Pathfinder Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Beta Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Salvo]

That's not really true, since you can't control what's being crafted and artisans are just a different form of looting.

You can in fact pretty much control what is being crafted. Last two times through got all eight MPs. Oppressor always shows up, as does a Fauchard.

As I said though unless you're Sword Saint you don't specialize until the weapon you want shows up. There's literally no reason to.

That's what you idiots can't get through your thick heads. If you want to play Baldur's Gate Owlcat is under no obligation to oblige you.

And yet they did anyway because there was enough of you whiny deluded fucktards that they evidently had to, making Martial Proficiency again nearly meaningless.

Get your blood pressure checked

Stop saying stupid shit because you’re too lazy to figure out how games work and too bull-headed to listen to those willing to figure them out for you so you’ll quit fucking things up for everybody.

You're lashing out at random at people that didn't even start the argument you're complaining about.
I stand by my previous statement.

 

[Desiderius]

These games are designed to be a good experience for careful first or only playthrough while also increasing replayability by enhancing subsequent playthroughs with the capacity to benefit from meta knowledge.

 

[Desiderius]

That's not really true, since you can't control what's being crafted and artisans are just a different form of looting.

You can in fact pretty much control what is being crafted. Last two times through got all eight MPs. Oppressor always shows up, as does a Fauchard.

As I said though unless you're Sword Saint you don't specialize until the weapon you want shows up. There's literally no reason to.

That's what you idiots can't get through your thick heads. If you want to play Baldur's Gate Owlcat is under no obligation to oblige you.

And yet they did anyway because there was enough of you whiny deluded fucktards that they evidently had to, making Martial Proficiency again nearly meaningless.

Get your blood pressure checked

Stop saying stupid shit because you’re too lazy to figure out how games work and too bull-headed to listen to those willing to figure them out for you so you’ll quit fucking things up for everybody.

You're lashing out at random at people that didn't even start the argument you're complaining about.
I stand by my previous statement.

There is no argument. There’s people saying stupid shit that doesn’t even apply to this game starting with retarded video.

 

[Desiderius]

The original design was a good one. You start out with whatever weapon you find. You notice that Martial Weapons are always slightly better than the Simple equivalent (except Flail lol), and make a note to try a Martial class next playthrough.

You find something interesting and instead of “oh well not my specialty, gotta vendor it” like some ghey MMO you get to use it and maybe it changes some of your tactics. That’s fun.

Again, if it’s a Martial and you believed some online Vivi meme you think, huh, Martial Proficiency actually matters in this game, cool.

Then you stumble upon your first Exotic and you’ve got another decision. This thing is obviously better. Do I burn a (scarce) Feat on a non-Martial to use this? On a Martial where there’s less of an upgrade and I can use more if the stuff I find in the future on this guy?

It’s these kinds of decisions that make games fun. But you never even get to experience any of that if you’re too busy cramming every game into the same pre-existing notions you’ve had for 25 years or worse into the dumbed down MMO archetypes you grew up with.

 

[Grunker]

if choosing between weapons is fun why disincentivize that choice by implementing specialization thus reducing the meaningfulness of all future choices

your own argument defeats your position

into the dumbed down MMO archetypes you grew up with.

nigga what are you, 20? i didn't "grow up" with wow, even if i had played it when it came out, which i didn't

 

[Desiderius]

If it’s autism then maybe that’s why autism exists. To tell you shit you don’t want to hear without worrying about the consequences.

People think I’m shilling PF games or whatever. No, I’m telling a generation of more of gamers that you’re approaching games bassakwards and fucking over devs, other players, and ultimately yourselves with the braindead nerfs and other shit you demand because you’re so stuck playing the games in your head you can’t even see the ones that exist.

And yeah I’m lashing out at that and at anyone stopping me from stopping that at least long enough for them to understand what they’re bitching about before they start bitching about it.

 

[Sarkile]

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1184370/announcements/detail/3002196778009332539

Patch notes 0.8.0l (Final Beta)
Quests

• Some NPCs were unable to interact with player character - fixed (You may have to load an earlier save if you missed a chance to talk to an NPC due to the bug, and that NPC is no longer available);
  
• Incorrect dialog with Horzalah after killing Willodus - fixed.

Areas

• Game freezing in turn-based mod after meeting Will-o’-Wisp in the Underground Hideout - fixed.

Classes & Mechanics

• Fixed race bonuses in character creation;
  
• Fixed issues with companions auto levelling;
  
• Fixed using jade for Shapechange spell as material;
  
• Fixed mounts in turn-based mode;
  
• The second mystery was not available for Enlightened Philosopher - fixed;
  
• Azata’s ability "Song of Courageous Defender" wasn’t working - fixed.

Items

• It was possible to loot the same container after saving and loading the game - fixed.

User Interfaces

• Distortion in the main menu - fixed.

Misс

• Some cape physics fixes;
  
• Localization fixes.

 

[razvedchiki]

backers get the dlcs for free?

 

[Shadenuat]

if choosing between weapons is fun why disincentivize that choice by implementing specialization thus reducing the meaningfulness of all future choices

there is moment to moment choice, and there is strategic choice, based on your understanding of the whole game. choices made of meaningful sacrifices to then get perfect gameplay you want and catharsis from "ideal" build. like running with +0/+1 katana and investing all points into katana and then getting celestial fury and turning bosses which were problem for u before into stunned fodder.
if itemization is strong enough, sacrificing a +1 attack and +2 damage when you truly need it (because enemy might be just immune to bladed weapons) is not a problem.

I enjoyed a lot Peasant/Knight/Hunter weapon masteries in POE1 though because of its narrativiness.

Specialization might be not perfect. But neither in Pathfinder it is necessary, like say ***** in BG. Fighters can master whole groups of weapons. If you have perfect plan, you can dedicate yourself to something while making party compliment you. Saint is a very specific, particular class, where people would argue to deff what that 1 weapon is best meta. But if you don't want it, you can get your +100 attack through many other means.

 

[Tacgnol]

if choosing between weapons is fun why disincentivize that choice by implementing specialization thus reducing the meaningfulness of all future choices

there is moment to moment choice, and there is strategic choice, based on your understanding of the whole game. choices made of meaningful sacrifices to then get perfect gameplay you want and catharsis from "ideal" build. like running with +0/+1 katana and investing all points into katana and then getting celestial fury and turning bosses which were problem for u before into stunned fodder.
if itemization is strong enough, sacrificing a +1 attack and +2 damage when you truly need it (because enemy might be just immune to bladed weapons) is not a problem.

I enjoyed a lot Peasant/Knight/Hunter weapon masteries in POE1 though because of its narrativiness.

Specialization might be not perfect. But neither in Pathfinder it is necessary, like say ***** in BG. Fighters can master whole groups of weapons. If you have perfect plan, you can dedicate yourself to something while making party compliment you. Saint is a very specific, particular class, where people would argue to deff what that 1 weapon is best meta. But if you don't want it, you can get your +100 attack through many other means.

Yes, you really do miss out on very little overall for not taking the complete weapon focus chain as a fighter. Ultimately +2 attack and +4 damage. Not a bad bonus but considering it take 4 feats to get all that.

For non fighters it's even worse, ultimately just giving you +1 attack.

The fighter training class powers which offer weapon groups already give you decent scaling bonuses based on level.

 

[Shadenuat]

yeah, it is just a cog in a system, I think players are just used to picking that feat because "that's what fighter would pick", due to being unfamiliar with chains of feats for martials in Pathfinder that are more interesting or better. but in a massive mega nerdorgasm machine that is pathfinder it is, just a cog, as noted.

 

[Grunker]

if choosing between weapons is fun why disincentivize that choice by implementing specialization thus reducing the meaningfulness of all future choices

there is moment to moment choice, and there is strategic choice, based on your understanding of the whole game. choices made of meaningful sacrifices to then get perfect gameplay you want and catharsis from "ideal" build. like running with +0/+1 katana and investing all points into katana and then getting celestial fury and turning bosses which were problem for u before into stunned fodder.
if itemization is strong enough, sacrificing a +1 attack and +2 damage when you truly need it (because enemy might be just immune to bladed weapons) is not a problem.

I enjoyed a lot Peasant/Knight/Hunter weapon masteries in POE1 though because of its narrativiness.

Specialization might be not perfect. But neither in Pathfinder it is necessary, like say ***** in BG. Fighters can master whole groups of weapons. If you have perfect plan, you can dedicate yourself to something while making party compliment you. Saint is a very specific, particular class, where people would argue to deff what that 1 weapon is best meta. But if you don't want it, you can get your +100 attack through many other means.

I don't even know where to start with all those strawmen. Specialization doesn't lock people out from "ideal builds" or cause you to sacrifice anything. It just lessens experimentation for people new to the game. If I know the game and know I want to use whatever weapon, specialization is completely free. The only time it has a cost is if I'm new, or don't want to cheat by looking up weapons on a wiki, and here I'm probably not sacrificing power (because odds are, whatever I specialized in will have an equally powerful itemization option these days), I'm only sacrificing the effectiveness with which I can expiriment with different weapons.

There's a reason I used words like "disincentivize" or "reduce" and not "make it impossible" or "can't." It was to avoid the strawman that "omg lel you can totally use the weapon without the feat even if you picked the feat." Because it's dumb - firstly, I doubt anyone who says that ever takes Weapon Focus and then uses another weapon, and secondly, that's not what it's about. It's about a boring system that has no benefits in terms of giving the player an interesting choice, but a few (though admittedly not many) drawbacks in terms of disincentivizing experimentation and the natural inclination to experience all the cool shit you actually put into the game.

It's curious that your primary argument is about sacrificing something, because that's exactly why specializing isn't that great of a system. There's no cost to gaining an increase in power by selecting one weapon over another in a game like Pathfinder, because it is extremely rare to ever want to switch weapon types - EXCEPT when you're just doing it for fun because you found something cool and want to try it.

due to being unfamiliar with chains of feats for martials in Pathfinder that are more interesting or better.

 

[Sharpedge]

Even if you do want to take the weapon specialization feats on a character, there is absolutely no reason to take them at level 1. On a strength based character there is the whole power attack line of feats you could take and on a dexterity based character there is the weapon finesse line of feats. Then there are also teamwork feats you can take which are good for everyone. Pretty much the only exception to this is sword saint, where you only need to specialize because its forced by the class. I will probably take a weapon specialization on Seelah at some point, but I absolutely will not be taking it during the first half of the game because its just not necessary and by the time I do take it I will have some idea of what weapon I want her to use.

 

[Shadenuat]

It is not even a particularly effective feat in the meta of Wrath in particular, btw; I think in my 3 beta playthroughs, I taken it 1 time cause had a Saint, as I was mostly busy maxing my initiative, generating extra attacks from crits from outflanks from aoos from crits from attacks, improving my saving throws etc. Although I am not fighter player and there are mythics which probably can play some role.

If I know the game and know I want to use whatever weapon, specialization is completely free

A feat is never "free". It has situational cost especially in a pretty tough little game like Wrath, where 1 feat can lead u into great mythic right now that will save your ass or make future choices more fitting for your gamestyle.

It's about a boring system that has no benefits in terms of giving the player an interesting choice, but a few (though not many) drawbacks in terms of disincentivizing experimentation.

There's no cost to gaining an increase in power by selecting one weapon over another in a game like Pathfinder, because it is extremely rare to ever want to switch weapon types

I see no ways for that feat to remove your ability to experiment. The difference what it makes when compared to, say, a Glaive that fears whole screen of enemies is marginal. It is just an autistic feat of autism for people to crunch into some extra numbers. And of course flavour of being master of weapon X.

You seem to come from the perspective, btw, that players are idiots without any will to experiment and are happy to lock themselves into bad choices and are incapable of having fun, which I find a poor position to begin with.

 

[Kaivokz]

I see where Desiderius is coming from.

The popularity of “balance” has absolutely dominated since the rise of modern MMOs.

Grunker what you’re suggesting isn’t the same as a comprehensive balance patch designed to make all choices roughly equivalent, but it is a step in that direction.

Your question seems to be: “Why would I ever select a weapon specialization feat if I don’t know whether or not I will find a good weapon of that type in this pre-designed campaign?” The problem with this line of thought is that you simultaneously want (1) to make the best choice and (2) to do so without metagaming knowledge. The only way to guarantee this kind of outcome from a design perspective is to eliminate real choice; every option, without foreknowledge, must be roughly equivalent. In your example, this just means making some sort of group of specialization feats such that for any specialization choice you make, you will find a good weapon… but then what is the real point of the choice? Flavor?

Opportunity cost is what makes a fresh play of a game fun. To what I take to be your primary question: A fighter at level one who takes a weapon focus feat in longsword means that even using a non-magical longsword becomes effectively a +1 in terms of accuracy. And a +1 becomes a +2. That’s not a bad way to start the game, but it comes at an opportunity cost—what if you find a +3 mace? Then the weapon is so good your natural talent with the longsword is overcome… but if you find a creature resistant to bludgeoning damage, you can go back to a +1 damage +2 hit longsword! So you have choice, options, consequence.

Could you design specialization “packages” such that there is still choice and consequence? Yeah, probably, but the desire to be protected from “bad” (meaning suboptimal) choices is directly connected to the balancing craze that is affecting RPGs.

 

[Grunker]

No, my question is "what benefits does a specialization system have." I realize there's probably no way to make meaningful arguments in favour of specialization without all these strawmen, but you could at least try

 

[Sharpedge]

No, my question is "what benefits does a specialization system have." I realize there's probably no way to make meaningful arguments in favour of specialization without all these strawmen, but you could at least try

The point of specializations existing in the first place probably has more to do with the idea of verisimilitude than anything else. In the real world someone proficient with using one weapon isn't going to be equally as adept at using another weapon, hence the existence of specializations. If anything you could argue the benefits for specializations in pathfinder is too small relative to the real world impact, but that is another story.

 

[LannTheStupid]

It just lessens experimentation for people new to the game.

Which is good. Play the game first, then experiment knowing meta. And then experiment again. It is called "user retention".

And if someone is playing such a deep game as Kingmaker only once - well, the player already bought the game, but decided to cut on his enjoyment. Again, very good. Why change the mechanics for those with the memory of a fish?

 

[NJClaw]

No, my question is "what benefits does a specialization system have."

The same benefits of all the other feats in this game: if you want to create and play a specific type of character they allow you to do so.

"Hey, I want to play a guy who mastered the dueling sword! Cool, I can do that!"

In what way allowing this is detrimental to the rest of the game?

 

[Lord of Riva]

-

basically a *perfectly* formulated and coherent argument, I had to brofist that.

 

[Grunker]

I see no ways for that feat to remove your ability to experiment

There's a reason I used words like "disincentivize" or "reduce" and not "make it impossible" or "can't."

you just lemme know when you're ready to start engaging my arguments, don't want to waste time shooting down your simulacrums

 

[Shadenuat]

No, my question is "what benefits does a specialization system have."

The same benefits of all the other feats in this game: if you want to create and play a specific type of character they allow you to do so.

P much.

Also, it is a loaded question, honestly: what benefits does system that locks you into any choices has? Why not allow free switching between feats with a right mouse click?

you just lemme know when you're ready to start engaging my arguments, don't want to waste time shooting down your simulacrums

Your mountain is too high for us poor gamers to climb.

 

[Grunker]

The same benefits of all the other feats in this game: if you want to create and play a specific type of character they allow you to do so.

"Hey, I want to play a guy who mastered the dueling sword! Cool, I can do that!"

A system asset has two jobs: be an interesting mechanic and be appealing to the player. I suppose there's a very minor argument that specializing does the latter (though picking +1 attack bonus never made me feel like my characters were masters of a weapon, like Desiderius and Shadenuat completely correctly state, the boni from specializing in PF are very minor).

But mechanically it's only downside. The bonus is uinteresting, and the cost is to discourage that character from actually playing with the cool shit you designed in your game, or being clever with weapon selection against enemy types.

In what way allowing this is detrimental to the rest of the game?

I argue why it's detrimental in my post. If you disagree with something just quote it

 

[Grunker]

Your mountain is too high for us poor gamers to climb.

The obvious difference between "removing an option" and "disincentivizing an option" is completely clear even for you. You're just too lazy to engage with my actual argument

 

[Shadenuat]

The bonus is uinteresting

Then don't pick it.

Grunker your argument is pointless, you can make it about any situational bonus, and then wonder, why did you pick a situational bonus instead of a generic one.

unfamiliar with feats

I meant guy in the video who began whole thing.