KickStarter Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pre-DLC Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

[fantadomat]

In what way? I too find her intolerable and annoying little cunt. But how the fuck is MS? I find her extremely weak and pointless character in my game,she dies fast and misses 90% of her attacks. Sure maybe my build wasn't that good,but all the rest i could find some use for.

being a mary sue has nothing to do with game mechanics
she's written as a mary sue

Uhhh ok,isn't a girl that gets all her power,skills and social status handed on a silver plater without any explanation or logic a mery sue? She is written mighty annoying,that is a fact,but i don't see the MS argument. She is an spoiled egoistical whiny little bitch that wouldn't stop with her sexism. Shame you can't kill people that annoy you,only kick them out if you are lucky.

Now that i think about it,can you have custom made characters as a advisors or are you stuck with that bunch of sjw retards?

You can't have custom advisors but you can have NPCs in most positions

Spoiler

except for Regent, after a certain point

Yeah,i know about the regent,kicked his ass . I am ok,i always liked my future waifu being a regent. I am annoyed at how few chancellors is. It feels really forceful to have all this retards running your kingdom. The whole kingdom aspect feel forced,ether you go the tolerant rout and get bonus points or you get negatives. Playing evil is not....well written.

In what way? I too find her intolerable and annoying little cunt. But how the fuck is MS? I find her extremely weak and pointless character in my game,she dies fast and misses 90% of her attacks. Sure maybe my build wasn't that good,but all the rest i could find some use for.

being a mary sue has nothing to do with game mechanics
she's written as a mary sue

Uhhh ok,isn't a girl that gets all her power,skills and social status handed on a silver plater without any explanation or logic a mery sue? She is written mighty annoying,that is a fact,but i don't see the MS argument. She is an spoiled egoistical whiny little bitch that wouldn't stop with her sexism. Shame you can't kill people that annoy you,only kick them out if you are lucky.

Now that i think about it,can you have custom made characters as a advisors or are you stuck with that bunch of sjw retards?

That's one aspect of a Mary Sue, the other is that she/he has no flaws.

For example, you could write a character that got all her power, skills and social status handed to her on a silver platter, but has terrible flaws and has to learn to overcome them. That wouldn't be a Mary Sue, but an actually interesting character.

A lot of flaws are objective. Also most games characters don't have that much of a depth. All the Pathfinder ones don't have much flaws. Outside of being whiny and stupid,wasting my time with their retarded childish hissy fits.

 

[Lawntoilet]

In what way? I too find her intolerable and annoying little cunt. But how the fuck is MS? I find her extremely weak and pointless character in my game,she dies fast and misses 90% of her attacks. Sure maybe my build wasn't that good,but all the rest i could find some use for.

being a mary sue has nothing to do with game mechanics
she's written as a mary sue

Uhhh ok,isn't a girl that gets all her power,skills and social status handed on a silver plater without any explanation or logic a mery sue? She is written mighty annoying,that is a fact,but i don't see the MS argument. She is an spoiled egoistical whiny little bitch that wouldn't stop with her sexism. Shame you can't kill people that annoy you,only kick them out if you are lucky.

Now that i think about it,can you have custom made characters as a advisors or are you stuck with that bunch of sjw retards?

You can't have custom advisors but you can have NPCs in most positions

Spoiler

except for Regent, after a certain point

Yeah,i know about the regent,kicked his ass . I am ok,i always liked my future waifu being a regent. I am annoyed at how few chancellors is. It feels really forceful to have all this retards running your kingdom. The whole kingdom aspect feel forced,ether you go the tolerant rout and get bonus points or you get negatives. Playing evil is not....well written.

In what way? I too find her intolerable and annoying little cunt. But how the fuck is MS? I find her extremely weak and pointless character in my game,she dies fast and misses 90% of her attacks. Sure maybe my build wasn't that good,but all the rest i could find some use for.

being a mary sue has nothing to do with game mechanics
she's written as a mary sue

Uhhh ok,isn't a girl that gets all her power,skills and social status handed on a silver plater without any explanation or logic a mery sue? She is written mighty annoying,that is a fact,but i don't see the MS argument. She is an spoiled egoistical whiny little bitch that wouldn't stop with her sexism. Shame you can't kill people that annoy you,only kick them out if you are lucky.

Now that i think about it,can you have custom made characters as a advisors or are you stuck with that bunch of sjw retards?

That's one aspect of a Mary Sue, the other is that she/he has no flaws.

For example, you could write a character that got all her power, skills and social status handed to her on a silver platter, but has terrible flaws and has to learn to overcome them. That wouldn't be a Mary Sue, but an actually interesting character.

A lot of flaws are objective. Also most games characters don't have that much of a depth. All the Pathfinder ones don't have much flaws. Outside of being whiny and stupid,wasting my time with their retarded childish hissy fits.

You get better councillor options at least being "evil" - Shandra seems like the "evil" choice at the banquet, and Lamashtu priestess is evil too, so you really get screwed for a bit as a good guy without either one of them...

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Anyone happen to know how "Only active party members get XP" works with companions you haven't met yet? Do they scale up to the PC when you first meet them, or are they stuck massively under-leveled?
The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about locking in only active party gets XP since I'm pretty happy with my party composition now but I do want to pick up Nok-nok, and I'm curious if that'll leave him behind or not. I know everyone with their thumbs up their asses back in town won't get XP, but I wasn't sure how it handled companions you hadn't met yet. If they still "Soak up XP" beforehand or if they just auto-scale regardless of XP settings once you meet up for the first time.

- 86h into the game and I did not even scratch the map and the plot. This game is HUGE.

I agree with your post completely, but I just wanted to comment on this specifically. Seen a few other people mentioning how this stacks up favorably to BG2 in size and it's absolutely the case. Really surprising the hell out of me since I never really expected to get a big-ass RPG like that ever again since hell, I don't think anything's really compared to BG2 content-wise since. Pathfinder may not be QUITE as dense as BG2 (The mix of kingdom management and smaller scale areas and adventures give the game a bit of a lighter feeling to me. Not to mention BG2 had a stronger narrative running through it whereas PK is more running around your fun sandbox picking up smaller mostly disparate adventures and you don't have the child of Bhaal hanging over your head. I do like that since I enjoy adventurers adventuring without any chosen one shit going on but it does change the feel) but it's still extremely fucking sizable which surprises the hell out of me. Also because I can't think of any point while playing it so far where I've felt bored or sick of an area. In fact that's another point in PK's favor. My tactics change area to area a decent amount based on the area in question and the enemies. I'd say it's arguably stronger in that respect than even the BG games, and sure as absolute fuck stronger than PoE 1 and 2.

 

[Lawntoilet]

Anyone happen to know how "Only active party members get XP" works with companions you haven't met yet? Do they scale up to the PC when you first meet them, or are they stuck massively under-leveled?
The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about locking in only active party gets XP since I'm pretty happy with my party composition now but I do want to pick up Nok-nok, and I'm curious if that'll leave him behind or not. I know everyone with their thumbs up their asses back in town won't get XP, but I wasn't sure how it handled companions you hadn't met yet. If they still "Soak up XP" beforehand or if they just auto-scale regardless of XP settings once you meet up for the first time.

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

'spose that could be the case. I wasn't looking at the XP totals on the character sheet, I just noticed the difference from going to 60-odd XP awarded for killing a wyvern with shared XP enabled, to getting 400-odd XP awarded for the same wyvern with sharing XP off. Just could be displaying the XP awarded super fucking weird (The per-character amount in the first case, and then the full-party amount in the second) which is a bizarre way of doing it if so. Actually gonna boot it up just now and double check character sheet XP to confirm since that weirdness is throwing me off.

Edit: Sure enough. The end result is the same for both in a full party of 6, they just change what they display for the XP reward. Thanks for saving me from my own retardation Lawntoilet!

 

[Lawntoilet]

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

'spose that could be the case. I wasn't looking at the XP totals on the character sheet, I just noticed the difference from going to 60-odd XP awarded for killing a wyvern with shared XP enabled, to getting 400-odd XP awarded for the same wyvern with sharing XP off. Just could be displaying the XP awarded super fucking weird (The per-character amount in the first case, and then the full-party amount in the second) which is a bizarre way of doing it if so. Actually gonna boot it up just now and double check character sheet XP to confirm since that weirdness is throwing me off.

Edit: Sure enough. The end result is the same for both in a full party of 6, they just change what they display for the XP reward. Thanks for saving me from my own retardation Lawntoilet!

No problem The way it's displayed is pretty goofy.

 

[santino27]

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

'spose that could be the case. I wasn't looking at the XP totals on the character sheet, I just noticed the difference from going to 60-odd XP awarded for killing a wyvern with shared XP enabled, to getting 400-odd XP awarded for the same wyvern with sharing XP off. Just could be displaying the XP awarded super fucking weird (The per-character amount in the first case, and then the full-party amount in the second) which is a bizarre way of doing it if so. Actually gonna boot it up just now and double check character sheet XP to confirm since that weirdness is throwing me off.

Edit: Sure enough. The end result is the same for both in a full party of 6, they just change what they display for the XP reward. Thanks for saving me from my own retardation Lawntoilet!

Yep. There was a discussion about this on steam (and in this thread, about 50+ pages back) where a dev commented and clarified the behavior to be as Lawntoilet said.

 

[Yosharian]

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

'spose that could be the case. I wasn't looking at the XP totals on the character sheet, I just noticed the difference from going to 60-odd XP awarded for killing a wyvern with shared XP enabled, to getting 400-odd XP awarded for the same wyvern with sharing XP off. Just could be displaying the XP awarded super fucking weird (The per-character amount in the first case, and then the full-party amount in the second) which is a bizarre way of doing it if so. Actually gonna boot it up just now and double check character sheet XP to confirm since that weirdness is throwing me off.

Edit: Sure enough. The end result is the same for both in a full party of 6, they just change what they display for the XP reward. Thanks for saving me from my own retardation Lawntoilet!

Yep. There was a discussion about this on steam (and in this thread, about 50+ pages back) where a dev commented and clarified the behavior to be as Lawntoilet said.

What?? So turning it off reduces your XP gain?

WTF

 

[gestalt11]

Anyone happen to know how "Only active party members get XP" works with companions you haven't met yet? Do they scale up to the PC when you first meet them, or are they stuck massively under-leveled?
The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about locking in only active party gets XP since I'm pretty happy with my party composition now but I do want to pick up Nok-nok, and I'm curious if that'll leave him behind or not. I know everyone with their thumbs up their asses back in town won't get XP, but I wasn't sure how it handled companions you hadn't met yet. If they still "Soak up XP" beforehand or if they just auto-scale regardless of XP settings once you meet up for the first time.

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

If you turn off shared xp and do do a limited size party, say 2, and then pick up a companion later that you have never picked before they will enter your party with the same xp that you currently have.

 

[gestalt11]

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

'spose that could be the case. I wasn't looking at the XP totals on the character sheet, I just noticed the difference from going to 60-odd XP awarded for killing a wyvern with shared XP enabled, to getting 400-odd XP awarded for the same wyvern with sharing XP off. Just could be displaying the XP awarded super fucking weird (The per-character amount in the first case, and then the full-party amount in the second) which is a bizarre way of doing it if so. Actually gonna boot it up just now and double check character sheet XP to confirm since that weirdness is throwing me off.

Edit: Sure enough. The end result is the same for both in a full party of 6, they just change what they display for the XP reward. Thanks for saving me from my own retardation Lawntoilet!

Yep. There was a discussion about this on steam (and in this thread, about 50+ pages back) where a dev commented and clarified the behavior to be as Lawntoilet said.

What?? So turning it off reduces your XP gain?

WTF

No. If you turn off sharing a solo character will level faster. However if you are running a party of 6 then there is no advantage ( each characters get same xp) and you have the disadvantage of potential councilor NPCs not leveling. There was/is a display bug though.

 

[santino27]

"Shared XP" divides your total XP by 6, and gives an equal amount to all companions, whether you've met them or not (so it actually doubles your XP, since there are 12 companions - the inactive ones don't "soak up" anything more than a 6-person party). So turning off shared XP has literally no benefit unless you're running with a party of 5 or fewer.

'spose that could be the case. I wasn't looking at the XP totals on the character sheet, I just noticed the difference from going to 60-odd XP awarded for killing a wyvern with shared XP enabled, to getting 400-odd XP awarded for the same wyvern with sharing XP off. Just could be displaying the XP awarded super fucking weird (The per-character amount in the first case, and then the full-party amount in the second) which is a bizarre way of doing it if so. Actually gonna boot it up just now and double check character sheet XP to confirm since that weirdness is throwing me off.

Edit: Sure enough. The end result is the same for both in a full party of 6, they just change what they display for the XP reward. Thanks for saving me from my own retardation Lawntoilet!

Yep. There was a discussion about this on steam (and in this thread, about 50+ pages back) where a dev commented and clarified the behavior to be as Lawntoilet said.

What?? So turning it off reduces your XP gain?

WTF

On a wholistic level, yes... but only in that companions that you've recruited but who aren't in your party won't be given xp from the free pool. If you have a six-person party, the toggle won't affect the xp gained by the people in that party at all.

Really, the only advantage of turning it off is if you have a party with less than 6 members, as the xp gained is at that point divided purely by the # of people in your party. If the party is smaller than 6 people, you'll get more xp (but again anyone you've recruited who is not in the party won't get anything, which is far from ideal). It's kind of a pointless option imo except for people trying to do solo or small party runs.

 

[hell bovine]

Generally, though, a Mary Sue comes with superpowers that she whips out of her ass in order to save the party, so that she can preach at them some more.

Which is why Ekun isn't a mary sue. He is simply competent at murder. Being competent at their given role isn't going to make or break a character. Edwin wasn't a sue in BG, even though he had a cheesy amulet that made him better than any mage that you could make yourself. Same with Coran. Frankly, in PK Jaethal has the most "special powers" among all the companions; she is still not a mary sue. The closest you get to one is actually Linzi, because of the way the game protects her, even when at least my evil baroness would have long executed her preaching hairy ass.

And if you need mr. murder ranger to save your party, then it just means that your party is not any good.

 

[Sykar]

See? This is why Cleve took his time and fixed all the microissues.

Took him only two decades!

 

[Commissar Draco]

My Wifu Valerie, She bear, Blond Cutie Cleric aka Tristiana

Nothing even remotely SJW in this game really works.

The reason for this is that game is written in a parodical and sometimes even comical pulp fantasy style very similar to BG1, and many "good" characters have pretty awful personalities. Some of it is just bad writing, but going through some russian texts some of it feels as it was intended and russians just outright trolled Paizo with all the ridiculous premises and events happening to characters.

Noticed this too after playing for a while too Comrade the characters do have some better side after you met them like Orc being good to the point he shanks you and fun drinking companion or Tristiana not being total pushover, Val being real dependent lieutenant (well I do RP only lawful characters) Linzi being funny and even She bear being not annoying when you treat her as some kind of freak of nature from Sibir tribe or domesticated bear-she . Only Octavia and Harim tend to be 100% annoying. Also noticed that GN and CG choices are so bad it must be trolling of SJWs by Russsian Devs. Will post more screenshots of adventures of Knaz Draco the ruler of White Russ Soon.

 

[Sykar]

In what way? I too find her intolerable and annoying little cunt. But how the fuck is MS? I find her extremely weak and pointless character in my game,she dies fast and misses 90% of her attacks. Sure maybe my build wasn't that good,but all the rest i could find some use for.

being a mary sue has nothing to do with game mechanics
she's written as a mary sue

Uhhh ok,isn't a girl that gets all her power,skills and social status handed on a silver plater without any explanation or logic a mery sue? She is written mighty annoying,that is a fact,but i don't see the MS argument. She is an spoiled egoistical whiny little bitch that wouldn't stop with her sexism. Shame you can't kill people that annoy you,only kick them out if you are lucky.

Now that i think about it,can you have custom made characters as a advisors or are you stuck with that bunch of sjw retards?

That is one sign of a Mary Sue.

A Mary Sue is basically an obvious author insert. She can be the annoying voice of the author's ideals (for SJWs, that would be the one preaching SJW crap 24/7) and is always proven right not matter how stupid and inane her preaching is. She can be the asshole karma Houdini who never gets what is coming to her regardless of what she does. She can be the Wesley, to whom only good and wonderful things happen.

Generally, though, a Mary Sue comes with superpowers that she whips out of her ass in order to save the party, so that she can preach at them some more.

As much as Amiri seems to be an annoyance, the main part of a Mary Sue is that she is better than ANYONE without any real justification alongside being loved by everyone on first sight, best recent example would be (Ma)Rey(Sue) who is better at piloting and repairing the Millenium Falcon than Han Solo, better at the force and lightsaber fghting than even Luke Skywalker, etc. For Amiri to be a Mary Sue would entail that she is by far the best melee fighter which from what I can see is not even remotely true, alongside being better at healing, CC, etc. than any other character. In essence NOT having her in the party would be immensely stupid from a power perspective since she could carry even the worst party on her own, yet I regularly see her as one of the worst or second worst, after Valerie, recruitable NPCs because her starting feats are bad and her stat spread is not that great either.

Question who here even knows where the term Mary Sue comes from?

 

[hell bovine]

My Wifu Valerie, She bear, Blond Cutie Cleric aka Tristiana

Nothing even remotely SJW in this game really works.

The reason for this is that game is written in a parodical and sometimes even comical pulp fantasy style very similar to BG1, and many "good" characters have pretty awful personalities. Some of it is just bad writing, but going through some russian texts some of it feels as it was intended and russians just outright trolled Paizo with all the ridiculous premises and events happening to characters.

Noticed this too after playing for a while too Comrade the characters do have some better side after you met them like Orc being good to the point he shanks you and fun drinking companion or Tristiana not being total pushover, Val being real dependent lieutenant (well I do RP only lawful characters) Linzi being funny and even She bear being not annoying when you treat her as some kind of freak of nature from Sibir tribe or domesticated bear-she . Only Octavia and Harim tend to be 100% annoying. Also noticed that GN and CG choices are so bad it must be trolling of SJWs by Russsian Devs.

Oh, I'd say they are trolling both sides here. One of the first female companions you meet is a fighter who is so incompetent at fighting because of her high charisma. It doesn't feel sexist, though, because you can turn her into this immovable wall that will protect the rest of your party. Then you meet this black guy who is really competent at shooting stuff. But the thing is, he is very happy to murder for you; he's good at it and he knows it.

 

[Shadenuat]

The black dude main quest is also about him being a bad father.

 

[Fenix]

Before it was a sinking boat, now it is a leaking one

No, before it was a sinking boat, now they pump out the water in the hold, now it's BALANCED.

On the one hand, I'm really curious about this game, on the other I've just finished BT4 and my quota for buggy Kickstarter releases is still filled for some time.
Guess I'll (try to) wait for the first proper patch (and the hotfix that fixes the new bugs, as well as the hotfix for the hotfix).

Put it off till Christmas.

Linear game design which requires that every map/quest/fight is adjusted to the level the player character will be when they do that map/quest/fight. The idea that you explore a map, and then return to follow up on the content that wasn't doable on the first try, is something for senile old geezers in a nursing home, obviously.

Jeff Vogel would say that kind of thing is actually for kids https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...expansion-thread.100006/page-200#post-4859720

Very Bad Thing (tm).
I played BoA and his Za-Kha-Zi Run (or something likt that) and it was all filled with hard fights in time limited scenario. And I won ALL the fights because I thing there is a way to do that.
And it was so fun I still rememebr it.
What wasn't fun it time limit, but that's another story.
It's pity he surrended to decline, because obviously this scenario was built on those old ideas he abandoned.

Main healer (Tristian) is not gay or tranny. He is actually a romance options for female characters.

You should just see that on imageboards it's main object of faggorty for fatties of homosodomite kinds. Probably not on level PoE did that with Edwin (?) but still.
So yeah, he is right.

Damn, so the ending of Season of Bloom is completely impossible for a solo playthrough on a difficulty higher than normal/hard.

How is that? Try animal baron and be his pet. )

 

[Shadenuat]

Just got an email from GOG that described Pathfinder: Kingmaker as a "bestseller".

Well there is probably a reason it has its own "buy Pathfinder" button right there in GOG main menu

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Decent enough example of the alignment dialog in PK. Don't get options for every possible alignment, but they fit reasonably well and it's nice how chaotic good is kind of a tard and arguably harmful (Arguably since even though it'll PROBABLY cause panic and issues, maybe you've got some random-ass adventurers around who'll solve it for you. I doubt it, but it'd be cool if you reach a point where lower level adventurers could solve some headaches) and lawful evil is arguably throwing your own people under the bus (Not warning them of the danger) to maintain order in your barony. No idea what gameplay impact if any these have on your barony, but it's pretty good shit compared to most D&D CRPGs.

Edit: Oh yeah. What the goddamn hell is up with hold monster VS "Binding shackles" or whatever the fuck it's called? You look at the description of shackles and it basically just says "This is exactly the same as hold monster except it does damage too". I'm kind of at a loss as to why you would ever use hold monster INSTEAD of the one that does damage too, and the reasons are almost all really fringe and probably nothing that'd come up in a CRPG. Stared dumbfounded at that a bit before taking the one with damage and moving on.

 

[Cael]

Generally, though, a Mary Sue comes with superpowers that she whips out of her ass in order to save the party, so that she can preach at them some more.

Which is why Ekun isn't a mary sue. He is simply competent at murder. Being competent at their given role isn't going to make or break a character. Edwin wasn't a sue in BG, even though he had a cheesy amulet that made him better than any mage that you could make yourself. Same with Coran. Frankly, in PK Jaethal has the most "special powers" among all the companions; she is still not a mary sue. The closest you get to one is actually Linzi, because of the way the game protects her, even when at least my evil baroness would have long executed her preaching hairy ass.

And if you need mr. murder ranger to save your party, then it just means that your party is not any good.

In a world where the main protagonist has a point buy of 25, he has a point buy of 32.
In a world where companion stats are all over the place, he has a statline that is optimised.
In a world where companions have crap feats and bad choices, he has everything optimised to within an inch of its life.
BUT! He doesn't have special powers because he is... black.

 

[Emmanuel2]

How is that? Try animal baron and be his pet. )

I am a druid, and so far it feels like this is the only class that could survive Solo Unfair Chapter 2 onwards.

If you get to the end of Chapter 2,

Spoiler

A gnome will basically say that you need to kill the everbloom flower in both the other world and the true world. You can assign any number of party members between each plane, but there has to be atleast One in both. The animal companion isn't considered a "party member" for the sake of mechanics.

 

[Cael]

World is gonna end!

Oh really? When?

Whenever you get to that area over there.

*proceeds to do 5 side quests that take 21 game days and clear the map before going there*

"Thank the gods you arrived in time!!!11"

Could be worse.

"One of our convoys has been ambushed and needs immediate help. Go to Macomb and get that vehicle through. Kill everyone who tries to stop you."
*wanders around in the wasteland, getting attacked by raiders, deathclaws, ghouls, beastlords, scorpions, cockroaches, wasps and worse*
*two years later, staggers into Macomb*
"Thank God you are here. The escort's pushing up mutated daisies..."

 

[panda]

I am a druid, and so far it feels like this is the only class that could survive Solo Unfair Chapter 2 onwards.

If you get to the end of Chapter 2,

Spoiler

A gnome will basically say that you need to kill the everbloom flower in both the other world and the true world. You can assign any number of party members between each plane, but there has to be atleast One in both. The animal companion isn't considered a "party member" for the sake of mechanics.

You'll need at least one companion on top of pet in Varnhold chapter too, to simultaneously press buttons.

Main healer (Tristian) is not gay or tranny. He is actually a romance options for female characters.

You should just see that on imageboards it's main object of faggorty for fatties of homosodomite kinds... So yeah, he is right.

So, if some fag on imageboard had called you tranny, you would have automatically become one?
Or it needs to be hundred of them?

 

[Andnjord]

Spoiler

Titanium bones can't do anything against Two-Handed diplomacy!