Gold Box Knights of the Chalice 2 classes shit all over Kingmaker's mess

[mediocrepoet]

KotC 1 had the best classes.

 

[Darth Canoli]

KotC 1 had the best classes.

All three of them?

 

[Cryomancer]

KotC 1 having only 3 classes is IMO the greatest weakness of the (amazing) game.

 

[mediocrepoet]

KotC 1 had the best classes.

All three of them?

Anyone who thinks you need more than 3 classes is a lame casul.

 

[Cryomancer]

KotC 1 had the best classes.

All three of them?

Anyone who thinks you need more than 3 classes is a lame casul.

Some things can be archived with just 3 classes + multiclass. For eg, Paladins can be cleric/fighter. More exotic casters can be "kits" in 2e or be made with feats in 3E, clerics can be vastly different depending the deity which they worship(A druid can be a "nature cleric" with no need to create a separated class), martial classes too, a Barbarian can be more reckless than a Fighter for eg. But if you wanna for example play as a Psion in Dark Sun, you NEED more than 3 classes.

The point is that having lots of splatbooks is a good way to make money, this is why we have so many 3.5E/PF1e classes. I agree that we have too many classes and that it could be reduced without hurting RP. But 3 is a bit too far IMO.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

But 3 is a bit too far

Nah you only need 3.
Barbarian for fighting and extra fighting
Paladin for fighting, diplomacy and the occasional heal and righteous fury.
Ranger for fighting and the occasional sneaking.

 

[Pink Eye]

It was all decline once Owlcat put Pink Eye in their game. :D

Ouch, nice one though.

 

[mediocrepoet]

One easy way you can tell that KotC1's class selection is superior to KotC2 and the Pathfinder games is that KotC1 has no monks while the other games have monks.

A second way you can tell that KotC1's class selection is superior to KotC2 and the Pathfinder games is that KotC1 only has one wizard class, while KotC2 and the Pathfinder games have multiple wizard classes. It's like decline incarnate.

I could go on, but I trust I've made my point.

 

[Pink Eye]

One easy way you can tell that KotC1's class selection is superior to KotC2 and the Pathfinder games is that KotC1 has no monks while the other games have monks.

A second way you can tell that KotC1's class selection is superior to KotC2 and the Pathfinder games is that KotC1 only has one wizard class, while KotC2 and the Pathfinder games have multiple wizard classes. It's like decline incarnate.

I could go on, but I trust I've made my point.

Sure brah. You can enjoy your Fighter/Mage/Mage/Cleric party while superior lads enjoy their selection of more than 3 classes

 

[NJClaw]

Kingmakers are NOWHERE NEAR KotC 2

NWN 1 absolutely shit on Kingmakers

Aaaaaand... he did it again.

One easy way you can tell that KotC1's class selection is superior to KotC2 and the Pathfinder games is that KotC1 has no monks while the other games have monks.

Icewind Dale 2 would be my favorite game of all time if I didn't have to see the word "Monk" any time I create or level up a character.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Pathfinder was designed to fix the "Let's multiclass everything to optimize the hell out of everything" of 3.5. Honestly if you play the base and core classes it is not as bloated as what presented in KM and is actually pretty nice with most class having clear enough identity like the base class in KotC. E.g. spell caster is divided to full caster, 6th circle caster, 4th circle caster with touch of martial. There are some flavor of martial.

But then Paizo made shitton of archtypes and new classes that add so much redundancy.

Pierre actually adhere to the initial premise of making single class with clear identity without adding bloat so that's good for him. There are some things that I dislike, e.g. rogue will always be a caster, but that's flavor problem.

As people pointed out, the domain selection for Divine caster in KOTC2 is stellar and actually core to the game. I also like how a lot spells scale more in KOTC 2 compared to in PF (summons for example).

 

[Pink Eye]

Icewind Dale 2 would be my favorite game of all time if I didn't have to see the word "Monk" any time I create or level up a character.

Monks are the best class ever; unarmed specialists that pummel enemies to death.

 

[Cryomancer]

You can enjoy your Fighter/Mage/Mage/Cleric party while superior lads enjoy their selection of more than 3 classes

LOL... Anyway, In KoTC 1 I played F/F/M/C. In Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager, I played with 2 martials(half giant glatiator and a insectoid fighter), a preserver and a cleric. IMO having more than a divine and a arcane caster in a 4 party is not good. Mainly in a game which gives lots of powerful magical weapons + magical arrows and limits resting a lot(kotc 1/2) and games where you can have ridiculous high strong half giant gladiators(kotc 2).

I agree with his critique that we have much redundancy in pf1e. For eg, I wanna make a necromancer in WoTR. I can pick the regular wizard + specialize on it. Can pick the thassilonian specialist, cruoromancer, a cleric of a evil deity, play as an oracle, tons of different subclasses for clerics/oracles, an sorcerer of undead bloodline and so on. But as I've said it has to do with the desire to sell splatbooks... Witches/Warlocks in AD&D 2e are a magic user kit. In 3E, they are introduced in a book(complete arcane).

What he is wrong is when he says that 3 classes is enough. Maybe he is right for a generic sword coast adventure, but if I'm playing a Dark Sun game, I wanna GLADIATORS and PSIONS in my Dark Sun game, if gladiators should be a fighter "kit" and psion an magic user "kit" or separated class, that is another discussion.

 

[mediocrepoet]

You can enjoy your Fighter/Mage/Mage/Cleric party while superior lads enjoy their selection of more than 3 classes

LOL... Anyway, In KoTC 1 I played F/F/M/C. In Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager, I played with 2 martials(half giant glatiator and a insectoid fighter), a preserver and a cleric. IMO having more than a divine and a arcane caster in a 4 party is not good. Mainly in a game which gives lots of powerful magical weapons + magical arrows and limits resting a lot(kotc 1/2) and games where you can have ridiculous high strong half giant gladiators(kotc 2).

I agree with his critique that we have much redundancy in pf1e. For eg, I wanna make a necromancer in WoTR. I can pick the regular wizard + specialize on it. Can pick the thassilonian specialist, cruoromancer, a cleric of a evil deity, play as an oracle, tons of different subclasses for clerics/oracles, an sorcerer of undead bloodline and so on. But as I've said it has to do with the desire to sell splatbooks... Witches/Warlocks in AD&D 2e are a magic user kit. In 3E, they are introduced in a book(complete arcane).

What he is wrong is when he says that 3 classes is enough. Maybe he is right for a generic sword coast adventure, but if I'm playing a Dark Sun game, I wanna GLADIATORS and PSIONS in my Dark Sun game, if gladiators should be a fighter "kit" and psion an magic user "kit" or separated class, that is another discussion.

Victor, my friend, you have fundamentally misunderstood my point.
See, what I meant was that the game would be improved by having no wizard classes, but given the choice between one wizard class and several wizard classes, one wizard class is clearly superior. So like, if people came back and said which RPG has the best class selection, it wouldn't be between any of this stuff, it'd be between Darklands and similar games.
I mean, you could have more than three classes, if you had say archer, knight, halberdier, sword and buckler man, pikeman, duellist, and rat catcher. There's no need to gay it up with all the dress wearers.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

There's no need to gay it up with all the dress wearers.

Going into battle in a thin flimsy sheer dress is far more masculine and straight than covering your entire body with thick pieces of metal like a pathetic coward who is ashamed of his body and scared of a few flesh wounds.

 

[mediocrepoet]

There's no need to gay it up with all the dress wearers.

Going into battle in a thin flimsy dress is far more masculine and straight than covering your entire body with thick pieces of metal like a pathetic coward scared of a few flesh wounds.

Which is also why KotC1 would be improved by having a barbarian class, say, instead of wizard and cleric. Because going into battle in just a loincloth with an axe as big as four other guys is even better, you poof apologist!

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Icewind Dale 2 would be my favorite game of all time if I didn't have to see the word "Monk" any time I create or level up a character.

Monks are the best class ever; unarmed specialists that pummel enemies to death.

A job that any martial with improved unarmed strike can do.
Pugilist>Monk

 

[Tacgnol]

Icewind Dale 2 would be my favorite game of all time if I didn't have to see the word "Monk" any time I create or level up a character.

Monks are the best class ever; unarmed specialists that pummel enemies to death.

A job that any martial with improved unarmed strike can do.
Pugilist>Monk

That's why Paizo created the Brawler because a ton of people wanted to play an unarmed character without all the mystic monk faggotry.

 

[Pink Eye]

Pugilist are just dollar store monk LARPERs anyways.

 

[Cryomancer]

you could have more than three classes, if you had say archer, knight, halberdier, sword and buckler man, pikeman, duellist, and rat catcher. There's no need to gay it up with all the dress wearers.

I din't said that all new classes must be wizard classes.

I do agree with you that we have too much redundancy. In case of archer, crossbowman, pikeman(...), it could be weapon specialization. Same thing as "spell school specialization" and damage type specialization for wizards. A Druid could be a "cleric of nature", a Paladin a Fighter/Cleric. My point is just that 3 classes is not enough for certain settings. For example, Psionics are a huge part of Dark Sun. Psion should be a unique class. Now, stuff like Alchemist, could be easily a Mage kit. In other words, I"m agreeing with you that we can shrink the number of classes, but I don't think that we can shrink to 3 and lose nothing.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Knights of the Chalice 2 (and 1) is one kind of a game and thus cannot be compared to any other game. Other so called RPGs cannot even go near its level.
This thread is pointless, OP is a fag, everything is shit and voted Kingcomrade.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

Knights of the Chalice 2 (and 1) is one kind of a game and thus cannot be compared to any other game.

The role-playing kind of a game?

 

[mediocrepoet]

you could have more than three classes, if you had say archer, knight, halberdier, sword and buckler man, pikeman, duellist, and rat catcher. There's no need to gay it up with all the dress wearers.

I do agree with you that we have too much redundancy. In case of archer, crossbowman, pikeman(...), it could be weapon specialization.

True. We should just go back to fighting man and sneaky man. Two classes and done.

 

[Pink Eye]

The role-playing kind of a game?

There's an argument to be made that they ain't really role playing games, but a tactics oriented game. Which is fine. Average Role Playing Game is poo poo. We don't wanna be associated with those kind of games.

 

[Stoned Ape]

To be honest, three classes is definitely sufficient.

Clerics and wizards and all the other magic abusing classes should just be called sparkly fairies and should be able to choose whatever sparkly shit they want to specialize in. IRL 'magi' (eg hermetic order of the golden dawn) are just forms of priest that call on gods for their 'magic' anyway.

Monks should be unable to fight, just like in real life:



Everything else should fall into one customizable class called adventurer where you can choose which feats, features and skills you want that aren't related to sparkly fairies.