KickStarter Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Jimmious]

So I think, I THINK, that you didn't like BG as much as the majority? Right? Am I right? It was not as good as everyone thought right? It was kinda not so good, eh?

 

[Iznaliu]

The art was amazing, I'll give you that, but I'll never understand why some people here have such a massive boner for it.

There is only one word that needs to be said: nostalgia.

 

[Quantomas]

Baldur's Gate still lives in the minds of people, not only because of the game (you could actually have a negative opinion of it like Vault Dweller)

Holy shit, this actually needs to stop right now. Baldur's Gate is not a good game and RTwP is bad by definition. It was bad in Darklands, in U7, it's bad in BG, and in Pillars. It's shit and adds nothing to anything. It's just tactically inferior. This used to be common Codex knowledge. The new guys need to be drilled into the proper idea. Codex going to shit, etc. But really, if we keep spreading around the idea that this system is acceptable, we'll get more of it. More of the "glory days of Baldur's Gate" ; holy fuck please no. Can you imagine Baldur's Gate turned-based? BG2 turned-based? With the ToEE engine? That would have been cool as fuck, right? So this is the ideal. Without it, the Baldur's Gate series is just inferior. Yeah BG2 was alright and it's still playable I suppose, but no, just drop this nonsense, please

It would be awesome to have a new major turn-based D&D game.

It's not that straightforward though. Unless you significantly cut down on the number of encounters, it will require a larger development effort, because for turn-based games AI matters much more, as players will figure out exploits and weaknesses of the system.

These days we got a lot of games that simply sidestep the turn-based AI issue by coming up with a mitigated design, which mostly sucks.

Take Thea which uses a card battle system. Well, it's turn-based and not difficult to implement, but it is not really all that enticing.

Shadowrun Returns uses a TB combat system, but the devs found it hard to give each combatant a turn. They said you cannot plan ahead because it gets too complex, so they settled with player turns. Of course you cannot plan ahead if you don't give the player an initiative bar that shows the turn order. That shows how much know-how devs typically have.

Regalia is a great game and the TB combat is fine, but it suffers from another aspect. That you actually play each battle until you win it, or come back later and collect the spoils. That's the other big issue with TB in D&D games, that you actually just play the game in a way that you sequence the encounters until you find a way to win all. That requires a TB combat system truly to be great, with lots of tight and epic battles, so that the effort is worth it.

All that leads to the question what combat system suits any given game best. TB is truly the way to go for strategy games, if you have the skill to build an AI to hold up against competitive players. For D&D? It's more difficult to tell, because encounters are designed to be challenging but essentially you will win all. If you want a more bold game design, you have to step past this and have encounters and quests that only the skilled will master. This requires a more sizable budget as well.

A cleanly build round-based combat system for RtwP is not that bad an option. It is not turn-based in the sense that each combatant acts sequentially, because it allows for combatants to act concurrently. But if the design is good and the opponents have good AI, it can be tons of fun regardless. Still, for a game like Pathfinder: Kingmaker it is possibly just as important to have a solid overarching game design in order to make combat worthwhile or not.

 

[Infinitron]

Another user interface update: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-kingmaker/posts/1946988

The Combat Log - It's how we roll!
Posted by Berserkerkitten

Dear Pathfinders,

Battles are essential to the experience of Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Some of them are quite easy while others are very challenging. Many systems, such as character generation and leveling up, equipment and spells are part of the decisions you make about every character, and combat is where you feel the results of these decisions. It is the place to put your heroes to the test and understand what went right and what went wrong. For that, combat needs to have a very clear feedback about every aspect of the game mechanics. In order to solve this we are (as many other games in this genre) using a combat log. Our usual disclaimer applies to all of the pictures here, it is work in progress and does not represent the final state of the product, all specific names are used only as reference to the original Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (R) entities and could be subject to change in the Pathfinder: Kingmaker CRPG.

Every action in combat has a representation in the log: initiative rolls, to-hit, and damage rolls, saving throws or any appropriate checks. Each has its own line in the log. And for each of the lines, you will be able to see detailed information in the tooltip. For example, if you are attacking a wolf you will be able to see all of the bonuses and penalties for the to-hit roll and their sources. Starting from a simple bonus, like the strength modifier, and up to temporary effects, like being shaken. And you will be able to see your roll for this attack. Additional information will also appear in the tooltip if circumstances call for it. For example, on a critical threat roll, a confirmation roll will appear with same detailed information, or if a target has concealment there will be a mention of the miss chance.

All the information mentioned thus far is about your party's actions. But of course you will also want to know about how your enemies do. We have thought of two options here - one we will definitely have, the other one is an idea right now, and currently in discussion and development. We are not promising the latter will appear in the game, but we are very interested to hear your opinion about it. The first option is providing all the information about the enemy - AC, saving throws, the battle log will show it all. This is clear and concise and gives you all the information you need to understand what happens in battle and what changes you need to make to tip this fight into your favor.

The second option does not provide you with this information for free; it is based on the party's knowledge and lore checks. If you are successful, some information is provided, better results lead to more stats revealed. But if your fail those rolls – you will learn that information in the same way you do on the table. If you hit 34 AC and missed against 18, the creature’s AC in the tooltips will be shown as ?19-34 – meaning, that your highest miss was against AC 18 and 19 could be hit, while your lowest hit was 34, so in the worst case scenario that creature's AC is 34. Same goes for other statistics, like showing that you dealt damage, but some DR was applied to it. Along with this goes showing the creature's health condition only after a successful check. This approach is a bit more hardcore and a bit more faithful to the tabletop experience.

But back to the log. Not only combat needs to have detailed information presented, but we also have dialogs and special events, kingdom and exploration. So we are expanding the log (as a lot of games before us) into those areas of the game as well. And to make it more readable, we separate information into several tabs: combat will have everything we discussed above, while a dialogue tab will have a history of all conversations as well as special events, along with choices and checks you made. Events tab will summarize everything that happens while skipping on detailed information on combat and dialogue represented in other tabs. There you will find information on the traps you encountered or items looted, orders you have made during a kingdom turn or new areas discovered on the global map. And all of these events will have additional and detailed information available via tooltips, with some information hidden if you so desire (like hiding DCs of the skill checks).

This concludes our approach to the log in Pathfinder: Kingmaker. While our solution may be similar to a lot of games in the genre, we are trying to provide even more information to you, and make it a bit more interesting and closer to the tabletop experience.

PS: Here are higher resolution versions of the above screenshots for your viewing pleasure.

The result of our extra portrait poll

https://owlcatgames.com/forums/showthread.php?91-Poll-Extra-Baron-Portrait

One of the community goals you have unlocked by sharing and supporting our posts, videos and updates, was an extra portrait option for the main character, also referred to as 'the baron'. The majority of you have voted for a half-elf sorcerer. Before our artist can get to work, however, we still need to determine whether you would like the portrait to show a male or a female character. We are going to determine this via the forums in the coming days. Thank you for your participation!

Hail to the Kings,

Owlcats

 

[fobia]

Yes. Is it just filler material or do they expect their backers to have no idea how a game like this works?

Both updates were on things that a normal, even unexperienced, player should understand intuitively.

And nothing that is in any sense unique to this game.

 

[fantadomat]

I hope there is a brothel in it.Love throwing my money at the roulette and the prize being a nice disease.

 

[Iznaliu]

And nothing that is in any sense unique to this game.

The proposed non-transparent combat log sounds pretty unique.

 

[Quantomas]

Interestingly the KS comments are vastly in favour of hidden values and stats in the combat log, with discovery based on lore and combat hits/misses. Players are cool with that.

Subjective combat log concept:

For the attack table, I really like *both* methods. Having explicit information about the combatants' capabilities is satisfying for system mastery, I imagine especially so for anyone new to the system, but you're spot on that having the values be fuzzy based on checks and previous observation is more true to the tabletop and roleplay experience. While the latter causes some initial caution as the player feels out their opponents, I've found that it really only takes a few turns to get a good read on the enemy's basic defensive ability, anyway, and a good Knowledge check (or just hitting them a bunch) can reveal finer details. If possible, I think it would be ideal to have either option available as either part of difficulty selection or even its own, independent toggle (with the vague method being the harder option in either case).

Importantly, I think the vague method should also have some degree of *memory*; if the PCs fight off lesser demons and discover that they have DR to fire, one would rightly expect that other similar demons *also* have resistance to fire, whether or not by the same amount. I feel it would be a disservice for the player to remember an ability or trait of something they fought before but the system treats it as completely new.

The system could also be used to *usurp* expectations where the game itself tries to fool the player: Say you were told some child-sized fey were causing trouble from the nearby forest. You find the intended enemies but they're actually halflings and gnomes in disguise, using simple cantrips to scare the village folk and get away with petty crimes. You're expecting fey, which you've fought before, so you've brought cold-iron weapons. Unless you pass a Perception or Knowledge check, you fully believe they're supposed to be fey and see "Weakness to cold-iron" on their defense stats. (If you *do* pass, the enemy changes to the respective known stats for their race). Both the player and the system are surprised when the "fey" don't take extra damage, and the defense block drops the weakness when you figure out they're not actually vulnerable. Once the battle is over, you find out for sure that they were just common thieves in disguise, so your in-game experience/memory fighting fey isn't altered (though your known stats for halflings and gnomes might get updated if you discover anything new).

Narrative descriptors:

It may be too big a task, but a truly amazing feature that harkens to real table top, and fits in very neatly with the second version presented here, is a narative approach. This would likely be a toggled setting, keeping the true rolls visible.

If a character rolls to hit that is just shy of an opponents AC, rather than "Barbarian rolls 18 against Otyug: MISS", it could read "Barbarian swings at the Otyugh, narrowly missing". A tremendous miss against a very high AC could indicate this as "Ranger strikes Iron Golem, but the blow deflects harmlessly".

There could be a pretty narrow set of dialogues, I'm aware we arent creating a perfect AI DM here, but this gives us information in a narative way. I think most players wouldn't mind repetitive dialogue.

Given a range of say 5 categories per roll (off by a lot, by a little, just enough or more, exceeding needs, and easy/guaranteed), and just a few dialogues for each (4?) this might be feasible? Depending of course on how many categories of rolls there are...

To Hit, Damage, various types of saving throws... Perhaps its this variety that is too expansive.

 

[Infinitron]

I would expect nothing else from a Kickstarter aimed at tabletop grognard types.

 

[Iznaliu]

I think some people floated the idea for PoE at some point.

 

[Tacgnol]

Yeah, I hope they don't give you all the stats at a glance.

When we play Pathfinder on the tabletop, you have to use the appropriate knowledge skill to figure stuff out (like weaknesses) about monsters. Things like AC you can work out by experimenting.

 

[Iznaliu]

I would expect nothing else from a Kickstarter aimed at tabletop grognard types.

If it was really aimed squarely at them, it would have been turn-based.

 

[Jenkem]

I think some people floated the idea for PoE at some point.

 

[Iznaliu]

I think some people floated the idea for PoE at some point.

I predict that you will be complaining about it when it's released.

 

[DeepOcean]

For the last time; combat system matters a lot less than implementation of that system.

"Those weren't real Rtwp, comrade, my RtwP will be the real rtwp.

 

[Quantomas]

From Owlcat's forum: https://owlcatgames.com/forums/showthread.php?145-Dev-response-Magus-Archetypes

Lots of detail, only interesting for those who would like to know more about the reasoning the devs apply.

Dev response: Magus Archetypes
Okay, let’s start this. I am a mechanics designer for Owlcat Games, and it will eventually be my job implementing the archetypes (or delegating some of them to other designers, maybe). While we want to follow your wishes about the archetypes, we should take into consideration also a lot of things hardly discussed in the main topic about archetypes.

This topic is just the first of many that will follow (I hope) that describe reasoning for our (or, at least, mine) decisions. There is no better way to do that than by example, so I will here dissect the reasoning (or, at least, part of it) I will use when choosing magus archetypes. It should be noted that this topic will only describe the basic reasoning for it, not the lengthy discussions and deliberations, for both the magus and the archetypes were only recently paid by our backers, to whom we are eternally grateful. So the time for actual discussions about these archetypes will come later, and what you will see here is only the reasoning that will be part of the basis of my position in the discussions that will follow. Also, it should be pointed out that, as usual, all specific names are here for reference only and may be later subjected to change.

But before the magus archetypes, let us dissect the basics. When I will be considering archetypes, or, indeed, most features to be implemented, be it feats or spells, there are certain standard things to take into consideration. Here is the list of them, of questions that I will ask about any archetype that comes into the discussion:

1. Can it be implemented and will it make sense? While we want to preserve the atmosphere and mechanics of a pen and paper game, still there are a lot of things that are lost in transition, and some mechanics rely upon such things to exist. Some mechanics are too situational, and after some discussion, we had decided that those situations will be too rare to be supported in the game, some are lacking in the campaign. Our game is unlikely to contain lots of haunts, naval combat, and siege machines, so archetypes about them will make no sense. Our game will probably have a distinct lack of running on the roofs, so Roof Runner rogue archetype is out of the question too.

2. Will it fit into current decisions for the game? Certain decisions are already made and almost set in stone at the moment, no going back on them. Some are strongly considered. Some were just made, and while they may yet be rescinded, they should be taken into consideration nonetheless. List of classes is set, and features for them are set to be implemented. The game will be real time with pause. It’s a party based RPG. It is set in the Stolen Lands. Selecting archetypes that will need too great of a change to fit set conditions will do justice neither to the conditions nor the archetypes themselves. This questions also includes in itself whether the archetype will fit our current vision for the class and this class role in the conditions noted above.

3. Can it be done without sacrificing other features? Some archetypes are incredibly bulky and large, mechanically heavy. Some differ from their parent classes more than some classes do. We need to make the archetypes, fix bugs in them afterward if there will be some (and there will be). Sadly this means that some of the most “expensive” (measuring development time) archetypes have fewer chances to be implemented than others.

4. Is it popular? That’s one of the considerations and the very reason for the main archetype thread. Before the Kickstarter I had played many games of Pathfinder, read guides and forums and scoured the internet for the character sheets of different Pathfinder players, to learn which choices are popular. For if we implement an archetype – we want it to be selected by the players. Otherwise implementing it is pretty meaningless.

5. Will it add more to the game or will it improve the qualities we want to maximize in our game? Which means, for example, will it make the game more replayable? Provide significant choices for the character? Will it help us improve companions, enemies or neutral NPCs with the application of this archetype? Will it fit nicely into the setting and improve atmosphere by its existence? This question is, of course, more complex and partially includes and/or is included in the questions above, yet still, it must be asked in this form and many others.

6. Is it in the pen and paper version? Some asked whether we will be making the ones from the third party and I must answer – at this point, no. We are yet to make at least the ones from Paizo, and we will try stick to the standard kit here. We reserve for ourselves the right to make change the existing features and archetypes according to the changed mechanics and even to make completely new ones if we will need to, but we try to keep our game close to Pathfinder ruleset, and I am one of the main advocates for not straying away from it without a significant reason.

So, let’s begin with the archetypes themselves. I will list and describe my thoughts about the ones you mentioned in the main archetype thread (remind me if I forget one or if you will want to hear about some other archetype):

1. Kensai/Sword Saint – kensai is what came to my mind when I first read about archetypes in APG. As an avid fan of Baldur’s Gate, this was the most prominent thing that I remembered when imagining the workings of an archetype. Yes, it was there as part of a fighter class… but so many times people there dualed it with a caster class. So Kensai was bound to be mentioned by me when I was writing an update about archetypes. Of course, we renamed it slightly for Tian Xia and eastern countries are not in the game. But kensai is basically what an archetype should be – magus specializing in a specific weapon and relying on the martial prowess far more than he does on magic. Specialization without lack of choice (for you can still select different weapons). Playing it makes magus feel more like a swordsman with magic than a mage with a sword. It has almost no situational mechanics, and it isn’t that hard to make, for we already have or are already planning to make features similar to the features kensai has. It perfectly passes all the basic questions and is certainly one of the favorites of both mine and the crowd here (at least, by the last counts).

2. Bladebound – next favorite is far trickier than Kensai. Black Blade mechanics present certain problems in their development. It requires lots of texts, for different alignments of the blade. It requires the mechanics for intelligent weapons, and we discussed them already but had not yet decided their fate in our game. It presumes the standard pen and paper equipment progression that is bound to be a little different in our game (currently you have opportunities to get powerful weapons sooner than you would usually get them in pen and paper session). And it may feel underwhelming if the black blade will not be scaled up to the changed progression. And if we will just ignore these problems the archetype will not present itself in its true glory. So while its popularity is, without a doubt, he has less of a chance to end up in the game.

3. Eldritch Archer – this archetype provides a very powerful choice, changing the magus class almost completely. And this is both its blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it really provides almost a completely new class to the game. On the other hand, some magus fans may end up disappointed for this archetype does not feel exactly like a Magus anymore. And it will also require some special mechanics that will never be used in any other place and that isn't similar to anything. Still, just the sheer number of possibilities this archetype provides gives him more chances than others.

4. Staff Magus – staff magus, is certainly an interesting one, both the original take on a staff weapon and a magus class. But there are certain problems that come with it. Will there be enough quarterstaffs for it in the game? Now that’s probably not the case. We do not want to customize loot for your specific character, and the enemies you will face (one of the main sources of loot) will certainly not exchange their weapons for quarterstaffs for your sake. Does this archetype provide a lot to the game? I am not sure about this – until 10th level, it plays a lot like either normal magus or kensai, and afterward, this will only change if you have found a good staff for your level, which I am not sure you will do at most levels.

5. Hexcrafter – it is certainly a good archetype but it has a problem inherent in it, and this problem is witch’s hexes. Witches are sadly not on the class list now and making this archetype will basically mean making half of a class that is not in the game. This all, sadly, reduces its chances to make it into the cut.

6. Eldritch Scion – same problem as above here, because it uses bloodlines from bloodrager. But here it can be somewhat mended by replacing them with Sorcerer ones in many cases. At the same time, it provides a meaningful change for magus, while still feeling and playing like a magus. And there are certain possibilities to employ it for the NPCs too. So we wanted to select it, even if changing it a bit (concrete direction is undecided yet). Tell us what you think about making it work with sorcerer bloodlines (perhaps, slowing their progression or replacing certain features?).

7. Myrmidarch is a tricky one, not on mechanics but choices. It is a go into the fighter direction for magus, but unlike the specialized kensai, myrmidarch provides the magus with a versatile set of combat choices. And yet, while versatility is a king in a pen and paper game, here it is less important, for you have your party with you and you micromanage your character less. Still is a solid, although less popular choice for a magus archetype.

8. Card caster – it has a lot of previously mentioned problems. Harrow deck mechanics are not in the game. Cards as a weapon are not in the game. It is overly specialized in a specific concept. Sadly, this archetype has less of a chance than other ones.

9. Soul Forger – craft, the soul of this archetype, is not going to be in the game. So this basically decides its fate.

10. Spell Dancer – spell dancer, is a fun archetype, but its most prominent problem is its racial restriction. I don’t think that it will be okay for us to promise three archetypes and then say “One of them will be only for elves though!” and then pretend that it is completely okay. Also, it heavily relies on mobility on the battlefield – movement between enemies and such. And this is sadly a tiring micromanagement in a computer game. In pen and paper when you have your turn once in a while and want a lot of small decisions, but that is tiring if it is required too often in most single player PC games.

11. Esoteric – while certainly an interesting take on unarmed fighting, it intrudes heavily into the domain of a monk and monk’s archetypes, and I wanted to avoid archetypes that blur the lines between classes too much at least in the first take. To be fair with certain modifications it could have been a monk archetype. And while it might make monk fans happy – magus archetypes should probably be about a magus.

12. Skirnir – to be honest, skirnir is one of my favorite magus archetypes, but I can understand why it might be not as popular as others. While it certainly provides the amount of choices similar to arcane archer – these choices are strange, to say the least. And skirnir is strange. While esoteric archetype intrudes the monk’s domain – skirnir boldly strides into the desolate domain of shield masters and takes for himself, for almost no one other wants to be the rules of this strange place. Also, he only gains spell combat at 8th level…

So, please, tell me what you think about this. Had I explained it well? Do you disagree with these thoughts of mine? Your feedback may decide the fate of some archetypes in question later on when we will be making decisions on the final archetype list for Magus. Ask your questions, and I will try to answer them, although please understand, that my answers may be severely delayed, for I visit forums occasionally and while I can spend a lot of time there, occasions like this one happen not as often as I would like them to.

Also, tell me whether this format of discussion it suitable and whether you will want to hear about other classes and their archetypes. Or maybe about something else.

 

[Iznaliu]

"Those weren't real Rtwp, comrade, my RtwP will be the real rtwp.

"Real RTwP" is an abstraction that cannot be reached by mere RPGs.

 

[Jenkem]

I think some people floated the idea for PoE at some point.

I predict that you will be complaining about it when it's released.

how many potatoes are you willing to bet?

 

[Background Character]

Goddamn this looks awesome, pls don't dissapoint.

Or else.

 

[Lyre Mors]

To those who have backed this: have they opened the backer portal yet?

 

[Iznaliu]

To those who have backed this: have they opened the backer portal yet?

It's next to the entrance to the hollow earth.

 

[Quantomas]

First signs of proper round-based combat from Owlcat's forums.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Nothing

To TheMetaphysician: We are currently experimenting with it. It is very simple with paladin – he can just use his lay on hands in the middle of a full attack and not bat an eye. More than that – he uses it on himself, so he will never need to go anywhere to do that. So this can be done by just paladin casting lay on hands on himself between attacks or even during one (if we will remove the animation from it and only leave the FX). But magus is more complex cause at the start of a full attack you need to know whether is casting this round or not – he gets -2 to attack and cannot use his natural attacks on the round he did cast a spell.

So currently the system I envision here is somewhat like this - if magus casts a spell and then attacks he will attack immediately and will fit all his attacks into the round duration, suffering the -2 to attacks and so on. If he didn’t cast a spell this round and you give a command to cast a spell in the middle of an attack, and he does not need to go anywhere to cast this spell – he will wait until the attack ends and a new round begins, then he will cast a spell and continue his attack. If he needs to go somewhere to cast a spell – he will interrupt the attack and will go there. I should point out that actual realization is a fair bit more complex than this (there are far more cases to consider) and may change later due to playtests and feedback on it.

Very cool. This makes me realize that the mechanics of this game are going to be importantly different from other RTWP games like Baldur's Gate/NWN etc. -- which is cool, because it is a new system to learn. I'm excited to see what you guys end up with.

 

[Lyre Mors]

To those who have backed this: have they opened the backer portal yet?

So I take that silence as a no?

 

[Quantomas]

At least I didn't get a message that the backer portal is open. You can preorder through their site though.

 

[Lyre Mors]

At least I didn't get a message that the backer portal is open. You can preorder through their site though.

Thank you. I'm just curious because I won a free copy and they said they would be getting back to me last week with a key when they got their backer portal opened. They must have missed their mark by a little bit.