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

[ERYFKRAD]

He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels).

Whoa there, which one was this?

 

[Cael]

I have no problem with characters with strange abilities, but it's nice that in PF you can stick to a consistent character concept for 20 levels and aren't forced to multiclass for the sake of power.

(Not that most PF campaigns go to 20 in the first place)

Someone just described Conan, an iconic fantasy character, as a barbarian/thief, and this mouth breather immediately pipes up with this shit. Typical example of what is wrong with DnD 3.5: Fucking dramaqueens demanding that everyone play it their way or they throw the pacifier out of the cot.

Wh.. what? I feel like I'm missing something here, or that you quoted the wrong post or something. Just.. what?

You are smarter than that.

The fucktard is crying about being forced to multiclass when that is soomething that is set by the people you play with. I have played games where people are content with playing single class, and games where people were multiclassing out the wazoo. In all cases, people were trying to fulfill a concept. The ability to multiclass and still create a viable character is the core to creating an interesting character.

For example, if you follow Conan's life both in the books and in the movies, he started off as a Barbarian, prone to rages and rash action. He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels). Conan was a barbarian/thief/fighter.

Then, take the (in)famous Drz'zt. He started as a fighter under Zaknafien. He learned stealth and striking from ambush (Rogue) and grew his hunter persona (Barbarian rage). He then trained under Montolio to become a ranger. His official classes are Fighter 10/Rogue 1/Barbarian 1/Ranger 6.

His greatest "rival", Artemis, is a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin.

Elminster himself is a Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Archmage/Sorcerer, IIRC.

You want to make a facsimile of Captain America, you would start as a Warblade and then go into Bloodstorm Blade (for the ability to throw any weapon and automatic returning weapon).

You want Wolverine, go Razorclaw Shifter Swordsage/Tiger Claw Master/Weretouch Master.

Every single fantasy character is multiclass. To say that multiclass restricts character concepts is a fucking retarded and self-serving statement.

That's good because literally no one said that multiclassing "restricts" character concepts. So you basically raged over nothing. Very barbarian of you.

I have no problem with characters with strange abilities, but it's nice that in PF you can stick to a consistent character concept for 20 levels and aren't forced to multiclass for the sake of power.

(Not that most PF campaigns go to 20 in the first place)

I bolded it for you.

 

[Theldaran]

https://steamspy.com/app/640820 so this gae has 15k peak players on release, is that good or bad? I don't know any of the concurrent player numbers off the top of my head but my impression is that's not bad

It flopped.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight... if that's a flop then what's this?

The Bard's Tale IV: Barrows Deep ( https://steamspy.com/app/566090 )
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 864

Also, Fallout 2 has an overall recent score on Steam of 84% from 45 reviews in the last 30 days.
The Age of the Cuck is upon us!

Looks like the infallible scientific method of measuring peak steam players has determined that gloriously Pathfinder Kingmaker is 15 times as successful as Bard's Tale the case is closed

I'm not really surprised though.

I'm really super surprised, Bard's Tale 4 had like actual marketing, the Russians at Owlcat had literally only a license to an incredibly popular D&D property, I would have easily believed Bard's Tale had the bigger draw in the community and the marketing sold games to folk dumb enough to preorder

But it seems that the superior game is Kingmaker, and in this kind of game and genre that's what matters, not marketing, that's for bigger games.

Besides, inXile has let down people before, Owlcat has a clean slate.

 

[Serus]

I have no problem with characters with strange abilities, but it's nice that in PF you can stick to a consistent character concept for 20 levels and aren't forced to multiclass for the sake of power.

(Not that most PF campaigns go to 20 in the first place)

Someone just described Conan, an iconic fantasy character, as a barbarian/thief, and this mouth breather immediately pipes up with this shit. Typical example of what is wrong with DnD 3.5: Fucking dramaqueens demanding that everyone play it their way or they throw the pacifier out of the cot.

Wh.. what? I feel like I'm missing something here, or that you quoted the wrong post or something. Just.. what?

You are smarter than that.

The fucktard is crying about being forced to multiclass when that is soomething that is set by the people you play with. I have played games where people are content with playing single class, and games where people were multiclassing out the wazoo. In all cases, people were trying to fulfill a concept. The ability to multiclass and still create a viable character is the core to creating an interesting character.

For example, if you follow Conan's life both in the books and in the movies, he started off as a Barbarian, prone to rages and rash action. He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels). Conan was a barbarian/thief/fighter.

Then, take the (in)famous Drz'zt. He started as a fighter under Zaknafien. He learned stealth and striking from ambush (Rogue) and grew his hunter persona (Barbarian rage). He then trained under Montolio to become a ranger. His official classes are Fighter 10/Rogue 1/Barbarian 1/Ranger 6.

His greatest "rival", Artemis, is a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin.

Elminster himself is a Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Archmage/Sorcerer, IIRC.

You want to make a facsimile of Captain America, you would start as a Warblade and then go into Bloodstorm Blade (for the ability to throw any weapon and automatic returning weapon).

You want Wolverine, go Razorclaw Shifter Swordsage/Tiger Claw Master/Weretouch Master.

Every single fantasy character is multiclass. To say that multiclass restricts character concepts is a fucking retarded and self-serving statement.

That's good because literally no one said that multiclassing "restricts" character concepts. So you basically raged over nothing. Very barbarian of you.

I have no problem with characters with strange abilities, but it's nice that in PF you can stick to a consistent character concept for 20 levels and aren't forced to multiclass for the sake of power.

(Not that most PF campaigns go to 20 in the first place)

I bolded it for you.

I returned the "favor".
Yes, and it means exactly what it means. Nothing about multiclassing "restricting" anything. He literally said that You "can" stick to one class and don't have to go multiclass. But you still can - it just won't result in stronger characters in PF as it would in some other systems. But not necessarily in weaker either if you do it smart. There is nothing about "restricting" anything. The opposite, it says that you aren't forced into only one approach. Which means that your whole posting was just a barbarian rage, just as I said.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Conan doesn't strike me as a Barbarian really, let alone a Thief/Rogue. I mean this is only going by the movies, I'm not familiar with any of the other material, but... Just because Arnie sometimes puts on a bit of paint and mostly wears medieval porn star outfits light armor doesn't make him a Barbarian. He never really rages at all, he makes those stupid Arnie sounds but he doesn't actually go into a rage.

He also uses a wide variety of weapons, uses strategy sometimes such as the fight against those guys on horseback, he goes for trips and stuff, he uses shields sometimes.

He strikes me as a typical Fighter more than anything else. Meh, I could be wrong.

First, go read the books. They're great fun.
Second, Howard's original Conan isn't really that much similar to the Arnie's movies Conan.
Third in Howard short stories, he does "multiclass" a lot. From a "pure" barbarian, to thief, to a pirate, to a mounted warrior (with some archery thrown in), to a chieftain, a leader of infantry, to a commander commanding from the back row until the last moment, to a heavy armour horseman and a king leading his knights' charge into enemy ranks.

Yes we need new class in DnD the Chad aka Ubermensh, as to books sure read them all but only those penned by Howard are good. Seriously heard so much good about the game now I am I did not backed it even with all added cuckoldry and bugs (its Slav made after all) its seems we finally have NWN replacement, cant wait for toolset and user made modules.

 

[Cael]

He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels).

Whoa there, which one was this?

I can't remember off the top of my head. One of the paperbacks, I think.

 

[Theldaran]

I have no problem with characters with strange abilities, but it's nice that in PF you can stick to a consistent character concept for 20 levels and aren't forced to multiclass for the sake of power.

(Not that most PF campaigns go to 20 in the first place)

Someone just described Conan, an iconic fantasy character, as a barbarian/thief, and this mouth breather immediately pipes up with this shit. Typical example of what is wrong with DnD 3.5: Fucking dramaqueens demanding that everyone play it their way or they throw the pacifier out of the cot.

Wh.. what? I feel like I'm missing something here, or that you quoted the wrong post or something. Just.. what?

You are smarter than that.

The fucktard is crying about being forced to multiclass when that is soomething that is set by the people you play with. I have played games where people are content with playing single class, and games where people were multiclassing out the wazoo. In all cases, people were trying to fulfill a concept. The ability to multiclass and still create a viable character is the core to creating an interesting character.

For example, if you follow Conan's life both in the books and in the movies, he started off as a Barbarian, prone to rages and rash action. He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels). Conan was a barbarian/thief/fighter.

Then, take the (in)famous Drz'zt. He started as a fighter under Zaknafien. He learned stealth and striking from ambush (Rogue) and grew his hunter persona (Barbarian rage). He then trained under Montolio to become a ranger. His official classes are Fighter 10/Rogue 1/Barbarian 1/Ranger 6.

His greatest "rival", Artemis, is a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin.

Elminster himself is a Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Archmage/Sorcerer, IIRC.

You want to make a facsimile of Captain America, you would start as a Warblade and then go into Bloodstorm Blade (for the ability to throw any weapon and automatic returning weapon).

You want Wolverine, go Razorclaw Shifter Swordsage/Tiger Claw Master/Weretouch Master.

Every single fantasy character is multiclass. To say that multiclass restricts character concepts is a fucking retarded and self-serving statement.

That's good because literally no one said that multiclassing "restricts" character concepts. So you basically raged over nothing. Very barbarian of you.

I have no problem with characters with strange abilities, but it's nice that in PF you can stick to a consistent character concept for 20 levels and aren't forced to multiclass for the sake of power.

(Not that most PF campaigns go to 20 in the first place)

I bolded it for you.

I returned the "favor".
Yes, and it means exactly what it means. Nothing about multiclassing "restricting" anything. He literally said that You "can" stick to one class and don't have to go multiclass. But you still can - it just won't result in stronger characters in PF as it would in some other systems. But not necessarily in weaker either if you do it smart. There is nothing about "restricting" anything. The opposite, it says that you aren't forced into only one approach. Which means that your whole posting was just a barbarian rage, just as I said.

To be fair he's talking about 3X and saying a good mix of classes granted you more power, which is kinda true, since some classes in that system were painful to advance in.

Of course, you're free to play an underpowered character, but that's a killjoy.

 

[Cael]

I returned the "favor".
Yes, and it means exactly what it means. Nothing about multiclassing "restricting" anything. He literally said that You "can" stick to one class and don't have to go multiclass. But you still can - it just won't result in stronger characters in PF as it would in some other systems. But not necessarily in weaker either if you do it smart. There is nothing about "restricting" anything. The opposite, it says that you aren't forced into only one approach. Which means that your whole posting was just a barbarian rage, just as I said.

Wrong. In the bolded bits you basically proved he thinks that you cannot make a consistent character concept for 20 levels. Why? Because he feels the single class in 3.5 is "weak".

As I said before, powergaming is a table thing. If your table likes powergaming and you don't, just piss off and leave them to it. Stop whining and throwing a tantrum because the other people like to powergame. Just fuck off.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Yes we need new class in DND the Chad aka Ubermensh.

It's called the Barbarian, comrade.

 

[ArchAngel]

Not sure what Putin would say about this.

Roll out the T-72s.

It's Amber Scott tier, are you sure she wasn't doing texts in this game?

Nah, Ambers Scott would not have that option 4 that lets you punch him in the face. With her all 4 options would be accepting your new gay buddy as he is.

 

[Theldaran]

Yes we need new class in DND the Chad aka Ubermensh.

It's called the Barbarian, comrade.

Frenzied 'Zerker, I'd say.

 

[Alienman]

I have to say that the story got very interesting after you get rid of the Stag Lord. Finally, a good hook to continue!

 

[bataille]

I'm sorry, but has anyone found any darts or slings in the game? I've just realised that I am still to find a missile weapon for my druid, 11 hours in. Maybe I'm missing something?

I really hope that they're in. Some classes being forced to use weapons with fewer sides on their damage die due their lack of martial or simple weapons expertise is great; I'm not sure it's also great to have only martial missile weapons in the game...

 

[Serus]

He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels).

Whoa there, which one was this?

I can't remember off the top of my head. One of the paperbacks, I think.

You can't because it doesn't exist. At least not in any of the 17 short stories +1 novel published by R. E. Howard. I've reread them not long time ago so I'm pretty confident saying it. It might be in one of those "Conan" books made by other authors though.

 

[aweigh]

I kind of want game devs to start offering trigger warnings for SJW Content along with an option to skip it, like that No Russian level in Call of Duty.

Game journos would have a fit! It'd be hilarious.

EDIT: Alternatively they can start baking in alternate paths, an "SJW path" and a "anti-SJW path" in all games. Would be much more interesting than normal money/no-money paths.

 

[Cael]

To be fair he's talking about 3X and saying a good mix of classes granted you more power, which is kinda true, since some classes in that system were painful to advance in.

Of course, you're free to play an underpowered character, but that's a killjoy.

You should try to get into the Fochlucan Lyrist PrC. That's difficult without shenannigans.

Not really on the underpowered character. In one TT game (which lasted over 2 years), we were a party of Rogue/Cleric/some weird Cleric/Thief PrC, a Wizard/Druid/Mystic Theurge/Arcane Hierophant, and a Fighter/Kensai. Which one do you think is the weakest and most underpowered? The Fighter? Beep! Wrong. He had the largest kill count by far and the player had a blast playing the low Cha but very chatty and boisterous Fighter. Imagine a big guy stuffing his mouth, talking with it full and spraying food everywhere in a diplomatic feast with half-a-dozen kings and various high-ranking officials present. To say that the other two had to do damage control is an understatement. But it was FUN!

And that is the name of the game. If you are not having fun, stop trying to kill it for others. Just get lost.

 

[Whisper]

This is first game where your companions are not optimised at all (barbarian SHOULD have 20 str), while enemies are fully optimised (!?).

Only comfortable (still hard) playing is with Custom characters.

 

[Theldaran]

Not really on the underpowered character. In one TT game (which lasted over 2 years), we were a party of Rogue/Cleric/some weird Cleric/Thief PrC, a Wizard/Druid/Mystic Theurge/Arcane Hierophant, and a Fighter/Kensai. Which one do you think is the weakest and most underpowered? The Fighter? Beep! Wrong. He had the largest kill count by far and the player had a blast playing the low Cha but very chatty and boisterous Fighter. Imagine a big guy stuffing his mouth, talking with it full and spraying food everywhere in a diplomatic feast with half-a-dozen kings and various high-ranking officials present. To say that the other two had to do damage control is an understatement. But it was FUN!

And that is the name of the game. If you are not having fun, stop trying to kill it for others. Just get lost.

Erm... lovely... we've had our share of those in my old group. And most of the time it was a handful for silly reasons, not just playing your character. He would have annoyed us big time, not for playing his character, but by the very character's concept.

We like monocled play though.

 

[Cael]

He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels).

Whoa there, which one was this?

I can't remember off the top of my head. One of the paperbacks, I think.

You can't because it doesn't exist. At least not in any of the 17 short stories +1 novel published by R. E. Howard. I've reread them not long time ago so I'm pretty confident saying it. It might be in one of those "Conan" books made by other authors though.

It wasn't. It was a Robert Jordan one, unless I miss my guess.

 

[Elex]

Conan doesn't strike me as a Barbarian really, let alone a Thief/Rogue. I mean this is only going by the movies, I'm not familiar with any of the other material, but... Just because Arnie sometimes puts on a bit of paint and mostly wears medieval porn star outfits light armor doesn't make him a Barbarian. He never really rages at all, he makes those stupid Arnie sounds but he doesn't actually go into a rage.

He also uses a wide variety of weapons, uses strategy sometimes such as the fight against those guys on horseback, he goes for trips and stuff, he uses shields sometimes.

He strikes me as a typical Fighter more than anything else. Meh, I could be wrong.

conan the fighter battlemaster don’t sound the same.

 

[Cael]

Not really on the underpowered character. In one TT game (which lasted over 2 years), we were a party of Rogue/Cleric/some weird Cleric/Thief PrC, a Wizard/Druid/Mystic Theurge/Arcane Hierophant, and a Fighter/Kensai. Which one do you think is the weakest and most underpowered? The Fighter? Beep! Wrong. He had the largest kill count by far and the player had a blast playing the low Cha but very chatty and boisterous Fighter. Imagine a big guy stuffing his mouth, talking with it full and spraying food everywhere in a diplomatic feast with half-a-dozen kings and various high-ranking officials present. To say that the other two had to do damage control is an understatement. But it was FUN!

And that is the name of the game. If you are not having fun, stop trying to kill it for others. Just get lost.

Erm... lovely... we've had our share of those in my old group. And most of the time it was a handful for silly reasons, not just playing your character. He would have annoyed us big time, not for playing his character, but by the very character's concept.

We like monocled play though.

Oh, we don't mind it much. He was playing true to type anyway, as he is a big fella IRL and very friendly and chatty. So he was basically playing an exaggerated version of himself minus the manners.

Could be worse. Could be the perennial Paladin player from another group of mine, whom I have spoken about here before. That one would have given your group conniptions.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

Conan certainly has competent stealth skill, not sure if regular fighter can have that.

 

[hexer]

This is first game where your companions are not optimised at all (barbarian SHOULD have 20 str), while enemies are fully optimised (!?).

Yesterday, during a live stream on Steam, an Owlcat developer said how the game's difficulty is shifted one level above of what's expected.
E.g. normal is hard, hard is impossible, etc.
He also added how we should think of it as a hardcore game where difficulty is influenced somewhat by Dark Souls.

 

[Serus]

He did a bit of thieving and later, when he was defeated by someone (who humiliated him by telling him the reason he lost was because he had no discipline) he became more disciplined and learned to fight that way (i.e., he took Fighter levels).

Whoa there, which one was this?

I can't remember off the top of my head. One of the paperbacks, I think.

You can't because it doesn't exist. At least not in any of the 17 short stories +1 novel published by R. E. Howard. I've reread them not long time ago so I'm pretty confident saying it. It might be in one of those "Conan" books made by other authors though.

It wasn't. It was a Robert Jordan one, unless I miss my guess.

Well, I once have read a "Conan" book by some random schmuck (I forgot the name) where Conan was acting "respectful" (in modern sense, almost like a modern cuck - I'm not kidding You) towards women. That's why when talking about Conan you need to specify if you are talking about Howard's Conan, Arnie's Conan or Conan from various other sources. They're not really the same character, except for the name. Sometimes not even close.

 

[M. AQVILA]

he know that the players are full murderhobo mode.

he know that the players have zero interest on dialogue and rp.

“you minmaxer your character? fine i have minmaxed my encounters”

That's for the players to decide not the developers. Those who are more interested in role playing and wanted to play a Pathfinder video game should be able to play the game with the core rules, and those who want to min max should be able to do so. Which is why I said that not having a core rules difficulty is a completely retarded design decision. From what I hear not even the story mode difficulty has the normal enemies with unbloated stats. Absolutely retarded, no wonder so many people are complaining.