KickStarter Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pre-DLC Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Cael]

I hope you see the problem, Grunker . Paisuck has taken muchkinism to new levels.

I don't see the problem here, though. Mind explaining it?

I have made several posts before explaining the balancing act that is 3.5. Wealth-by-level, stats, items, etc., all affect the CR of a monster, which then affect the XP gain and basically the entire system. The other part of it is that each item slot has a suggested restrictions placed on them. This means that you run into situations where you want to wear 3 rings, for example, but are limited to 2. You have to make a choice and consider oppotunity costs.

What Paisuck did was to inflate numbers, open up the slot effects and basically did everything they could to increase the power creep to, by 3.5 measures, astronomical levels. This will have a massive effect on the whole CR system, and goes a long way to explaining why Kingmaker is so out of whack in terms of challenge level and bloating.

Paisuck will have to basically re-engineer the whole system to a point they might as well abandon the whole d20 concept altogether. And as someone has already noted here recently, PF 2.0 is psychotic with the munchkinism and power bloat.

3.5 and Pathfinder are both broken. There is no balance at all. Don't even try to justify it with out-of-whack wealth level and CR's. That's just not the reason why the system is broken. It's broken because it doesn't scale well over 20 levels, and because many options are inherently better than others.

4th edition tried to "balance" the game and look what happened with that. Not everything has to be balanced. You try to start balancing a system and it comes across as a boring MMO-style game. Balance = boring.

They are broken, but there are degrees of broken. 3.5 held together far better than PF simply because the number range weren't as large. The problem with the 20 level scale is that in the end the numbers overwhelmed the d20 system on which it is based. Some people earlier in the piece advocated going to a d100 system to counter this exact problem.

Enlarging numbers breaks it faster, which is exactly what PF did. Kingmaker has numbers in the 40s at level 2. What can a d20 do against that kind of nonsense?

Kingmaker does not "have numbers in the 40s at level 2," that's bullshit.
There is one optional encounter, that is clearly foreshadowed as deadly, that you can make it to at level 2 if you absolutely rush but will more realistically be level 3 or 4, with one enemy with 41 AC.

A Balor, a CR20 monster, has an AC of 35. A great wyrm Gold Dragon (CR27, and it would be considered under CR'd; most true dragons are) has AC of 42.

A CR 3 or 4 monster with AC 41? My point stands.

 

[Lawntoilet]

I hope you see the problem, Grunker . Paisuck has taken muchkinism to new levels.

I don't see the problem here, though. Mind explaining it?

I have made several posts before explaining the balancing act that is 3.5. Wealth-by-level, stats, items, etc., all affect the CR of a monster, which then affect the XP gain and basically the entire system. The other part of it is that each item slot has a suggested restrictions placed on them. This means that you run into situations where you want to wear 3 rings, for example, but are limited to 2. You have to make a choice and consider oppotunity costs.

What Paisuck did was to inflate numbers, open up the slot effects and basically did everything they could to increase the power creep to, by 3.5 measures, astronomical levels. This will have a massive effect on the whole CR system, and goes a long way to explaining why Kingmaker is so out of whack in terms of challenge level and bloating.

Paisuck will have to basically re-engineer the whole system to a point they might as well abandon the whole d20 concept altogether. And as someone has already noted here recently, PF 2.0 is psychotic with the munchkinism and power bloat.

3.5 and Pathfinder are both broken. There is no balance at all. Don't even try to justify it with out-of-whack wealth level and CR's. That's just not the reason why the system is broken. It's broken because it doesn't scale well over 20 levels, and because many options are inherently better than others.

4th edition tried to "balance" the game and look what happened with that. Not everything has to be balanced. You try to start balancing a system and it comes across as a boring MMO-style game. Balance = boring.

They are broken, but there are degrees of broken. 3.5 held together far better than PF simply because the number range weren't as large. The problem with the 20 level scale is that in the end the numbers overwhelmed the d20 system on which it is based. Some people earlier in the piece advocated going to a d100 system to counter this exact problem.

Enlarging numbers breaks it faster, which is exactly what PF did. Kingmaker has numbers in the 40s at level 2. What can a d20 do against that kind of nonsense?

Kingmaker does not "have numbers in the 40s at level 2," that's bullshit.
There is one optional encounter, that is clearly foreshadowed as deadly, that you can make it to at level 2 if you absolutely rush but will more realistically be level 3 or 4, with one enemy with 41 AC.

A Balor, a CR20 monster, has an AC of 35. A great wyrm Gold Dragon (CR27, and it would be considered under CR'd; most true dragons are) has AC of 42.

A CR 3 or 4 monster with AC 41? My point stands.

It is not a CR 3 or 4 monster. It's a monster you can potentially encounter at level 3 or 4, IF you ignore multiple clear warnings that this encounter will definitely be out of your league. Also unlike a Balor or a Dragon, this encounter is only hard because of its high AC, it doesn't have high HP, AB, or any really strong abilities. Plus, there is a hard counter for the fight (protection from lightning). That fight is a major exception and not at all indicative of encounter tuning at that stage of the game, which you'd know if you'd played it.

 

[Shadenuat]

one enemy with 41 AC.

That's Hard+ difficulty.

He's CE Aberration 9/Sorcerer 4 btw.

 

[Luckmann]

I hope you see the problem, Grunker . Paisuck has taken muchkinism to new levels.

I don't see the problem here, though. Mind explaining it?

I have made several posts before explaining the balancing act that is 3.5. Wealth-by-level, stats, items, etc., all affect the CR of a monster, which then affect the XP gain and basically the entire system. The other part of it is that each item slot has a suggested restrictions placed on them. This means that you run into situations where you want to wear 3 rings, for example, but are limited to 2. You have to make a choice and consider oppotunity costs.

What Paisuck did was to inflate numbers, open up the slot effects and basically did everything they could to increase the power creep to, by 3.5 measures, astronomical levels. This will have a massive effect on the whole CR system, and goes a long way to explaining why Kingmaker is so out of whack in terms of challenge level and bloating.

Paisuck will have to basically re-engineer the whole system to a point they might as well abandon the whole d20 concept altogether. And as someone has already noted here recently, PF 2.0 is psychotic with the munchkinism and power bloat.

3.5 and Pathfinder are both broken. There is no balance at all. Don't even try to justify it with out-of-whack wealth level and CR's. That's just not the reason why the system is broken. It's broken because it doesn't scale well over 20 levels, and because many options are inherently better than others.

4th edition tried to "balance" the game and look what happened with that. Not everything has to be balanced. You try to start balancing a system and it comes across as a boring MMO-style game. Balance = boring.

They are broken, but there are degrees of broken. 3.5 held together far better than PF simply because the number range weren't as large. The problem with the 20 level scale is that in the end the numbers overwhelmed the d20 system on which it is based. Some people earlier in the piece advocated going to a d100 system to counter this exact problem.

Enlarging numbers breaks it faster, which is exactly what PF did. Kingmaker has numbers in the 40s at level 2. What can a d20 do against that kind of nonsense?

Kingmaker does not "have numbers in the 40s at level 2," that's bullshit.
There is one optional encounter, that is clearly foreshadowed as deadly, that you can make it to at level 2 if you absolutely rush but will more realistically be level 3 or 4, with one enemy with 41 AC.

A Balor, a CR20 monster, has an AC of 35. A great wyrm Gold Dragon (CR27, and it would be considered under CR'd; most true dragons are) has AC of 42.

A CR 3 or 4 monster with AC 41? My point stands.

PF:K doesn't use a CR system at all. And those high-CRmonsters you mention do not feature at all.

 

[Cael]

It is not a CR 3 or 4 monster. It's a monster you can potentially encounter at level 3 or 4, IF you ignore multiple clear warnings that this encounter will definitely be out of your league. Also unlike a Balor or a Dragon, this encounter is only hard because of its high AC, it doesn't have high HP, AB, or any really strong abilities. Plus, there is a hard counter for the fight (protection from lightning). That fight is a major exception and not at all indicative of encounter tuning at that stage of the game, which you'd know if you'd played it.

Oh please. People were complaining about the Treant Bear as well.

The Wisp was more than just high AC. It was outright immune to most magic, goes invisible at will and use touch attacks. But, please, do go on crying about how oppressed Kingmaker is by people who "haven't played it". Fanboi-ism is always amusing in a trainwreck sort of way.

 

[Cael]

PF:K doesn't use a CR system at all. And those high-CRmonsters you mention do not feature at all.

They were there for comparison and I believe that you are smart enough to know that. The point is that all the bloat in numbers is bad when all you have is a d20. It makes the system break faster. If 3.5 starts breaking at levels 7-8, then PF starts breaking at level 1.

 

[Lawntoilet]

It is not a CR 3 or 4 monster. It's a monster you can potentially encounter at level 3 or 4, IF you ignore multiple clear warnings that this encounter will definitely be out of your league. Also unlike a Balor or a Dragon, this encounter is only hard because of its high AC, it doesn't have high HP, AB, or any really strong abilities. Plus, there is a hard counter for the fight (protection from lightning). That fight is a major exception and not at all indicative of encounter tuning at that stage of the game, which you'd know if you'd played it.

Oh please. People were complaining about the Treant Bear as well.

The Wisp was more than just high AC. It was outright immune to most magic, goes invisible at will and use touch attacks. But, please, do go on crying about how oppressed Kingmaker is by people who "haven't played it". Fanboi-ism is always amusing in a trainwreck sort of way.

Have you played the game, though? I'm not saying the game is "oppressed," whatever you mean by that, I'm saying that you are bitching about things that are not actual problems when playing the game.
He's not immune to most magic. He's immune to magic missile. Also, again, the encounter is very clearly foreshadowed as dangerous. Did you also have a problem with BG1 Flesh Golems or the Lich with Daystar in BG2? Those were level-inappropriate optional encounters that were way beyond Viscount Smoulderburn, and nowhere near as obviously foreshadowed.

Edit: Also, there were more people here calling the Treant Bear pure because it was refreshingly difficult than there were complaining, most of the complaints I saw came from Steam, who say everything is too hard in the game. They're the reason they implemented Scrolls of Decline, for example.

 

[Luckmann]

PF:K doesn't use a CR system at all. And those high-CRmonsters you mention do not feature at all.

They were there for comparison and I believe that you are smart enough to know that. The point is that all the bloat in numbers is bad when all you have is a d20. It makes the system break faster. If 3.5 starts breaking at levels 7-8, then PF starts breaking at level 1.

I realize you put them there for comparison, but in this case, it is much like me saying that PF:K is busted because Owlbear #3 has an AC of 41, whereas in Kingsom Hearts, Hades has a Power Level of 13.

It makes no fucking sense. You are making comparisons with monsters that are not in the game, based on a metric which the game doesn't even use.

And I'm sorry, but no, PF:K doesn't start breaking at lvl 1 at all, precisely because it is tuned to it's own curve based on the assumptions and circumstances of the game. As for 3.5 and PF PnP, you'd be surprised how well they don't break unless you actually play to break them. They're both shit-shows, design-wise, but unless you play like a powergaming tard or actively look for inconsistencies, and have a non-retard GM that can make decisions without locking up like an autist, the games are actually great.

It is not a CR 3 or 4 monster. It's a monster you can potentially encounter at level 3 or 4, IF you ignore multiple clear warnings that this encounter will definitely be out of your league. Also unlike a Balor or a Dragon, this encounter is only hard because of its high AC, it doesn't have high HP, AB, or any really strong abilities. Plus, there is a hard counter for the fight (protection from lightning). That fight is a major exception and not at all indicative of encounter tuning at that stage of the game, which you'd know if you'd played it.

Oh please. People were complaining about the Treant Bear as well.


The Wisp was more than just high AC. It was outright immune to most magic, goes invisible at will and use touch attacks. But, please, do go on crying about how oppressed Kingmaker is by people who "haven't played it". Fanboi-ism is always amusing in a trainwreck sort of way.

From everything you say and the things you point at, it really does seem you haven't played it, though. Everything you bitch about is poor theorycrafting often seemingly based on hearsay. I've not once seen you bring up an actual issue of your own, only raise issues with things mentioned by others and then comparing it to the PF PnP and/or 3.5.

And the Treant Bear is a fucking pushover. He's literally there to explain the concept of DR. People complaining about it isn't proof of anything - "people" are fucking stupid. The wisps are similarily hard-countered with ease. It's a complete non-issue, indicative of nothing.

I'm saying that you are bitching about things that are not actual problems when playing the game.

This does seem to be the recurring theme.

 

[Jasede]

If only it used a CR system and all the encounters scaled strictly with your party so no battle is ever too challenging or too easy! Then you'd never feel like you are getting better. Perfection!

 

[Shadenuat]

A powerful monster you return back to in an early location

Truly a concept unheard in RPGs

 

[Cael]

PF:K doesn't use a CR system at all. And those high-CRmonsters you mention do not feature at all.

They were there for comparison and I believe that you are smart enough to know that. The point is that all the bloat in numbers is bad when all you have is a d20. It makes the system break faster. If 3.5 starts breaking at levels 7-8, then PF starts breaking at level 1.

I realize you put them there for comparison, but in this case, it is much like me saying that PF:K is busted because Owlbear #3 has an AC of 41, whereas in Kingsom Hearts, Hades has a Power Level of 13.

It makes no fucking sense. You are making comparisons with monsters that are not in the game, based on a metric which the game doesn't even use.

And I'm sorry, but no, PF:K doesn't start breaking at lvl 1 at all, precisely because it is tuned to it's own curve based on the assumptions and circumstances of the game. As for 3.5 and PF PnP, you'd be surprised how well they don't break unless you actually play to break them. They're both shit-shows, design-wise, but unless you play like a powergaming tard or actively look for inconsistencies, and have a non-retard GM that can make decisions without locking up like an autist, the games are actually great.

It is not a CR 3 or 4 monster. It's a monster you can potentially encounter at level 3 or 4, IF you ignore multiple clear warnings that this encounter will definitely be out of your league. Also unlike a Balor or a Dragon, this encounter is only hard because of its high AC, it doesn't have high HP, AB, or any really strong abilities. Plus, there is a hard counter for the fight (protection from lightning). That fight is a major exception and not at all indicative of encounter tuning at that stage of the game, which you'd know if you'd played it.

Oh please. People were complaining about the Treant Bear as well.


The Wisp was more than just high AC. It was outright immune to most magic, goes invisible at will and use touch attacks. But, please, do go on crying about how oppressed Kingmaker is by people who "haven't played it". Fanboi-ism is always amusing in a trainwreck sort of way.

From everything you say and the things you point at, it really does seem you haven't played it, though. Everything you bitch about is poor theorycrafting often seemingly based on hearsay. I've not once seen you bring up an actual issue of your own, only raise issues with things mentioned by others and then comparing it to the PF PnP and/or 3.5.

And the Treant Bear is a fucking pushover. He's literally there to explain the concept of DR. People complaining about it isn't proof of anything - "people" are fucking stupid. The wisps are similarily hard-countered with ease. It's a complete non-issue, indicative of nothing.

I'm saying that you are bitching about things that are not actual problems when playing the game.

This does seem to be the recurring theme.

*facepalm* OK. Nevermind. PF:K is not using the d20 system. It is a completely different system that has no bearing on the d20 system at all. Paizo literally created their whole system from the ground up, and so they can put in whatever they want and it is "balanced".

Fucking paizotards. Almost as bad as VtM fanbois.

 

[Cael]

He's not immune to most magic. He's immune to magic missile.

This two phrases says it all.

Fucking fanbois.

 

[Jasede]

how do i delete another user

 

[ArchAngel]

Why are you people wasting time talking to Cael. Looking at a white wall is more productive than that.

 

[Lawntoilet]

He's not immune to most magic. He's immune to magic missile.

This two phrases says it all.

Fucking fanbois.

The fact that those are the only two phrases you addressed says it all.

I'm honestly pretty far from a Paizo fan. I have been pretty vocal about how much I hate PF2e, to the point where it was barely even on-topic. But this is a good game. It does have problems, a lot of them, but they have essentially nothing to do with your criticisms, because basically nothing that you are calling out based on your theorycrafting is actually a problem in practice.

 

[Lawntoilet]

Why are you people wasting time talking to Cael. Looking at a white wall is more productive than that.

I can only spend so much time looking at a loading screen.

 

[ga♥]

What's this ultra-power monster you get too early, did i miss it?

 

[ArchAngel]

Finally a positive review: http://www.gamebanshee.com/reviews/121516-pathfinder-kingmaker-review.html

 

[Lawntoilet]

What's this ultra-power monster you get too early, did i miss it?

Find the campfire surrounded by corpses at Old Sycamore.

 

[Yosharian]

You guys are asking the wrong question. Stop asking 'is it better than BG2' and ask 'is it better than BG1?'

When they release a second game, they should iterate in the same way that BG2 iterated on BG1, then the comparison to BG2 is justified.

I think this is a tremendous achievement for a developer's first game, based on what I've seen and heard so far. I mean, shit, based on the fucking character creation system alone it's already a tremendous achievement, in my eyes.

 

[Shadenuat]

He's not immune to most magic. He's immune to magic missile.

This two phrases says it all.

Fucking fanbois.

The fact that those are the only two phrases you addressed says it all.

I'm honestly pretty far from a Paizo fan. I have been pretty vocal about how much I hate PF2e, to the point where it was barely even on-topic. But this is a good game. It does have problems, a lot of them, but they have essentially nothing to do with your criticisms, because basically nothing that you are calling out based on your theorycrafting is actually a problem in practice.

It is interesting he's indeed not immune to all magic and even has Prone animation

Spoiler

Another win for Conjuration I guess.

How do you prone Will o Wisp? Well, I guess same as you Sneak Attack a Will o Wisp
It just happens

By the way, Scare now cancels Remove Fear so not so no-brain anymore.

 

[Luckmann]

*facepalm* OK. Nevermind. PF:K is not using the d20 system. It is a completely different system that has no bearing on the d20 system at all. Paizo literally created their whole system from the ground up, and so they can put in whatever they want and it is "balanced".

Literally nothing I said has anything to do with this, wtf man. No-one even insinuated anything as retarded as this, nor is CR in any way an objective measurement in regards to d20, nor an intrinsic feature in any way.

Fucking paizotards. Almost as bad as VtM fanbois.

Calling me a paizotard is probably the height of irony, all things considered. All I did was point out how you argument is nonsense in regards to PF:K. It was in no way an endorsement of PF. You just seem mad or bitter that Owlcat actually ended up making a successful CRPG based on PF and the kitchen-sink of Golarion, and you seem to be grasping at straws to shit on it based on external factors that aren't even applicable.

Quit being gay and just play the fucking game already. It's pretty good.

 

[Luckmann]

I'm honestly pretty far from a Paizo fan. I have been pretty vocal about how much I hate PF2e, to the point where it was barely even on-topic. But this is a good game. It does have problems, a lot of them, but they have essentially nothing to do with your criticisms, because basically nothing that you are calling out based on your theorycrafting is actually a problem in practice.

PF2 is such a shitshow. PF may have big issues, from massive bloat to inconsistencies, to the way they change shit and pretend it was meant like that all along, to how they just churn shit out, including base classes in some regards, to everything-is-a-feat, to pathetic attempts to balance-by-gamefying, but man, PZF2 rrally shows how much Paizo is in the toilet, design-wise. It's not just that they're bad - they have always been sorta bad, even since Dragon Magazine - but that they've actually seemingly managed to get worse, not just design-wise, but also in their writing, probably due to the entire studio now being made up of absolute fucking crazies and trannies and literally crazy people.

PF2 just seem like the symptom of a disease. Too bad the paidrones are slurping that shit up like it's mother's milk and can't imagine playing a "dead" system, as if that has any meaning in the context of a table, especially with a system like Pathfinder, which has enough content to keep a table going for a decade, easily, if for some reason someone is autistic enough to only ever play PF. Imagine being brainlet enough to only watch TV-shows that are in production, because other shows are "dead". Fucking hell.

 

[Lawntoilet]

Shouldn't Linzi be able to equip

Spoiler

Irovetti's Singing Steel Breastplate? It doesn't have the caveat of Mithral that it still requires Medium Armor proficiency, it just says it "is treated as one category lighter" and seems like it was clearly meant for a Bard.

 

[Cael]

*facepalm* OK. Nevermind. PF:K is not using the d20 system. It is a completely different system that has no bearing on the d20 system at all. Paizo literally created their whole system from the ground up, and so they can put in whatever they want and it is "balanced".

Literally nothing I said has anything to do with this, wtf man. No-one even insinuated anything as retarded as this, nor is CR in any way an objective measurement in regards to d20, nor an intrinsic feature in any way.

Everything you said has to do with it. The fact you refuse to see it is hilarious.

Luckmann: Come on, man! Who cares if there is 15 men on the field per side? What has the EPL got to do with Bundesliga? Munich is not even in the EPL! They are not the same game!