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

[fantadomat]

Life of the Party A Russian take on an extremely American concept.

By the way, who's the brunette at the front? Did they realize that

isn't what anyone who isn't a vatnik would describe as a "supernatural beauty"?

For a tranny it's pretty good.

It will be my chosen whifu,would drill that tomboy in the ass hard.

 

[ItsChon]

Dude even Peterson is smart enough to call his opponents postmodern-neomarxists because simply calling them postmodern doesn't make any sense. You're confusing intersectionality with postmodernism. If you're going to parrot someone at least do it correctly.

I didn't bring up intersectionality though, in my example I reduced the whole SJW idea of oppression into a power dynamic. And I also never argued that they were simply postmodernists. I distinctly mention in my initial post.

Postmodernism is an extremely broad ideology, that can be twisted into various different ideas and belief systems

Although after reading this,

While sujelians will say that they must band around the identity to gain political traction as a group, postmodernists will say that that identity is in of itself oppressive and should be deconstructed and destabilized. Most feminists hate the postmodernists for this reason, they believe that they can't politically lobby for women if the whole concept of womanhood is called into question. Judith Butler is the only postmodern feminist I know, maybe also Julia Kristeva. The two groups talking about power hardly means they are the same thing or even similar, the French Revolutionaries also talked about power.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't actually know what I'm talking about. I was also going to deny your accusation of parroting Jordan Peterson, but I have to be honest with myself and admit that I don't actually know enough about this topic, and the only reason I was speaking so confidently about it is because of what Jordan Peterson had said. So, fair enough for calling me out on it; I'll take that L.

I'll stick to the topic of Roleplay, something I do know something about.

 

[Life of the Party]

It's called Kingmaker, not Queenmaker though.

Wymun can be kings now

Mepe Tamar.

 

[fantadomat]

It's called Kingmaker, not Queenmaker though.

Wymun can be kings now

Mepe Tamar.

It was a joke mate,pretty sure that both of us know about the existence of queens in the real world. I was going for the genderlessness of modern politics than about the existence of women that ruled countries.

 

[Tacgnol]

judging from lets plays it seems casters suck ass in this game. Caster classes fare better in turn based DnD combat like temple of elemental evil but you only see that strength when the games practically over due to the low level cap. Even then sometimes all you want is a fighter type that can muscle through encounters.

If it's anything like the tabletop, casters will come into their own around level 6 when they get their first level 3 spells.

Martials tend to be stronger at lower levels, but scale much worse later on. Saying that, Barbarians continue to be very solid damage dealers due to strength and power attack scaling, very much one trick ponies though.

 

[Life of the Party]

'Mepe' means 'king', as far as I know. King Tamar and pharaoh Hatshepsut.

 

[Fairfax]

judging from lets plays it seems casters suck ass in this game. Caster classes fare better in turn based DnD combat like temple of elemental evil but you only see that strength when the games practically over due to the low level cap. Even then sometimes all you want is a fighter type that can muscle through encounters.

Casters seem weak in the beta (my Wizard most certainly does), but I'd guess it's because quite a lot of spells are missing.

 

[Cael]

Casters seem weak in the beta (my Wizard most certainly does), but I'd guess it's because quite a lot of spells are missing.

This is beginning to remind me of 4th Ed.

The fighter has a move called kick that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter. The mage has a spell called magic missile that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter. The cleric has a spell called inflict light wounds that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter.
The fighter has a move called whirlwind that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10 ft radius usable once per day. The mage has a spell called fire ring that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10ft radius usable once per day. The mage has a spell call minor blade barrier that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10ft radius usable once per day.

WotC calls it "balancing casters".

 

[Shilandra]

The cleric has a spell called inflict light wounds that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter.

Thats for evil clerics... right?

 

[Cael]

Gotta play class because you like the concept, not because it has 1 more point of BAB

You are talking to a person that plays D&D only for the combat. For him the roleplaying is picking the most practical character.

For combat, you go with the most practical character because otherwise, you die, which sorts of puts a huge hole in the idea of playing further with that character in any way shape or form. In other words, in order to roleplay, you have to survive first. There is no point playing a character that is the Stephen Hawking of RP characters only for him to get killed in the first combat.

As for roleplaying, that can be done with ANY character. That is a problem that many idiots tend to fall into: They buy into the myth that a mechanically sound character somehow detracts from its ability to be roleplayed. That a person can be a roleplayer or a rollplayer, but not both. This is, unfortunatey, something that is reinforced by many things around us. The old jocks vs nerd dichotomy, the one between wizards and fighters, etc. A smart jock? Doesn't exist! A good roleplayer that doesn't have an angsty, gimped character? No way!

This becomes a problem when we are discussing things like the paladin, the samurai and the knight in DnD, all of which has subpar abilities and considered weak even when compared to the basic, barebones Fighter. These are all classes that have RP components (duties and obligations) that is specifically spelt out in their class description (again, I must put here that technically ALL divine classes have the same RP components, but most of them tend to be ignored, for some reason). This is actually BAD GAME DESIGN.

If a class requires onerous RP actions (and therefore be pigeonholed into a specific role and/or method of existing, e,g,m the chivalric knight in shining armour), then it must have abilities that make it supremely overpowered because it has something that can be used by the DM or other players in order to destroy that character. In other words, it relies on the good will of others in order to survive, and human nature being human nature, that is something that will be challenged especially in multiplayer games.

The flipside of that is not to have that RP requirement and a class is a collection of abilities and stats and you can make it to be whatever the heck you want it to be. And this is where the RPG makers are moving towards (but haven't quite reached... yet). Again, I blame the mindset of millenial SJW fucks for this because everything "must be equal" and "you can't have an overpowered class! Not fair! Not fair!"

Now, imagine if your Paladin has ALL of the Fighter bonus feats and Fighter only feats. AND on top of that, it has the spell progression of a Knight of the Sword (in the Krynn Gold Box games; the existence of which, hilariously is why if you play a paladin in those games, you are deliberately gimping yourself). And on top of that, it retains all of its special abilities. Would that make it a worthy class to play from start to finish, especially if it is mandated in the class description that they are a venerated class because of their righteousness and sense of honour and justice? I would say far better than the "why bother" mess we have now.

 

[Cael]

Thats for evil clerics... right?

All clerics get it. It is not restricted. It never was except in the Krynn Gold Box games.

 

[Shilandra]

Thats for evil clerics... right?

All clerics get it. It is not restricted. It never was except in the Krynn Gold Box games.

I just find it strange that clerics get a per encounter inflict wounds instead of a heal. Seems like something like that would be divided by alignment.

 

[DalekFlay]

Not enough time to chitty-chat about shit I haven't played yet, but just stopping in to say I dislike the art style a good bit. Looks cartoony, and very, very generic. Will still buy day one anyway because I'm a sucker I want to support the genre and incline.

 

[Fairfax]

Casters seem weak in the beta (my Wizard most certainly does), but I'd guess it's because quite a lot of spells are missing.

This is beginning to remind me of 4th Ed.

The fighter has a move called kick that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter. The mage has a spell called magic missile that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter. The cleric has a spell called inflict light wounds that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter.
The fighter has a move called whirlwind that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10 ft radius usable once per day. The mage has a spell called fire ring that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10ft radius usable once per day. The mage has a spell call minor blade barrier that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10ft radius usable once per day.

WotC calls it "balancing casters".

Casters are overpowered as usual in Pathfinder. Unless they made significant changes to the ruleset for this game, it's just a matter of adding the rest of the spells.

 

[Mustawd]

Does this game have zen archers?

 

[Cael]

Thats for evil clerics... right?

All clerics get it. It is not restricted. It never was except in the Krynn Gold Box games.

I just find it strange that clerics get a per encounter inflict wounds instead of a heal. Seems like something like that would be divided by alignment.

You do realise that I was being ironic there, and was exaggerating the (real) dumbfuckery that is 4th Ed...

 

[aweigh]

 

[J1M]

Casters seem weak in the beta (my Wizard most certainly does), but I'd guess it's because quite a lot of spells are missing.

This is beginning to remind me of 4th Ed.

The fighter has a move called kick that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter. The mage has a spell called magic missile that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter. The cleric has a spell called inflict light wounds that does 1d4 damage per level that is usable once per encounter.
The fighter has a move called whirlwind that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10 ft radius usable once per day. The mage has a spell called fire ring that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10ft radius usable once per day. The mage has a spell call minor blade barrier that does 1d6 damage per level to all enemies in a 10ft radius usable once per day.

WotC calls it "balancing casters".

Casters are overpowered as usual in Pathfinder. Unless they made significant changes to the ruleset for this game, it's just a matter of adding the rest of the spells.

Quests with time limits would be the obvious balance lever.

 

[Cael]

Casters are overpowered as usual in Pathfinder. Unless they made significant changes to the ruleset for this game, it's just a matter of adding the rest of the spells.

Quests with time limits would be the obvious balance lever.

You are stuck in a massive underground labyrinth that has gone unchecked for thousands of years. It is a breeding ground for all sorts of horrors and vicious monsters. Danger lurks at every corner and staying too long in one place invites attacks.

 

[Cael]

I've never liked the usual representation of Paladins as people who are exceptionally beautiful and knights in shining armor. Beauty on the outside meaning beauty on the inside is so ...Ancient Greek. My problem stems from the whole "devoted to good and champion of justice" thing, I kind of don't know what that means from a practical standpoint and as a realistic personality. What would such a person be in real life? What would they do? And how would they look like? I don't picture handsome men killing dragons to save maidens somehow, or beautiful women riding into battle to avenge peasants.

Indeed, Socrates was an intellectual, but he kept telling everyone to hit the gym in order to have the most good looking body possible. Be the best you can be at everything (while you can!). I think that's the gist of it.

There are things that are complex and it is hard to make out what the "best" outcome is, what to strive for. Justice, for example, is an extremely complex thing. Other things are simpler (surface beauty in this case), so it's an improvement that is easy to make and set you on the right path (although, make no mistake, Ancient Athenians were great admirers of surface beauty in its own right). Why don't you like it?

That is because the Ancient Greeks believed in "virtues", which can be, amongst other things, physical beauty. Their sense of ethics is far different from the professional offense taking we get these days.

 

[aweigh]

it's d and d. of course casters are OP, and we wouldn't want it any other fucking way.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Poor Gygax must be turing in his grave. After all these years, after all the books, guides, player's options and completes people still can't agree on what being a paladin means.

A "good christian", you mentioned, is supposed to turn his other cheek when slapped. It's written so in the christian's handbook.
I hope you won't insist that this is the modus operandi of the original D&D paladins.

But anyways, all this pluralistic shit started when they allowed non-humans to be paladins.
And soon after that can of worms was opened they started to create non-good, non-lawful paladins, paladin-atheists and paladins without code of honor. Basically people started to slap term paladin over any fighter, the way weebs would call all their swords katanas just because they think it makes them cool.

In the end, the thing is, it's now fruitless to discuss what a paladin is and is not outside of a given setting.

The notion of paladin-equivalents for alignments other than Lawful Good began with the article "The Anti-Paladin NPC" in Dragon Magazine #39 (July 1980), introducing a Chaotic Evil version to serve as an antagonist, although this did result in a terse rejoinder by Gary Gygax in a letter appearing in #41: "The anti-paladin is as useful as a third leg. Paladins were designed to counter balance the weight of evil monsters in AD&D. If DMs must resort to such, to control their games, why not use a 16-ton block instead? It is at least as subtle and rational." Despite Gary's displeasure, this article was included in The Best of Dragon Magazine Volume 2 in 1981!

Moreover, paladin-equivalents soon became official in D&D with the 'Green Box' Companion Set, which not only allowed Lawful (BECMI D&D had a single-axis three alignment system) wandering fighters the option of becoming a Paladin after reaching name level, but also allowed Neutral wandering fighters the option of becoming a Knight (in service to a secular liege rather than a Lawful church) and Chaotic wandering fighters the option of becoming an Avenger (in alliance with a Chaotic church).

An article titled "A Plethora of Paladins" in Dragon Magazine #106 (February 1986) introduced paladin equivalents for the other seven alignments (noting explicitly the earlier article on "anti-paladins").

As for the morality practiced by paladins, this was the subject of numerous debates in Dragon Magazine over the years. Gary Gygax himself wrote on the subject in Dragon Magazine #38 (June 1980) in response to earlier letters:

A player with a Paladin character asks if this character can “put someone to death (who) is severely scarred and doesn’t want to live.” Although the Sage Advice reply was a strong negative, the actual truth of the matter might lie somewhere else. The player does not give the name of the deity served by the Paladin. This is the key to lawful good behavior in AD&D terms. Remember that “good” can be related to reality ofttimes, but not always. It might also relate to good as perceived in the past, actual or mythical. In the latter case, a Paladin could well force conversion at swordpoint, and, once acceptance of “the true way” was expressed, dispatch the new convert on the spot. This assures that the prodigal will not return to the former evil ways, sends the now-saved spirit on to a better place, and incidentally rids the world of a potential troublemaker. Such actions are “good,” in these ways: 1. Evil is abridged (by at least one creature). 2. Good has gained a convert. 3. The convert now has hope for rewards (rather than torment) in the afterlife. 4. The good populace is safer (by a factor of at least 1). It is therefore possible for a Paladin to, in fact, actually perform a “mercy killing” such as the inquiring player asked about, provided the tenets of his or her theology permitted it. While unlikely, it is possible.

Another case in point was that of a player with a Paladin character who wishes to marry and begin a lineage. Again, our “Sage Advisor” suggests a negative. While many religions forbid wedlock and demand celibacy, this is by no means universal. The key is again the deity served, of course. DMs not using specific deities will harken back to the origin of the term Paladin and realize that celibacy is not a condition of that sort of Paladinhood. Also, although the Roman Catholic church demands celibacy of its priests, the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity hold matrimony and child bearing and rearing as holy and proper, i.e. “good.” So unless a particular deity demands celibacy of its fighter-minions, there is no conceivable reason for a Paladin not to marry and raise children. This is a matter for common sense— and the DM, who, if not arbitrary, will probably agree with the spirit of AD&D and allow marriage and children (This must be a long-range campaign, or else its participants are preoccupied with unusual aspects of the game. No matter . . .)

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Guise i missed several tens of pages of this thread.

Anything new about Kangmaker opther than the delayed release date and gimped mages in beta.

 

[ArchAngel]

I doubt mages are weak even in beta. Two 'mage' companions are not pure mages so they are not representative.

 

[Swampy_Merkin]

That is because the Ancient Greeks believed in "virtues", which can be, amongst other things, physical beauty. Their sense of ethics is far different from the professional offense taking we get these days.

Don't paint the "Ancient Greeks" with such a broad brush. Their sense of the virtues was far more diversified and enlightened than our modern, corporate brainwashed sheepilization.