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

[Trash Player]

Seriously though, now that "turn based=unsellable" myth has been debunked by XCOM, it is merely cargoculting IE games with these RtwP offerings.

 

[turkishronin]

So is Pathfinder basically the Dark Souls of CRPGs?

 

[Serus]

Seriously though, now that "turn based=unsellable" myth has been debunked by XCOM, it is merely cargoculting IE games with these RtwP offerings.

And also by Larian in CRPG market.

 

[The Avatar]

Look, man, I don't even play or enjoy corporate WotC D&D. For years now I've been running and playing rule mashups of ancient editions and retroclones. I just don't like modern D&D all that much, I like the simplicity of the early editions, streamlined and further cleaned up by the OSR.

I just don't like systems with rules for everything.

The early editions had problems with doing anything other than fight, something that is a legacy of DnD's tabletop wargame roots. 3.x actually introduced skills and non-combat activities on a scale that DnD never had.

Bullshit. Earlier D&D editions had skills. Game developers just chose not to implement them.

 

[Shadenuat]

Are people seriously review-bombing a game because "too hard", when said game has literally the most difficulty options, toggles and combo boxes I've ever seen in a game?

That just shows that having options and toggles is useless for situations like this - people don't want to use them, or check what each one of them is doing.

I already posted on Steam that there should be Core Rules difficulty in the middle of everything with 12 AC xvartsmites so difficulty could have smaller steppes in raising and lowering; if anyone has account on Pathfinder forums do bring this up there as well. Devs should realise that players must have a correct point of reference to judge what they want to play.

 

[whydoibother]

Turn based -> better for actual hard and engaging encounters, where you have more tactical options; bad when you have to take 10 minutes beating a trivial fight, because of how long turns take.
RTwP -> great when stomping through trash encounters, and if you are used to controlling it, good for hard fights, since you can basically turn it into turn based by pausing at the end of every round.

I prefer turn based and grids, because my background is with wargaming and I play a lot of 4X too. However getting mad at RTwP, when most of the time you can convert it to turn based at will, is silly.

 

[JarlFrank]

Yes. Dark Sun was turn-based. And you know what? Remember all the trouble you had targeting fireballs in BG and NWN, praying like hell that you won't nuke yourself? Dark Sun had the area of effect indicator already!

Dark Sun was so far ahead of its time it's not even funny. Honestly one of the best RPGs of all time and criminally underrated.

 

[turkishronin]

bad when you have to take 10 minutes beating a trivial fight, because of how long turns take.

Arcanum did it right

 

[Theldaran]

Look, man, I don't even play or enjoy corporate WotC D&D. For years now I've been running and playing rule mashups of ancient editions and retroclones. I just don't like modern D&D all that much, I like the simplicity of the early editions, streamlined and further cleaned up by the OSR.

I just don't like systems with rules for everything.

My point is, in PnP it's okay if all happens in your heads, in an actual videogame you should be shown how far can you charge etc., or you're gonna embarrass both the player and the studio.

 

[jf8350143]

People are complaining the game for awful counter design, which make the game hard, not the game being hard itself.

Sure you can always go for the story mode, but that doesn't change the fact the game throws bunch of overpowered monster in your face when you are just level 2. Like many people said, any DM does that constantly to players will ended up have an empty room after the first session.

 

[Theldaran]

People are complaining the game for awful counter design, which make the game hard, not the game being hard itself.

Sure you can always go for the story mode, but that doesn't change the fact the game throws bunch of overpowered monster in your face when you are just level 2. Like many people said, any DM does that constantly to players will ended up have an empty room after the first session.

More than it being hard, I've heard it being called unfair. I can take hard, but not unfair. That's just like playing suicide simulator.

 

[Jrpgfan]

Something I thought was badly designed is the journal. It is written by Linzi, but if she stops following you at the beginning she keeps writing it as if she never left.

 

[jf8350143]

Turn based -> better for actual hard and engaging encounters, where you have more tactical options; bad when you have to take 10 minutes beating a trivial fight, because of how long turns take.
RTwP -> great when stomping through trash encounters, and if you are used to controlling it, good for hard fights, since you can basically turn it into turn based by pausing at the end of every round.

I prefer turn based and grids, because my background is with wargaming and I play a lot of 4X too. However getting mad at RTwP, when most of the time you can convert it to turn based at will, is silly.

I'll take the approach of the M&M:Heroes series, where it's turn based, and you can play every fight manually if you find it challenging enough, or letting the AI do it for you, which is much quicker but most of the time costs you more resources.

 

[Cael]

People are complaining the game for awful counter design, which make the game hard, not the game being hard itself.

Sure you can always go for the story mode, but that doesn't change the fact the game throws bunch of overpowered monster in your face when you are just level 2. Like many people said, any DM does that constantly to players will ended up have an empty room after the first session.

ToEE had you fighting giant crayfish, a CR3 monster, as a random encounter straight from level 1. And the other encounters? Multiple zombies or pirates or a bunch of other things, with encounter levels anywhere between 2-5. Seeing as they are random encounters, you don't even get the chance of choosing not to go to the area...!

 

[dragonul09]

A quick tip, don't go into the Verdant Chambers with the Nymph, you will get a 50% spell failure debuff and it's permanent (bug) so try to stay away from it, at least until fix it. Lost a good chunk of gameplay without noticing

 

[Thal]

Remember all the trouble you had targeting fireballs in BG and NWN, praying like hell that you won't nuke yourself?!

I remember how I learned the AoE of Fireball by studing the spell as I cast it, and then expertly targeting it in such a way that the blastwave would stop right before my front line. Shit was so cash, why don't they do it more often?

 

[pomenitul]

Is there a patch in the offing?

 

[Cael]

Look, man, I don't even play or enjoy corporate WotC D&D. For years now I've been running and playing rule mashups of ancient editions and retroclones. I just don't like modern D&D all that much, I like the simplicity of the early editions, streamlined and further cleaned up by the OSR.

I just don't like systems with rules for everything.

The early editions had problems with doing anything other than fight, something that is a legacy of DnD's tabletop wargame roots. 3.x actually introduced skills and non-combat activities on a scale that DnD never had.

Bullshit. Earlier D&D editions had skills. Game developers just chose not to implement them.

Bullshit. I have been playing DnD from 1st Ed. I recall having to roll to see if you learnt monk abilities.

There are no non-combat, non-thief skills worth a damn. We had to act out the conversations because there was nothing to roll against.

2nd Ed did eventually come up with something along the lines of skills, but as an optional add-on in a splatbook.

It took 3rd Ed for DnD to formalise skills as a core characteristic of a character.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Bullshit. Earlier D&D editions had skills. Game developers just chose not to implement them.

This is an old debate. Skills were implemented in true Gygaxian fashion by calling them "non-weapon proficiencies." They were strictly optional. Some players really disliked the idea of skills because it imposed on role-playing. For example, if your background was a farmer who lived in a remote area, then you could plausibly argue for your character knowing all sorts of skills, such as animal handling, leatherworking, hunting, carpentry, etc. But in 3E, these all became distinct skills that you had to put points into, and since points are finite you are naturally going to go for the ones with the most combat and utility value. So you end up with a farmer who doesn't know how to farm.

OTOH, In my years of playing 2E I never met a player who even knew how to roll a skill check (roll under your ability score, and subtract the skill value). As Cael has shown, no one knew how to do this. It didn't help that the most common uses of ability scores had their own special rolls (Bend bars/lift gates) and that Thief skills were their own separate thing.

3E reduced the confusion, made the skill rules into a cohesive thing, and gave us understandable mechanics like always wanting high numbers and Difficulty Classes. This was certainly a good thing overall for the game, and in most cases you could still persuade your DM to let your farmer have some free ranks in carpentry.

 

[zapotec]

For now the only complain is the slow motion movement, looks like when you are dreaming and attemping to run fast

 

[Cael]

Bullshit. Earlier D&D editions had skills. Game developers just chose not to implement them.

This is an old debate. Skills were implemented in true Gygaxian fashion by calling them "non-weapon proficiencies." They were strictly optional. Some players really disliked the idea of skills because it imposed on role-playing. For example, if your background was a farmer who lived in a remote area, then you could plausibly argue for your character knowing all sorts of skills, such as animal handling, leatherworking, hunting, carpentry, etc. But in 3E, these all became distinct skills that you had to put points into, and since points are finite you are naturally going to go for the ones with the most combat and utility value. So you end up with a farmer who doesn't know how to farm.

OTOH, In my years of playing 2E I never met a player who even knew how to roll a skill check (roll under your ability score, and subtract the skill value). As Cael has shown, no one knew how to do this. It didn't help that the most common uses of ability scores had their own special rolls (Bend bars/lift gates) and that Thief skills were their own separate thing.

3E reduced the confusion, made the skill rules into a cohesive thing, and gave us understandable mechanics like always wanting high numbers and Difficulty Classes. This was certainly a good thing overall for the game, and in most cases you could still persuade your DM to let your farmer have some free ranks in carpentry.

*sigh*

Player Options

 

[Cael]

Yes. Dark Sun was turn-based. And you know what? Remember all the trouble you had targeting fireballs in BG and NWN, praying like hell that you won't nuke yourself? Dark Sun had the area of effect indicator already!

Dark Sun was so far ahead of its time it's not even funny. Honestly one of the best RPGs of all time and criminally underrated.

Yes, it is. And the storyline for the second one isn't that bad either, and it had some of the more innovative magical items and a restricted resting mechanic that BG and NWN could not even begin to emulate.

 

[Elex]

Bullshit. Earlier D&D editions had skills. Game developers just chose not to implement them.

This is an old debate. Skills were implemented in true Gygaxian fashion by calling them "non-weapon proficiencies." They were strictly optional. Some players really disliked the idea of skills because it imposed on role-playing. For example, if your background was a farmer who lived in a remote area, then you could plausibly argue for your character knowing all sorts of skills, such as animal handling, leatherworking, hunting, carpentry, etc. But in 3E, these all became distinct skills that you had to put points into, and since points are finite you are naturally going to go for the ones with the most combat and utility value. So you end up with a farmer who doesn't know how to farm.

OTOH, In my years of playing 2E I never met a player who even knew how to roll a skill check (roll under your ability score, and subtract the skill value). As Cael has shown, no one knew how to do this. It didn't help that the most common uses of ability scores had their own special rolls (Bend bars/lift gates) and that Thief skills were their own separate thing.

3E reduced the confusion, made the skill rules into a cohesive thing, and gave us understandable mechanics like always wanting high numbers and Difficulty Classes. This was certainly a good thing overall for the game, and in most cases you could still persuade your DM to let your farmer have some free ranks in carpentry.

5e have cleared up and organized all this non combat stuff.
(also a DM and a player can decide similar stuff in 30 seconds)

 

[Theldaran]

Cael making sense? I guess man is a learning machine. "What a piece of work is a man [...], in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!"

About the debate. To be fair, I don't like the idea of a roleplaying session to be combat-only, with short interludes of resting, info gathering, and trading in hubs. Therefore I don't like the idea of an RPG system that only covers combat. But I somehow hate the implementation of Skills in 3ED. 4ED was better but still mostly shit for me. I haven't checked much of 5ED, but I guess incorporating non-combat action in DnD is pretty hard, especially to old-school designers.

 

[Fairfax]

2nd Ed did eventually come up with something along the lines of skills, but as an optional add-on in a splatbook.

2E had NWP in the PHB from the start. The Player's Option books just changed and expanded it, along with many other systems.