffice.
This is the problem with the modern Dev mentality that their game must use 100% of the assets in the campaign.
RPGs usually have dedicated character creation systems—to create characters. It's ridiculous that the player should make one PC, and know the entire game after completing it. The whole point of varied player characters is to handle the campaign differently; to see how a PC with different skills, ethics, and philosophy would fair in the same situations. Different choices, strengths, and more importantly weaknesses should limit what the player can see of the campaign; no Steve Urkel PC should see the path of winning trial by combat with trolls, and no Conan clones should survive the day by conducting occult research...
As such the Conan clone need never even visit the occult library map—shouldn't even be let in, nor want to visit it; would never get the cerebral/esoteric conversations with the librarian. It's all out of character. Isn't this better than forcing the fighter PC to eventually burn the library? Consider that other PCs like a bard might visit and use the library, yet never see places within, that a wizard would find (or be invited to).
The world should be vast, but the paths should be narrow. This way, the player sees at least some new ground with each differing PC. This way the NPC's would treat them —very differently using a very different character to play the hero (or villain).
Spellcasting so far is very weak. Amiri is the biggest damage dealer, even my tank deals more damage. There aren't even that good CC spells, or debuffs with huge maluses. For example you need to land some spell, but first you need to lower target defenses. Your debuff spell doesn't work and then your primary spell also fail. Shitton of scrolls that add some measly +1 to resistance/roll, WTF is this worthless shit? I have to stack these from four sources, to get +4. Rolls of course can screw you easily. I've dropped the diff from challenging to normal because for a first playthrough i thought it was going too slow/hard/too much micromanaging this shit.
So your first comment aside, is true that there is a lot of content in Kingmaker and it can feel like a slog at times.
There a few ways to deal with this (Desiderius would probably tell you a change in perspective/attitude would help) but the way I dealt with it was to create a party that can steamroll trash encounters efficiently. See my signature for more information.
IMO spellcasting in Pathfinder is way weaker than in OG D&D. At least as far as powernukes go, there isn't anything like BG2's "everything on screen dies instantly". I always saw the biggest damage from fighters, at least as far as single target goes.
BG2 starts you off at a level that requires 20 hours to reach in PFKM, so its hard to compare. BG2 also allowed you to flout a lot of the PnP rules. "nuking" in D&D has traditionally been worse than disabling/buffing/debuffing. This goes double for PFKM since you can sustain a lot more fights per day with long buffs on fighters and a few spot disablers on stronger enemies as compared to blowing up half your highest level spell slots on each battle.
That said the best straight damage seems to be from abusing sneak attacks which are way easier to get than they should be. Which can be from melee, ranged, or a magic based character.
Spellcasting so far is very weak. Amiri is the biggest damage dealer, even my tank deals more damage. There aren't even that good CC spells, or debuffs with huge maluses. For example you need to land some spell, but first you need to lower target defenses. Your debuff spell doesn't work and then your primary spell also fail. Shitton of scrolls that add some measly +1 to resistance/roll, WTF is this worthless shit? I have to stack these from four sources, to get +4. Rolls of course can screw you easily. I've dropped the diff from challenging to normal because for a first playthrough i thought it was going too slow/hard/too much micromanaging this shit.
Uhh...
Grease (Fucks up everything and gives your fighters free AoOs when things try to stand up, doubling their damage output or more if they have combat reflexes)
Enlarge Person (makes your fighters stronger, their weapon stronger, and gives them more range so they can stand next to grease and smack shit inside it)
Glitterdust (blinded enemies take huge penalties, and it reveals invisible enemies).
Web (just generally fucks a lot of shit up in a wide area).
That's just up to level 2. Level 3 spells start to break the game with stinking cloud. Stinking Cloud + poison immunity or grease/web + freedom of movement = easy win for 95% of encounters as your melee just walks around freely beating the shit out of helpless enemies.
What debuff are you trying to land before using your normal spells? Most of the time you're just better off casting something twice if it fails the first time. Two 50% chance to hit spells are better than debuffing to give one spell a 60% chance. There's a few enemies like the dragon in Kamelands which has huge saves and requires some special tactics if you want to beat it early but aside from that most enemies are very likely to go down to normal spells with a good casting stat and greater spell focus: conjuration.
For tough enemies like aforementioned dragon I used Enervation (level 4) which subtracts levels with no save and a ranged touch attack. If you want to be sure not to miss that attack you can buff with true strike, though normal buffs should suffice.
I'm directly comparing the highest level spells though. Anyway, some of the strongest spells are in the 5-7 range in 2e D&D. I honestly can't think of a single spell in WOTR or PFKM that really wows me in terms of field-clearing damage. Honestly you'd probably be better off just casting 1quickened fireball + fireball than using a level 8 spell.
And yeah, I specifically said "offensively" and "aoe". Spells are good in Pathfinder for debuffing and buffing. That's how I played too. Doesn't change the above argument.
That is when the characters truly become just a list of optional numbers; interchangeable ones at that. For with that, one can no longer write a personality based on the statistics; the game doesn't hold you to their consequences.
). But it wasn't always there, and I'm thinking more in general terms for RPGs at large. I really don't see much point in withholding full respecs after your first character and you know the story more or less. If someone's that keen on rp flavour just use discipline at that point. The story/rp function has been served by being judicious about respecs for the player's first run, when everything is new, fresh and exciting. Lack of respecs after that point is just a meta irritant.
