KickStarter Knights of the Chalice 2 Thread - Augury of Chaos

[Serus]

There are a lot of items you get from loot which can be enchanted to make them badass. Even if it already has an enchantment on it you can re-enchant it. The same goes for armor, I bought all my belts and rings and bracers and stuff, but I looted some decent chest items and they can be enchanted to be even better.

For me the hardest part of this game has been knowing which direction to go, which fights to do first. I tried doing some of the toughest fights early in the game and it was just miss miss miss, dead dead dead. I figured out different routes to easier battles, earned a few levels and a lot of gear, and then went back and whooped ass. A lot of time spent on battles that didn't count though because I ended up reloading and going a different route. I think the second time I play this game it will be 100x easier.

Then next time play on harder difficulty. Unless you already play on very hard, then:

very hard - > 100x easier -> normal ironman

 

[Grunker]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

 

[Serus]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

 

[Tacgnol]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Weapon specialisation is more of an owlcat problem than a paizo problem. It's generally not a problem being limited to one weapon on the tabletop as the DM will usually work around your weapon preferences where possible (also crafting rules solve a lot of niche itemisation issues).

Also mostly a fighter issue, as most martials (unless they take crit focus feats) can just use w/e they want.

 

[Serus]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Weapon specialisation is more of an owlcat problem than a paizo problem. It's generally not a problem being limited to one weapon on the tabletop as the DM will usually work around your weapon preferences where possible (also crafting rules solve a lot of niche itemisation issues).

Also mostly a fighter issue, as most martials (unless they take crit focus feats) can just use w/e they want.

Many melee focused characters/classes will want to go into crits and others can benefit from improved critical alone. Once you know the game maybe you can target some end game keen weapons but otherwise... no. It isn't just a fighter issue.

You are right about crafting though, that would solve those issues in Kingmaker. Another lesson for Owlcat: If you have a system where crafting plays a role, add it.
Did they add it in the sequel? I only played Kingmaker.

On a side note I like how Pierre added (or implemented?) interaction between various sources of increased critical range. If you have a keen weapon and improved critical feat in pathfinder - one is wasted. Not in KotC2 iirc. I really like it.

 

[Tacgnol]

Many melee focused characters/classes will want to go into crits and others can benefit from improved critical alone. Once you know the game maybe you can target some end game keen weapons but otherwise... no. It isn't just a fighter issue.

I'm again talking purely tabletop. I've never seen a non fighter martial waste a feat point on improved critical when keen isn't super expensive to get enchanted. In Pathfinder terms that's a rage power/other class ability you can convert feat points to lost.

Not so much an issue in KOTC2 as they stack and improved critical applies to all weapons anyway.

 

[Grunker]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Weapon specialisation is more of an owlcat problem than a paizo problem.

It's really not. It's a problem in every game with weapon specialization in it, which is why I've made it my gravest pet peeve and will abuse every opportunity to harp on about it

 

[Lios]

Currently running with: Half-Giant Gladiator, Human Monk, Half-Elf Rogue, Drake Bishop with acid breath, Elf white wizard and a Bard. I also have recruited the Half Giant Barbarian in the tavern and that mantis druid. Just wiped out the green goblins and I'm in the room with the sword and the lizardmen ambush. Feeling strong urge for restartitis (the monk is not as bad as I thought yet a fighter would be more preferable for me, the rogue sucks but has many skill/utility uses and dialogue checks, the bard is mainly a buff machine but nothing else so far). Though, my Half Giant Gladiator is an impressive grappler, basically he's the guy from Miuras "Gigantomakhia" and I really like him.

 

[Serus]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Weapon specialisation is more of an owlcat problem than a paizo problem.

It's really not. It's a problem in every game with weapon specialization in it, which is why I've made it my gravest pet peeve and will abuse every opportunity to harp on about it

Define "specialization"(no pun intended). What level of specialization is the issue? I think what You meant is that every single type shouldn't be treated separately. That i strongly agree. But you can have 3 options: no specialization at all, all types separate (like Pathfinder) or something in between - wider categories of weapons instead of types.
You have separate feats that allow you the use different categories of weapons without penalty in KotC2 too. Which makes sense. The problem starts when you need a different feet for each type of say, sword. However not being able to use all swords vs all polearms equally well is another matter and is sensible. It works ok, especially with crafting.

 

[Serus]

Currently running with: Half-Giant Gladiator, Human Monk, Half-Elf Rogue, Drake Bishop with acid breath, Elf white wizard and a Bard. I also have recruited the Half Giant Barbarian in the tavern and that mantis druid. Just wiped out the green goblins and I'm in the room with the sword and the lizardmen ambush. Feeling strong urge for restartitis (the monk is not as bad as I thought yet a fighter would be more preferable for me, the rogue sucks but has many skill/utility uses and dialogue checks, the bard is mainly a buff machine but nothing else so far). Though, my Half Giant Gladiator is an impressive grappler, basically he's the guy from Miuras "Gigantomakhia" and I really like him.

This will hurt. Good luck. I think restartitis is strongly encouraged here. OTOH, you'll have an interesting time. The monk might be ok early but farther you go he will lag behind characters with highly enchanted weapons. In pathfinder monks at least had full BAB, here afaik it is medium.

 

[Grunker]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Weapon specialisation is more of an owlcat problem than a paizo problem.

It's really not. It's a problem in every game with weapon specialization in it, which is why I've made it my gravest pet peeve and will abuse every opportunity to harp on about it

Define "specialization"(no pun intended). What level of specialization is the issue? I think what You meant is that every single type shouldn't be treated separately. That i strongly agree. But you can have 3 options: no specialization at all, all types separate (like Pathfinder) or something in between - wider categories of weapons instead of types.
You have separate feats that allow you the use different categories of weapons without penalty in KotC2 too. Which makes sense. The problem starts when you need a different feet for each type of say, sword. However not being able to use all swords vs all polearms equally well is another matter and is sensible. It works ok, especially with crafting.

The only tangible result of specialization - no matter the type - is limiting experimentation. There's no positive benefits. That's why I'm against any type of system like this. Categories are better, but only because they alleviate the inherent issue. They're still a net negative.

 

[JarlFrank]

KotC2 already has enough specialization: not all classes start out with all weapon proficiencies. Unlocking a new weapon proficiency costs a feat, and especially non-martial classes are starved for feats anyway. So having your psionic use reach weapons requires the investment of 1 feat that you'll miss elsewhere.

That the bonus attack feat applies to all weapons is good because it gives you the flexibility to use any weapon within your character's proficiencies at maximum effectiveness. This is a good thing. It means that whenever you find a cool new magic weapon, you can immediately use it and try it out. This is often necessary due to the difficulty of many encounters, and sometimes you might discover a weapon that's useful against the very next encounter (like the undead-destroying mace in the undead crypt).

If the game forced you to specialize, the restartitis would become even worse as you'd be forced to catalogue all the unique magic weapons you find and then plan your character in advance around the weapons you wish to use. I don't see how that adds anything to the game other than frustration and making character development more rigid, while lowering the amount of strategic and tactical choices at your disposal.

 

[Serus]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Weapon specialisation is more of an owlcat problem than a paizo problem.

It's really not. It's a problem in every game with weapon specialization in it, which is why I've made it my gravest pet peeve and will abuse every opportunity to harp on about it

Define "specialization"(no pun intended). What level of specialization is the issue? I think what You meant is that every single type shouldn't be treated separately. That i strongly agree. But you can have 3 options: no specialization at all, all types separate (like Pathfinder) or something in between - wider categories of weapons instead of types.
You have separate feats that allow you the use different categories of weapons without penalty in KotC2 too. Which makes sense. The problem starts when you need a different feet for each type of say, sword. However not being able to use all swords vs all polearms equally well is another matter and is sensible. It works ok, especially with crafting.

The only tangible result of specialization - no matter the type - is limiting experimentation. There's no positive benefits. That's why I'm against any type of system like this. Categories are better, but only because they alleviate the inherent issue. They're still a net negative.

Shit in one's food has no positives. Of curse there are some positives with specialisation. If one is aiming for a more realistc or simulationist CRPG then making all and every weapon in existence using all the same skills or feats or whatever is not advised and dividing them in categories is a positive because realistically skill of using a shiv is different from skill to use a flail which is different from using a zweihander. It might not be the case with abstract systems like dnd but you claimed "systems" not just dnd.
Not limiting experimentation as a reason is a weird, and dare i say, poor argument. Taken to the logical conclusion can result in lack of choices in character building. What if ones's want to be able try not only all weapons on one character but also all skills? Should he be able to? And if not, why is that? Why are weapons different? It "limits experimentation" too.

 

[JarlFrank]

Shit in one's food has no positives. Of curse there are some positives with specialisation. If one is aiming for a more realistc or simulationist CRPG then making all and every weapon in existence using all the same skills or feats or whatever is not advised and dividing them in categories is a positive because realistically skill of using a shiv is different from skill to use a flail which is different from using a zweihander. It might not be the case with abstract systems like dnd but you claimed "systems" not just dnd.

Things like that should be solved in a different way than rigid specialization though. If you know how to use one type of melee weapon, you're not gonna be a complete noob with another.

Gothic's way of making you raise one-handed and two-handed together once one the difference between the two skills grows too big is a good example of doing it right because it increases investment cost for higher skill levels while also making sure to give you some competence with both weapon styles.

When it comes to D&D 3.5, the original pen and paper way of having very specific weapon groups you have to specialize in is very silly. If you become a master with the longsword... you cannot use shortswords, katanas, and bastard swords with the same effectiveness because they count as different weapon groups, lol.

 

[Serus]

KotC2 already has enough specialization: not all classes start out with all weapon proficiencies. Unlocking a new weapon proficiency costs a feat, and especially non-martial classes are starved for feats anyway. So having your psionic use reach weapons requires the investment of 1 feat that you'll miss elsewhere.

That the bonus attack feat applies to all weapons is good because it gives you the flexibility to use any weapon within your character's proficiencies at maximum effectiveness. This is a good thing. It means that whenever you find a cool new magic weapon, you can immediately use it and try it out. This is often necessary due to the difficulty of many encounters, and sometimes you might discover a weapon that's useful against the very next encounter (like the undead-destroying mace in the undead crypt).

If the game forced you to specialize, the restartitis would become even worse as you'd be forced to catalogue all the unique magic weapons you find and then plan your character in advance around the weapons you wish to use. I don't see how that adds anything to the game other than frustration and making character development more rigid, while lowering the amount of strategic and tactical choices at your disposal.

We all agree that specialisation by diving weapons in types in not good. That's what Kingmaker (and Wrath too?) did. Add the lack of crafting and... yeah, it wasn't pretty.
However dividing in categories already exists in KotC2. Are you suggesting that a psionic wanting to use bows and needing to use a feat is a bad thing? He can't use wizard spells either. It is part of the class. One that uses psionics and no spells and is non-proficient with most weapons.
In addition ranged weapons already have many/most feats specialised for ranged weapons only. And not even the all same feats (see fast reload). Would you consider removing those feats then? Because with them, you can't really use a ranged weapon with any efficiency the moment you find one. Which you claimed is a good thing. And if not, why not? Why the arguments for all other weapons don't apply to ranged weapons?

Shit in one's food has no positives. Of curse there are some positives with specialisation. If one is aiming for a more realistc or simulationist CRPG then making all and every weapon in existence using all the same skills or feats or whatever is not advised and dividing them in categories is a positive because realistically skill of using a shiv is different from skill to use a flail which is different from using a zweihander. It might not be the case with abstract systems like dnd but you claimed "systems" not just dnd.

Things like that should be solved in a different way than rigid specialization though. If you know how to use one type of melee weapon, you're not gonna be a complete noob with another.

Gothic's way of making you raise one-handed and two-handed together once one the difference between the two skills grows too big is a good example of doing it right because it increases investment cost for higher skill levels while also making sure to give you some competence with both weapon styles.

When it comes to D&D 3.5, the original pen and paper way of having very specific weapon groups you have to specialize in is very silly. If you become a master with the longsword... you cannot use shortswords, katanas, and bastard swords with the same effectiveness because they count as different weapon groups, lol.

I'll quote a certain JarlFrank
"leern2reed"

 

[Tacgnol]

Shit in one's food has no positives. Of curse there are some positives with specialisation. If one is aiming for a more realistc or simulationist CRPG then making all and every weapon in existence using all the same skills or feats or whatever is not advised and dividing them in categories is a positive because realistically skill of using a shiv is different from skill to use a flail which is different from using a zweihander. It might not be the case with abstract systems like dnd but you claimed "systems" not just dnd.

Things like that should be solved in a different way than rigid specialization though. If you know how to use one type of melee weapon, you're not gonna be a complete noob with another.

Gothic's way of making you raise one-handed and two-handed together once one the difference between the two skills grows too big is a good example of doing it right because it increases investment cost for higher skill levels while also making sure to give you some competence with both weapon styles.

When it comes to D&D 3.5, the original pen and paper way of having very specific weapon groups you have to specialize in is very silly. If you become a master with the longsword... you cannot use shortswords, katanas, and bastard swords with the same effectiveness because they count as different weapon groups, lol.

It's pretty common in PF variant rules to just roll all the specific weapon focus feats into the same weapon focus groups that Fighter gets (heavy blades, light blades etc etc). Generally works quite well.

I think Pierre's solution of just creating "attack focus" works better though.

 

[Serus]

Shit in one's food has no positives. Of curse there are some positives with specialisation. If one is aiming for a more realistc or simulationist CRPG then making all and every weapon in existence using all the same skills or feats or whatever is not advised and dividing them in categories is a positive because realistically skill of using a shiv is different from skill to use a flail which is different from using a zweihander. It might not be the case with abstract systems like dnd but you claimed "systems" not just dnd.

Things like that should be solved in a different way than rigid specialization though. If you know how to use one type of melee weapon, you're not gonna be a complete noob with another.

Gothic's way of making you raise one-handed and two-handed together once one the difference between the two skills grows too big is a good example of doing it right because it increases investment cost for higher skill levels while also making sure to give you some competence with both weapon styles.

When it comes to D&D 3.5, the original pen and paper way of having very specific weapon groups you have to specialize in is very silly. If you become a master with the longsword... you cannot use shortswords, katanas, and bastard swords with the same effectiveness because they count as different weapon groups, lol.

It's pretty common in PF variant rules to just roll all the specific weapon focus feats into the same weapon focus groups that Fighter gets (heavy blades, light blades etc etc). Generally works quite well.

I think Pierre's solution of just creating "attack focus" works better though.

I'm not so sure what's better but Kingmaker NOT doing the variant rules was stupid of them.

 

[Mortmal]

Pierre has no specific weapon focus feats, so it isn't like Pathfinder where you need to specialise on one weapon type.

see owlcat, even a crazy ass frenchman knows how to do this

Yeah, Pathfinders games went to far to the point where you choose one weapon type and stick to it the whole game. But the idea of specialization in one weapon has some merit, at lest in more story focused crpgs. It just shouldn't go as far as Pathfinder. It is better in KotC2, that's for sure.
Owlcat could learn a LOT from the crazy Frenchman. Including some encounter design, AI programming, use of attrition mechanic and not having stupid "strategic"mini games. And lower amounts of bad writing.
He could learn from them a few things too, including UI design and, possibly, marketing. And having consistent art direction.

Dont even have to try as hard, their next game being pure turn based and balanced toward turn based would solve most problems.

 

[jungl]

beat the module was okay. Monk had a bug toward end game where his damage dice broke dealing only his strength modifier in damage was not fun. High level combat is dumb. Skewer rapes prismatic spray destroys.

 

[_V_]

I'm in the tutorial and Pierre just told me that my rogue gives me the possibility to sneak past two Gelatinous Cubes. But I can't figure out how to use that ability. If I move too close to them combat starts...
Any pointers?

 

[Serus]

beat the module was okay. Monk had a bug toward end game where his damage dice broke dealing only his strength modifier in damage was not fun. High level combat is dumb. Skewer rapes prismatic spray destroys.

What is new, DnD + high levels = silliness. This is why Pierre's plans to make high level modules suck. F*** high level modules. Well, better something than nothing but it's still a shame.

 

[Nortar]

I'm in the tutorial and Pierre just told me that my rogue gives me the possibility to sneak past two Gelatinous Cubes. But I can't figure out how to use that ability. If I move too close to them combat starts...
Any pointers?

Iirc it was more of in-lore reason - the rogue wanted to sneak past - not that she gave you a special ability to do so.

Spoiler

Just wait till they move away and run through.

And it will give you the congrats and a bit of extra xp.

 

[Grunker]

realistc or simulationist

 

[Darth Canoli]

Currently running with: Half-Giant Gladiator, Human Monk, Half-Elf Rogue, Drake Bishop with acid breath, Elf white wizard and a Bard. I also have recruited the Half Giant Barbarian in the tavern and that mantis druid. Just wiped out the green goblins and I'm in the room with the sword and the lizardmen ambush. Feeling strong urge for restartitis (the monk is not as bad as I thought yet a fighter would be more preferable for me, the rogue sucks but has many skill/utility uses and dialogue checks, the bard is mainly a buff machine but nothing else so far). Though, my Half Giant Gladiator is an impressive grappler, basically he's the guy from Miuras "Gigantomakhia" and I really like him.

This will hurt. Good luck. I think restartitis is strongly encouraged here. OTOH, you'll have an interesting time. The monk might be ok early but farther you go he will lag behind characters with highly enchanted weapons. In pathfinder monks at least had full BAB, here afaik it is medium.

I think there's a couple of belts to improve your BAB category but you can't enchant your fists and enchanted weapons are so good the flurry of blow grows weaker and weaker and you'll end up giving your monk some leftover skewer weapon, like the one from the Minotaur (Grey Goblins).

The bard has really good songs and a lot of specific instruments giving him buffs and improving some songs.
I think instruments should use an extra equipment slot rather than taking the bracers spot, it's not like the bards are overpowered, they're quite good by mid game and so so late game but still useful.

Rogue, I didn't try, many people say Rogues are bad but I've read the same about Samouraï and they're awesome if you know what to do, same as DK.
I'll probably go Rogue next playthrough, I'm sure he's amazing if you go full DEX with weapon finesse, 14 INT, 20 DEX, some CON.
Then you use his spells mostly for auto-self buff (like mirror image) and true sight when necessary.

Mantis (or even halfing) Rogue should be amazing with a BAB belt and a bunch of skewer light weapons + some debuff weapons.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Do they have special monk weapons that you can use for flurry of blows?