KickStarter Knights of the Chalice 2 Thread - Augury of Chaos

[Tweed]

Oof this encounter might be too much for my ass party. Looks like the end of playthrough 1! Not too ruffled about this since I accidentally skipped like all of Finchbury and now know that Bards have a lot of dialogue options.

Use the acorns.

 

[Jermu]

Flying familiar also gets surprise round which removes most of rng in that fight.

Think I give up with archmage ironman and just do normal archmage run for now (with all the settings including gold for levels which I dont really like).

So far getting good results with this party:

Death Knight
Rogue
Bard
Wiz
Psi
Bishop

companions mantis druid and sorc.

Probably should have 1 guy with wade-in but I want to play with classes I have not played with yet (used wiz+psi before). So far done with the salamander rogue+bard might fall off end game but we will see. DK passive is always going to be handy.

 

[Oligryan]

I don't understand the logic behind crossbows— or the lack thereof, rather. Anyone who could use a crossbow could have gotten a bow for the same investment. Not only that, but crossbows also come with the feat tax of rapid reload, so it takes more investment to use a crossbow than a regular bow. The casters that would benefit from crossbows can't even take them because they would have to invest a feat for proficiency and then another to make them somewhat worthwhile, and even then they'd be better off just getting a bow instead.
So crossbows cost more than bows, they have the same range as bows, they don't get a 3X crit multiplier like longbows and warbows do, they do less damage than bows overall, I don't think I've seen a single unique crossbow at any point in augury, and the heavy xbow and arbalest don't even get iterative attacks (aside from rapid shot I guess) despite doing similar damage as the greatbow and warbow BEFORE strength bonuses.
They'd make some kind of sense if they were simple weapons, but even in that case it'd be a better idea to take bow proficiency than waste a feat on rapid reload.

 

[Berengar]

Oof this encounter might be too much for my ass party. Looks like the end of playthrough 1! Not too ruffled about this since I accidentally skipped like all of Finchbury and now know that Bards have a lot of dialogue options.

Use the acorns.

Funny you mention that because I remembered I had a Sirocco acorn and it fucking made it cake walk haha.

 

[Desiderius]

I don't understand the logic behind crossbows— or the lack thereof, rather. Anyone who could use a crossbow could have gotten a bow for the same investment. Not only that, but crossbows also come with the feat tax of rapid reload, so it takes more investment to use a crossbow than a regular bow. The casters that would benefit from crossbows can't even take them because they would have to invest a feat for proficiency and then another to make them somewhat worthwhile, and even then they'd be better off just getting a bow instead.
So crossbows cost more than bows, they have the same range as bows, they don't get a 3X crit multiplier like longbows and warbows do, they do less damage than bows overall, I don't think I've seen a single unique crossbow at any point in augury, and the heavy xbow and arbalest don't even get iterative attacks (aside from rapid shot I guess) despite doing similar damage as the greatbow and warbow BEFORE strength bonuses.
They'd make some kind of sense if they were simple weapons, but even in that case it'd be a better idea to take bow proficiency than waste a feat on rapid reload.

XBows don't need STR so you can dump STR and still use one.

Wiz starts with XBow prof. Wiz doesn't get iteratives until late anyway.

Reload doesn't really come up much because you only use them every once in a while to save spell slots on non-challenging fights to get them done faster. On the tough fights you're casting. Not having any drops sort of makes sense because by that point in the game you should have enough casts to be casting all the time or using consumable or Meteors etc...

 

[Serus]

I don't understand the logic behind crossbows— or the lack thereof, rather. Anyone who could use a crossbow could have gotten a bow for the same investment. Not only that, but crossbows also come with the feat tax of rapid reload, so it takes more investment to use a crossbow than a regular bow. The casters that would benefit from crossbows can't even take them because they would have to invest a feat for proficiency and then another to make them somewhat worthwhile, and even then they'd be better off just getting a bow instead.
So crossbows cost more than bows, they have the same range as bows, they don't get a 3X crit multiplier like longbows and warbows do, they do less damage than bows overall, I don't think I've seen a single unique crossbow at any point in augury, and the heavy xbow and arbalest don't even get iterative attacks (aside from rapid shot I guess) despite doing similar damage as the greatbow and warbow BEFORE strength bonuses.
They'd make some kind of sense if they were simple weapons, but even in that case it'd be a better idea to take bow proficiency than waste a feat on rapid reload.

XBows don't need STR so you can dump STR and still use one.

Wiz starts with XBow prof. Wiz doesn't get iteratives until late anyway.

Reload doesn't really come up much because you only use them every once in a while to save spell slots on non-challenging fights to get them done faster. On the tough fights you're casting. Not having any drops sort of makes sense because by that point in the game you should have enough casts to be casting all the time or using consumable or Meteors etc...

Arbalest is, iirc, the highest damage range weapon. If you have a negative STR modifier (which you probably have on a wizard) it's even better compared to a bow. Wizard has a proficiency in Xbows but not bows. It only really matters in prologue and chapter 1, at some point in chapter 2 you start getting enough low level spell slots to cast spells most of the time, when it matters. As Desiderius said, iterative attack comes at level 11 when non-spell attacks for wizards are already obsolete anyway and reload matters a little, if a fight requires your wizard, you need to use spells anyway.

Most other spellcasters can gain very little from using bows OR crossbows to make taking a feat worthwhile.

Druid can fight in melee early on if you give him 12-14 STR so the point of bow vs crossbow is moot. With the Shilgegah-whatever spell he gets a "free" +1 quarterstaff/club with +2 size and damage of a greatsword. Later he gets those "several uses per cast" spells.

Psionic, is the only one, other than wizard, who could profit from crossbow if he has negative STR but it would require a feat.
I suggest a Kobold Psionicist instead. He is almost semi-decent at melee very early on. Has very good AC early and 3 attacks (2 a full ab) and you can afford 14 STR on a Kobold without sacrificing anything. Later he can cast bazillion of level 1 or even 2 spells so no need of a range weapon.

A Cleric/Bishop - either give him Hunting of forget about range combat. There are some nice cleric self-buffs, unfortunately no way, afaik, to make them move-based spells.

For high BAB / high STR characters, bow all the way if you can afford the feat.


TL;DR: Agree with Desiderius. X-Bow = wizard. That's all.

 

[Desiderius]

Copium? I’m not even running a Wiz in this party so didn’t buy the Arbalest. Not using any xBows.

There’s a five to seven or so level window where you’ve got more rounds than spells so it gives wiz something to do, especially if you have ranged feats for your Rays.

You could also do something with it and Hunting Domain but there you’d be wasting Heavy Proficiency.

 

[felipepepe]

BTW, for those interested in making modules, a good reference is One Page Dungeons: https://www.dungeoncontest.com/

It's a contest that's been going for 10+ years now where people have to make a full dungeon that fits in 1 page. You can freely download all entries and check the winners, and everything is under Creative Commons 3.0, meaning you can use them even commercially as long as you credit the author.

Here's a good example from 2009:

Spoiler

 

[Desiderius]

Retard emotes is how you get ignored.

I could give a shit about xBows. I do care about people taking advice from those who have no idea what they’re talking about and losing enjoyment of the game.

 

[Oligryan]

TL;DR: Agree with Desiderius. X-Bow = wizard. That's all.

A -1 or -2 damage roll malus is hardly going to make a difference when you're using your ranged weapon as filler, and handing that guy any non-crafted magic bow would make it even more irrelevant. The arbalest is a god awful weapon to use as filler (or in general) because of the full round reload. You will never fire that thing more than once per encounter unless you go out of your way to do so or take rapid reload. Regardless, the point was never whether a caster should spend a feat on crossbows or bows. Both options are obviously unappealing unless you plan to switch the feat before leveling or get the group proficiency for free to begin with. The point is that crossbows have no real niche or purpose. Why even place action economy-centric restrictions on them as though you need to contain the earth shattering might of 1d8, 1d10, and 2d8 with -1 to attack rolls? They're all around terrible and "just something for wizards to do for their first few levels" doesn't justify three weapon types and an exclusive feat. Hell, even slings have a niche of being able to apply bludgeoning enchants to a ranged weapon. Being able to instakill a ghost dragon by chucking ghost touched undead bane+destruction rocks at it is kosher, but simply wanting xbows to be viable in any way beyond being a slipshot wizard cantrip stand-in is silly?

 

[Jvegi]

I could give a shit about xBows.

Couldn't. Also, Kingmaker is a mess and you're annoying.

I just solved the coded message puzzle in the tutorial. I had a brain fog, couldn't crack it, even though I knew exactly what to do. Went for a walk, did the obvious "a" and "the" and solved it.

 

[Darth Canoli]

A -1 or -2 damage roll malus is hardly going to make a difference when you're using your ranged weapon as filler, and handing that guy any non-crafted magic bow would make it even more irrelevant. The arbalest is a god awful weapon to use as filler (or in general) because of the full round reload. You will never fire that thing more than once per encounter unless you go out of your way to do so or take rapid reload. Regardless, the point was never whether a caster should spend a feat on crossbows or bows. Both options are obviously unappealing unless you plan to switch the feat before leveling or get the group proficiency for free to begin with. The point is that crossbows have no real niche or purpose. Why even place action economy-centric restrictions on them as though you need to contain the earth shattering might of 1d8, 1d10, and 2d8 with -1 to attack rolls? They're all around terrible and "just something for wizards to do for their first few levels" doesn't justify three weapon types and an exclusive feat. Hell, even slings have a niche of being able to apply bludgeoning enchants to a ranged weapon. Being able to instakill a ghost dragon by chucking ghost touched undead bane+destruction rocks at it is kosher, but simply wanting xbows to be viable in any way beyond being a slipshot wizard cantrip stand-in is silly?

I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.

One thing I disagree with though, 1/2 damage can make a huge difference, often, mostly in the village, some enemies will survive with 1 or 2 hp and it will allow them to act again, which could lead to a disastrous outcome.

Then again, if you absolutely want to use a crossbow but can't affort to spend one or two feats necessary and it makes you horribly mad, just change the feat settings once or twice for that char level up and then use crossbows.
What stopping you?
He's a mage but he spent some time hunting with a crossbow as a kid. He's not a sharpshooter but he's gifted, hence the 1/2 bonus feats.
It's as simple as that, you don't even need the justification as there's no GM to validate your choices.

Problem solved.

 

[Desiderius]

A -1 or -2 damage roll malus is hardly going to make a difference when you're using your ranged weapon as filler, and handing that guy any non-crafted magic bow would make it even more irrelevant. The arbalest is a god awful weapon to use as filler (or in general) because of the full round reload. You will never fire that thing more than once per encounter unless you go out of your way to do so or take rapid reload. Regardless, the point was never whether a caster should spend a feat on crossbows or bows. Both options are obviously unappealing unless you plan to switch the feat before leveling or get the group proficiency for free to begin with. The point is that crossbows have no real niche or purpose. Why even place action economy-centric restrictions on them as though you need to contain the earth shattering might of 1d8, 1d10, and 2d8 with -1 to attack rolls? They're all around terrible and "just something for wizards to do for their first few levels" doesn't justify three weapon types and an exclusive feat. Hell, even slings have a niche of being able to apply bludgeoning enchants to a ranged weapon. Being able to instakill a ghost dragon by chucking ghost touched undead bane+destruction rocks at it is kosher, but simply wanting xbows to be viable in any way beyond being a slipshot wizard cantrip stand-in is silly?

I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.

One thing I disagree with though, 1/2 damage can make a huge difference, often, mostly in the village, some enemies will survive with 1 or 2 hp and it will allow them to act again, which could lead to a disastrous outcome.

Then again, if you absolutely want to use a crossbow but can't affort to spend one or two feats necessary and it makes you horribly mad, just change the feat settings once or twice for that char level up and then use crossbows.
What stopping you?
He's a mage but he spent some time hunting with a crossbow as a kid. He's not a sharpshooter but he's gifted, hence the 1/2 bonus feats.
It's as simple as that, you don't even need the justification as there's no GM to validate your choices.

Problem solved.

Wiz already has xBow prof. Use it against things not in melee and you don’t need any feats. If your fights are lasting long enough for reload to matter try sucking less.

2d8 >> 1d4-2

I can do this all day. Take the fucking L.

(not Darth, the dead horse beaters)

If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different, but these arguments are both weak and pointless.

 

[Darth Canoli]

If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different

On that topic, Pierre is receptive to good arguments about weak classes and races.

For example, he might add something for the monks, no spoiler but it's really cool.
And some new sub-races for Dwarves and Salamanders. No spoiler either, small changes but really neat.

(not Darth, the dead horse beaters)

I also beat dead donkeys, dead dogs and dead Rustys.

 

[Oligryan]

I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.

I was hoping someone would have have figured something out that I hadn't considered. Instead, I got some guy exploding because someone posted a frog.

On that topic, Pierre is receptive to good arguments about weak classes and races.

For example, he might add something for the monks, no spoiler but it's really cool.
And some new sub-races for Dwarves and Salamanders. No spoiler either, small changes but really neat.

Right-O. I'll bring it up with him directly.

If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different

STR to damage isn't necessary and would be boring. IMO, what should be done is
-Make light crossbows simple weapons
-Make heavy crossbows 18-20 3X and make Arbalests 4X
-Make some crossbow specific enchants and special bolts

I'll try to think up some specifics after I finish my current gimmicky archmage playthough with my underperforming crossbow ranger. On the flip-side, I'm also running a centaur psy healer with a reach weapon that I expected to be shit but has actually been putting in a surprising amount of work.

 

[Desiderius]

Yes, dorfs and half-sal could use the help, though half-sal is better than it looks already I think (have one in current party).

Monk needs a relevant skill.

Only change to xBow is maybe give Sorc xBow prof as well. Warlock already has double action econ. Could justify letting Rogue Sneak with one.

 

[Serus]

I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.

I was hoping someone would have have figured something out that I hadn't considered. Instead, I got some guy exploding because someone posted a frog.

On that topic, Pierre is receptive to good arguments about weak classes and races.

For example, he might add something for the monks, no spoiler but it's really cool.
And some new sub-races for Dwarves and Salamanders. No spoiler either, small changes but really neat.

Right-O. I'll bring it up with him directly.

If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different

STR to damage isn't necessary and would be boring. IMO, what should be done is
-Make light crossbows simple weapons
-Make heavy crossbows 18-20 3X and make Arbalests 4X
-Make some crossbow specific enchants and special bolts

I'll try to think up some specifics after I finish my current gimmicky archmage playthough with my underperforming crossbow ranger. On the flip-side, I'm also running a centaur psy healer with a reach weapon that I expected to be shit but has actually been putting in a surprising amount of work.

I like the idea of special bolts, similar to special arrows but possibly even slightly stronger. I doubt it would be enough to make x-bows worthwhile but it would be a move in the right direction. Makes sense to.
Another thing i would add is one or two really badass artifact crossbows early/mid game. Would give an incentive to at least try a crossbowman.

 

[anvi]

Do you usually trade your HP with the hags for their various gifts?

 

[Darth Canoli]

Do you usually trade your HP with the hags for their various gifts?

Not my hp per se, there is extra companions you're not using and with the extra xp, Erzimon could be level 8 without even using him or just for a fight or two.

Or use Pizarra if you're not using her, or Asharazelle if you have extra magic diamonds.

 

[Oligryan]

I like the idea of special bolts, similar to special arrows but possibly even slightly stronger. I doubt it would be enough to make x-bows worthwhile but it would be a move in the right direction. Makes sense to.
Another thing i would add is one or two really badass artifact crossbows early/mid game. Would give an incentive to at least try a crossbowman.

Yeah, the criti-fishing changes are really just a nod toward rangers. The special bolts would be what I'd bank on, and it'd be important to make them relatively cheap to make. Though I'm really just aping Styg's Underrail ideas now that I think about it.
A good artifact or two to build would definitely be a big boon to crossbowmen, changes or not.

Do you usually trade your HP with the hags for their various gifts?

You can just have a companion you aren't using eat the cost. There's not any reason not to take them as far as I've been able to tell.

 

[Serus]

Do you usually trade your HP with the hags for their various gifts?

Yes. But not that of your party. Unless you want Erzimon in party (i didn't) he is a great blood donor. Alternatively if you take Pizarra, some who loses the place in the team can also donate.

BTW, same applies to exp cost for crafting. Take everyone you can even if you don't plan to use them. They all(?) start with some unspent exp and can be crafters.


Edit: Darth beat me to it.

 

[Desiderius]

I'm not sure about the point of your argument.
Some weapons sucks, light maces for example, just don't use them.

I was hoping someone would have have figured something out that I hadn't considered. Instead, I got some guy exploding because someone posted a frog.

On that topic, Pierre is receptive to good arguments about weak classes and races.

For example, he might add something for the monks, no spoiler but it's really cool.
And some new sub-races for Dwarves and Salamanders. No spoiler either, small changes but really neat.

Right-O. I'll bring it up with him directly.

If you want Pierre to give you some better xBows for Rogues or make them use STR or whatever that’s different

STR to damage isn't necessary and would be boring. IMO, what should be done is
-Make light crossbows simple weapons
-Make heavy crossbows 18-20 3X and make Arbalests 4X
-Make some crossbow specific enchants and special bolts

I'll try to think up some specifics after I finish my current gimmicky archmage playthough with my underperforming crossbow ranger. On the flip-side, I'm also running a centaur psy healer with a reach weapon that I expected to be shit but has actually been putting in a surprising amount of work.

If you think that’s an explosion… people playing dominance games badly is something that needs down-smacking, both for the good of the forum and their own ability to interact productively with other human beings.

Sounds like some decent ideas for expanding xBow viability that work well with the downsides.

Why would you make an xBow Ranger in the first place tho? Pierre warned you about both. Seems like biting off more than you can chew.

 

[Serus]

I hate it when the game crashes in a two part/long battle. It almost never happen anymore with 1.35, the only other crash i had was when i tried to rename a crafted +1 crystal skewer barbed waraxe. I hoped they are completely gone.

How one makes a Bard, like a melee with support/buffing or better try to make of him a secondary caster?


Desiderius - there are some very nice crossbow rangers portraits for pathfinders, so that would the reason if you can turn one into a token. :D

 

[Darth Canoli]

How one makes a Bard, like a melee with support/buffing or better try to make of him a secondary caster?

Full caster, you could go for High Elf Female 20 INT + CHA and not much else, which means 10 bard songs at level 1 and 20 at level 20. Aiming for 24 CHA and bonus CHA gear. I'm not sure attribute from equipment will give you extra songs though, It doesn't give extra spells for other classes.

Otherwise, Human or Centaur F.

Due to the CHA requirements, it's hard to make the bard an efficient fighter, at the very least, if you want a melee caster bard, I'd go for a reach weapon, or Human archer/caster for the extra feats.

 

[Jermu]

I tested reach weapon and bow bard (only up to crypt or so) but maxing cha and splitting other attributes is quite tough since having decent enough int/con/str and some dex is impossible. Bow needs some feats to work which are probably better spend in other feats.

Also regarding human bard argossian is little bit problematic since its -2 int and -2dex which are both good for pure caster bard. So elf is probably way to go.

My new bard in current playthrough is elf with maxed cha, high int/dex and some con.