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

[Ghulgothas]

The the more overacted voice-sets barking out colorful commentary in battle, the better.

 

[FranticDistortion]

The the more overacted voice-sets barking out colorful commentary in battle, the better.

One good voice is enough. Here is a proof.

 

[Desiderius]

The the more overacted voice-sets barking out colorful commentary in battle, the better.

I play with voices turned down and good tunes playing anyway.

 

[FranticDistortion]

Less companions with more effort put into them would be a better approach.

How about lots of companions that are cool?

Persona 5 Royal has 7 and that's the highest it got, as far I know.
I don't think that 11 cool ones is a possibility for an indie RPG with 2 years of development time.

 

[Desiderius]

The contrast with IWD isn't just pre-made vs make your own, it's a design based around bringing the right companions to the right fight vs having a set crew for everything. In a ruleset with as many options as Pathfinder it makes sense to go with the former over the latter. I don't think people really grokked what they were doing so stuck with the set party model and ended up struggling in places.

 

[Lilliput McHammersmith]

The contrast with IWD isn't just pre-made vs make your own, it's a design based around bringing the right companions to the right fight vs having a set crew for everything. In a ruleset with as many options as Pathfinder it makes sense to go with the former over the latter. I don't think people really grokked what they were doing so stuck with the set party model and ended up struggling in places.

I'm not sure what your fixation is on IWD. It's a fine game, for sure, but almost all SSI Gold Box games had you build your entire party, as well as Temple of Elemental Evil, Storm of Zehir, and on and on. The Wizardry games too, as well as Bard's Tale/Shadowrun/Wasteland.

In fact, the pre-made companions thing seems less common than the build-your-own-party system. I wouldn't say that Pathfinder is inherently more complex than D&D 3.5E or even D&D 3E.

Not to mention, the party based isometric revival era has seen pretty much every game have party creation: Pillars 1/2, Wasteland 2, D:OS 1/2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

In PFKM, the mercs give you more flexibility but you are almost certainly crippling yourself because the companions have a much better point-buy (even if their stat spread doesn't make a ton of sense (Looking at you, Amiri. Who gives 16 Strength to a Barbarian???)). Amiri aside, IIRC you cannot build a better merc tank than Valerie, because her stat spread is great (I could be wrong on that).

The point is, mercs are there for people who really love to theorycraft, I'm not sure why you get so worked up about a feature that you don't even have to use.

 

[Desiderius]

It's really a remarkable achievement to not only miss every last point I was trying to make, but also my reason for caring about it in the first place.

I hereby relinquish my Autism King crown to you.

 

[Pink Eye]

No! Damn you! That crown is mine! Mine I say!

 

[Lilliput McHammersmith]

It's really a remarkable achievement to not only miss every last point I was trying to make, but also my reason for caring about it in the first place.

I hereby relinquish my Autism King crown to you.

You might wanna keep that. I get what you are trying to say. In your own opinion, PFKM was *designed* for having companions you can swap in and out. I already said that clearly was not integral to the design, or they wouldn't have added the mercs.

But what you have continually failed to answer is why you care so deeply about an *optional* inferior feature. Why does it bother you that there is freedom to build more characters in the game?

 

[Desiderius]

They added the mercs because retards were crying for them because you don't understand what restrictions/design is for and how it works in the first place.

I care about it because the power-gamer dipshits were telling everybody the companions suck and that they should play mercs, so they played mercs and not only missed half of the intended experience but the experience they did have included sucking so badly they quit the game and started bitching about how hard it was without having ever properly played it.

I was using IWD as a synecdoche to represent both the traditional Gold Box/Wizardry/et. al. type of character creation (although some of those games have companions as well - Skomp FTW - they aren't as central as they are now in these kinds of games) and the longing to stick to one's priors since IWD came out after BG but went back to roll your own while most BG successors like PoE are centered around the companions.

 

[Lilliput McHammersmith]

They added the mercs because retards were crying for them because you don't understand what restrictions/design is for and how it works in the first place.

I care about it because the power-gamer dipshits were telling everybody the companions suck and that they should play mercs, so they played mercs and not only missed half of the intended experience but the experience they did have included sucking so badly they quit the game and started bitching about how hard it was without having ever properly played it.

I was using IWD as a synecdoche to represent both the traditional Gold Box/Wizardry/et. al. type of character creation (although some of those games have companions as well - Skomp FTW - they aren't as central as they are now in these kinds of games) and the longing to stick to one's priors since IWD came out after BG but went back to roll your own while most BG successors like PoE are centered around the companions.

Citation needed on them only adding mercs after "retards crying"

You keep going on about the intended experience. Why do you care what other players get out of the experience? If someone went into PFKM with the intention of theorycrafting their eyes out, they can have that experience. That was their intended experience. Playing with the companions is one way to play the game. Playing solo is another way. Playing with mercs is another way.

You can keep jammering on about restrictions/design all day long, but the mercs have plenty of restrictions as well.

Again, why are you upset that there is more freedom in the game? Why do you want to limit the freedom that the game offers?

If you want to have the companion-centric experience, mercs being an option in the game does not in any way inhibit that. I'm fairly certain that anyone who wants to play with mercs at least has some idea on how to build characters. If they do something to make their game less fun, it sounds like their own personal problem.

 

[Sharpedge]

They added the mercs because retards were crying for them because you don't understand what restrictions/design is for and how it works in the first place.

I care about it because the power-gamer dipshits were telling everybody the companions suck and that they should play mercs, so they played mercs and not only missed half of the intended experience but the experience they did have included sucking so badly they quit the game and started bitching about how hard it was without having ever properly played it.

I was using IWD as a synecdoche to represent both the traditional Gold Box/Wizardry/et. al. type of character creation (although some of those games have companions as well - Skomp FTW - they aren't as central as they are now in these kinds of games) and the longing to stick to one's priors since IWD came out after BG but went back to roll your own while most BG successors like PoE are centered around the companions.

I think his point is more that, if it doesn't impact your play experience, why be upset about it. I never played the game on anything lower than hard, I have no idea what the experience of below hard is like since I never touched it. Just because I don't, "need that experience," doesn't mean that there might not be someone else who enjoys it. I am all for letting people have their own fun, so long as they don't come along and try to ruin mine. The pathfinder options menu is an example (in my opinion) of what every RPG options menu should look like, letting people more or less pick how they want to play the game. Whilst there could be improvements (for example, harder difficulty improves AI, not just number bloat), the amount of choice in the options menu is a great thing. The mercs being there is another example of the same idea. I don't make mercs, you don't make mercs, but it doesn't impact my gameplay if someone else makes mercs and it stops them whining about the preset character stat distributions.

 

[Sykar]

Bowling infusion, and it's the only one that matters.

Good to see we're in agreement then. I'm not sure what the point of everything else is.

The point is that you keep bringing up irrelevant things as arguments against the power of the Kineticist. You put forth the Sirocco Sorcerer as a counterexample, but he has a lower BAB and no iteratives either. You would naturally object to anyone bringing those up when discussing the sorceror's power, so I can't understand why you do that for the Kineticist.

This is beneath you.

I said that people were mistaking the (broken) power of persistent AoE effects for the power of the class itself.

Neither Kin nor Sorc is the strongest class in the game properly played, they just both have access to that broken effect. It is kind of perverse that Owlcat intensified their error by removing the Form Save from those exact Forms but that just accentuates my point.

One of the more underrated persistent AoE effects is Mass Icy Prison. From memory I don't think that there are any enemies which have counters to it in Pathfinder. You can just cast it, then kite stuff around and shoot if you desire to do so. Enemies will never catch you because their movement is too slow. It falls into the "heavy cheese" category. Btw, a few pages back you mentioned clerics don't have any persistent AoEs, they have 2 (although I think you just forgot), Blade Barrier and Polar Midnight although obviously neither of them fall into the same tier of silliness as Sirocco.

Mass Icy Prison is not available until level 17/18 though, much later than cheese like Deadly Earth.

 

[Desiderius]

I am all for letting people have their own fun, so long as they don't come along and try to ruin mine. The pathfinder options menu is an example (in my opinion) of what every RPG options menu should look like, letting people more or less pick how they want to play the game. Whilst there could be improvements (for example, harder difficulty improves AI, not just number bloat), the amount of choice in the options menu is a great thing. The mercs being there is another example of the same idea. I don't make mercs, you don't make mercs, but it doesn't impact my gameplay if someone else makes mercs and it stops them whining about the preset character stat distributions.

Yes, yes, we're all libertarians now, which is entirely beside the point. RL is already anything goes, the whole point of playing a game someone else has designed is seeing what restrictions they've chosen to place on your absolute freedom and seeing how those play out. Same reason the Sonnet Form kicks Free Verse's ass. Restrictions spur creativity in pleasurable ways.

Owlcat has chose to design a game around companions. If after giving that a fair shot you want to try something different knock yourself out. I'm currently playing a heavily modded playthrough because I decided I'd finally had my fill of vanilla.

On the other hand if you're modding right out of the gate or firing up the mercs first thing you're doing it wrong. Yes, I am harshing your mellow. Intentionally. Thank me later.

 

[Desiderius]

Why do you care what other players get out of the experience?

Because the better experience they have the more games they buy and the better games I get to play.

This is not really that complicated. Nonjudgmentalism uber alles is just another name for perpetual childhood. It's coming to an end, one way or another. Choose your fighter.

 

[Ontopoly]

It's really a remarkable achievement to not only miss every last point I was trying to make, but also my reason for caring about it in the first place.

I hereby relinquish my Autism King crown to you.

You might wanna keep that. I get what you are trying to say. In your own opinion, PFKM was *designed* for having companions you can swap in and out. I already said that clearly was not integral to the design, or they wouldn't have added the mercs.

But what you have continually failed to answer is why you care so deeply about an *optional* inferior feature. Why does it bother you that there is freedom to build more characters in the game?

Considering how their stories, and if they make it to the end through the house at the edge of time, has such an impact on the final dungeon, I would say it was definitely the intended way of playing and mercenaries are just an addition for anyone who wants to use them

 

[Ontopoly]

RL is already anything goes

Can't wait to go punch a dragon in real life.

 

[Pink Eye]

They added the mercs because retards were crying for them because you don't understand what restrictions/design is for and how it works in the first place.

I care about it because the power-gamer dipshits were telling everybody the companions suck and that they should play mercs, so they played mercs and not only missed half of the intended experience but the experience they did have included sucking so badly they quit the game and started bitching about how hard it was without having ever properly played it.

I was using IWD as a synecdoche to represent both the traditional Gold Box/Wizardry/et. al. type of character creation (although some of those games have companions as well - Skomp FTW - they aren't as central as they are now in these kinds of games) and the longing to stick to one's priors since IWD came out after BG but went back to roll your own while most BG successors like PoE are centered around the companions.

Citation needed on them only adding mercs after "retards crying"

You keep going on about the intended experience. Why do you care what other players get out of the experience? If someone went into PFKM with the intention of theorycrafting their eyes out, they can have that experience. That was their intended experience. Playing with the companions is one way to play the game. Playing solo is another way. Playing with mercs is another way.

You can keep jammering on about restrictions/design all day long, but the mercs have plenty of restrictions as well.

Again, why are you upset that there is more freedom in the game? Why do you want to limit the freedom that the game offers?

If you want to have the companion-centric experience, mercs being an option in the game does not in any way inhibit that. I'm fairly certain that anyone who wants to play with mercs at least has some idea on how to build characters. If they do something to make their game less fun, it sounds like their own personal problem.

No. Mercs suck. Period. In terms of optimization, Companions do it better. Save for special cases like Amiri who is restricted to her iconic point buy. Everyone else has a higher point buy than what mercs can achieve. Companions can further increase their stats via completion of personal quests. Companions can gain access to unique passives or unique items later in the game. In terms of narrative, Companions do it better. Each companion is interwoven within the story. Each playing a part in one way or another. Tristian, for example, plays a very significant role during Season of Bloom. Imagine going through the quest without him, it just wouldn't be the same. In terms of banter, Companions do it better. You're playing what is essentially a one hundred hour playthrough. It'd be awfully boring without hearing Harrim talking about the end, and how we're all doomed.

Let's see, do I go for what is basically a walking mute stat stick. Or do I go for a fleshed companion with banter and a role in the narrative?

Companions take a lot of work from writers and developers. It'd be a waste to not at least experience the work these people put into them.

 

[FranticDistortion]

Good middle ground is getting to choose companion's stats and class, with one recommended build by devs to make game more retard-proof. Companions are always the way to go, unless they are written like shit (Octavia).

 

[gurugeorge]

Companions take a lot of work from writers and developers. It'd be a waste to not at least experience the work these people put into them.

Not just a waste from the point of view of respecting the developers' work, but it's a waste of your own money not to experience what you paid for.

I've noted numerous times that while I despise the PC box-ticking and degeneracy in the game (as in all modern games), the actual writing isn't too bad here, there's some decent, thoughtful character development and banter, and you're wasting money if you don't experience it thoroughly. It's more like 2012 politically correct writing than 2020 - from a time when people wrote as if they cared about the actual characters, rather than obnoxiously shoving them in your face as teaching moments.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Oh, so I should be forced to play in specific way and create only main character that fits created without my consideration party, just because some retards on forum decided "mercs bad, mkay?". How about you people go fuck yourself with your arrogant and snotty attitude? Don't like mercs? Don't use them, just leave me with my "stat sticks" alone and excuse me for wanting to create my own party IN A GAME THAT BASED ON TABLETOP GAME FOR FUCK SAKE, as I wish to see it , not someone who "envisioned" for me who should I have in my party. There no such thing as "wasted" experience/dev's work/blah blah if people enjoyed the game and many people do, just in different ways.

FranticDistortion offers interesting solution to adapting companions to main character, but unfortunately there kingdom management system, so Jubilost and Harrim unfortunately will still stay at castle, because I don't like how other companions manage roles of Minister and High priest at all. But I guess this is more advisors system's fault since somehow I should be worried in monarchy what my advisors think, because otherwise they will leave and you can't hire proffesional to do the job.

 

[Gargaune]

So did they unlock the camera angle in the alpha? If so, how's it handling, is it just for gawking or do you find you have to swivel around regularly while you play?

 

[Utgard-Loki]

Let's see, do I go for what is basically a walking mute stat stick. Or do I go for a fleshed companion with banter and a role in the narrative?

there is not as obvious an answer to this as you might think.

 

[Pink Eye]

Oh, so I should be forced to play in specific way and create only main character that fits created without my consideration party, just because some retards on forum decided "mercs bad, mkay?". How about you people go fuck yourself with your arrogant and snotty attitude? Don't like mercs? Don't use them, just leave me with my "stat sticks" alone and excuse me for wanting to create my own party IN A GAME THAT BASED ON TABLETOP GAME FOR FUCK SAKE, as I wish to see it , not someone who "envisioned" for me who should I have in my party. There no such thing as "wasted" experience/dev's work/blah blah if people enjoyed the game and many people do, just in different ways.

FranticDistortion offers interesting solution to adapting companions to main character, but unfortunately there kingdom management system, so Jubilost and Harrim unfortunately will still stay at castle, because I don't like how other companions manage roles of Minister and High priest at all. But I guess this is more advisors system's fault since somehow I should be worried in monarchy what my advisors think, because otherwise they will leave and you can't hire proffesional to do the job.

You sound severely upset over something as insignificant as this. No one is taking your ability to play the game in whatever manner you desire. People are merely exchanging views on mercs and companions. It's called having a dialogue.

 

[Lacrymas]

What a dumb conversation.