|
Kobal2 posted:in the KM cRPG specifically : For context on these: Sneak attack is stupid good because flanking is treated as a global condition caused by any two melee attackers targeting the same creature (regardless of position; actual flanking arrangements aren't necessary). Anything else flanking related is stupid good for the same reasons, especially the Outflank teamwork feat. Animal companions are stupid good because the exaggerated scaling of monster stats also applies to animal companions, so they get huge bonuses to everything on top of the already-very-good multiple attack statlines from the tabletop game.
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
JamMasterJim posted:Jaethal can function well with the majority of builds you could make. A 1 level dip in vivi is fine because she has the Int for 1st level spells and shield is a super legit pickup for her, not to mention the sneak attack. Edit : but also a 1 level dip in vivi is legit for most melee classes
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
As a general note, it's fairly hard and very very long, so don't be afraid to start on lower difficulty and turn it up if it's too breezy. You will also be basically ok if you don't do mad multiclassing, the characters are mostly fairly competent just going up levels in their initial class. That said, berzerk multiclassing is one of the joys of the game so it's worth investigating once you've played a bit. There are a Lot of fantasy realism features you can turn on and off, either in game or using the bag of tricks mod, so if something is annoying you it can probably be fixed, but by and large it's excellent these days if you're in the mood for its particular flavor of grog.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Sneak attack is stupid good because flanking is treated as a global condition caused by any two melee attackers targeting the same creature (regardless of position; actual flanking arrangements aren't necessary). Anything else flanking related is stupid good for the same reasons, especially the Outflank teamwork feat. It's been a while since I played, but can't you also get a ranged sneak attack if the enemy is engaged in melee with one character? Pretty sure that's why Octavia, if you left her alone, would spam that acid cantrip over and over even if she had a decent ranged weapon. Turns out her to-hit chance was much better with the touch-spell and the damage was comparable in most situations. Drove me crazy until I figured that out.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
rojay posted:It's been a while since I played, but can't you also get a ranged sneak attack if the enemy is engaged in melee with one character? Pretty sure that's why Octavia, if you left her alone, would spam that acid cantrip over and over even if she had a decent ranged weapon. Turns out her to-hit chance was much better with the touch-spell and the damage was comparable in most situations. Drove me crazy until I figured that out. Needs two melees but otherwise yes. DeathSandwich posted:Jaethal works best with her default kit. Stick with the Scythe. If you want to get into multiclass fuckery give her a level of Alchemist - Vivisectionist and it'll give her access to the shield/enlarge spells Enlarge Person doesn't work on her because she's not, in fact, a person. Gotta have an undead bloodline sorcerer around to do that (which I'm not convinced should actually work RAW, but it does) Kobal2 fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
Jaethal always picked up Fauchard proficiency for me because there are a ton of good Fauchards and she in particular is much easier to use on the second line for me than the front line.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
rojay posted:It's been a while since I played, but can't you also get a ranged sneak attack if the enemy is engaged in melee with one character? Pretty sure that's why Octavia, if you left her alone, would spam that acid cantrip over and over even if she had a decent ranged weapon. Turns out her to-hit chance was much better with the touch-spell and the damage was comparable in most situations. Drove me crazy until I figured that out. Yes, ranged sneak attack in tabletop is basically just a weird niche thing you might get off once in a fight and then completely ignore. Whereas here even ranged sneak attack just checks to see if the enemy is flanked in general, not by the ranged attacker, to determine if it's applied - making it insanely powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Needs two melees but otherwise yes. It does! Pathfinder SRD posted:Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. Maybe the intention was that only mind-affecting spells worked on it, but the text says you count ex-humanoid undead as humanoids for all spell purposes. Actually, it's better at non-mind affecting spells, because some undead will still be immune to that not because they're undead but because they can't be conversed with (because they're not intelligent), and a fair number of mind-affecting spells require communication. Though it would work on Jaethal, because she does have a mind. Edit: If you're not a sorcerer you can also use Threnodic Spell, but a) that's a +2 spell level metamagic, so lol, and b) it's not in Kingmaker. Prism fucked around with this message at 03:04 on May 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Yes, ranged sneak attack in tabletop is basically just a weird niche thing you might get off once in a fight and then completely ignore. Whereas here even ranged sneak attack just checks to see if the enemy is flanked in general, not by the ranged attacker, to determine if it's applied - making it insanely powerful. You build a arcane trickster correctly you'll stack some insane SD with ray attacks. True strike plus an empowered ray can tear a huge chunk off enemies.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
Prism posted:Maybe the intention was that only mind-affecting spells worked on it, but the text says you count ex-humanoid undead as humanoids for all spell purposes. Yeah I know the RAW, but it's some second amendment punctuation lawyer fuckery to treat the two clauses like they're entirely unrelated IMO. Even with a full stop between them. If they had meant "all spells treat [...]" period, then what's the first sentence doing there at all ? The second sentence is poorly, or at least ambiguously written is all.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Yeah I know the RAW, but it's some second amendment punctuation lawyer fuckery to treat the two clauses like they're entirely unrelated IMO. Even with a full stop between them. If they had meant "all spells treat [...]" period, then what's the first sentence doing there at all ? The second sentence is poorly, or at least ambiguously written is all. That's Pathfinder for you.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
WrightOfWay posted:That's Pathfinder for you. I'm very, very much aware  (and now I'm idly picturing what an RPG ruleset written by actual lawyers would read like)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Yeah I know the RAW, but it's some second amendment punctuation lawyer fuckery to treat the two clauses like they're entirely unrelated IMO. Even with a full stop between them. If they had meant "all spells treat [...]" period, then what's the first sentence doing there at all ?  Threnodic Spell makes sure to specify that 'A threnodic spell affects undead creatures (even mindless undead) as if they weren’t immune to mind-affecting effects, but has no effect on living creatures.'. Undead bloodline doesn't have an equivalent line. I don't think I'm qualified to answer why, only to point out that they do use that language when they want to. Personally I assume that they are at least somewhat related and you can use mind-affecting control spells on undead, but the ones that require you to chat up the target don't work on skeletons anyway because they don't talk (though you could try it on, for instance, a vampire). Just that you can also do other things with the bloodline too. I'd rather be more generous than less. But we have moved beyond RAW by that point. Edit: also calling me a second amendment lawyer hurt once I remembered which one the second was (I'm not American). Just, ow. Prism fucked around with this message at 07:27 on May 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
Prism posted:Edit: also calling me a second amendment lawyer hurt once I remembered which one the second was (I'm not American). Just, ow. Hah, sorry if it came out that way - not what I was trying to say (and certainly not casting aspersions at you specifically !). What I was trying to say is that, to me at least, focusing on how the second sentence is written to the exclusion of everything else is akin to those US gun folks who assert that only the second part of their pet amendment matters, the first bit is irrelevant and therefore no gun law whatsoever is justified. It's just the first example of that sort of legal interpretation/loophole that sprang to mind, I'm genuinely sorry if it bothered you. I'm not really convinced by the "they do use more specific language when they want to" example because Paizo has a bunch of writers who don't consult each other or what content each other produces ; and they certainly don't standardize nuthing. The more recent example my group encountered, which derailed a game for a good 5 minutes of back-and-forth banter and laughter, is a trait I picked which reads something like "creatures have -1 to their roll when they try to resist your Illusion spells". Which is of course completely different from "the DC of your X is increased by 1", like *every other similar ability, feat or trait* is written. So now whenever I cast an illusion and the DM asks what the DC is, I make it a point to answer "14 but do remember to apply -1 to your roll" rather than "15", because comedy. But obviously, ultimately it's down to interpretation, and more to the point : who the gently caress really cares, play how you wanna play !
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Just noticed something as I was saving Jubilost from the kobolds for probably the 30th time of my life and had to share because it truly is incredible : when someone gets hit while standing in the river, a diffuse cloud of blood appears in the water that then slowly washes away downstream. I'm just floored by the attention to detail, care and effort that went into this game.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Needs two melees but otherwise yes. So there have to be two melee attackers for a ranged attack to operate as a sneak attack? I haven't played KM in quite a while, but I thought that if an enemy was engaged in melee by one character, a second character (who has the ability) could sneak attack through either a melee or ranged attack. I think requiring two melee attackers to give "flanked" status for a ranged sneak attack makes much more sense. Still sort of overpowered, but hey, it's Chinatown, Jack.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
rojay posted:So there have to be two melee attackers for a ranged attack to operate as a sneak attack? I haven't played KM in quite a while, but I thought that if an enemy was engaged in melee by one character, a second character (who has the ability) could sneak attack through either a melee or ranged attack. I think requiring two melee attackers to give "flanked" status for a ranged sneak attack makes much more sense. Still sort of overpowered, but hey, it's Chinatown, Jack. The way I believe it works is, as soon as character B tries to melee attack an enemy that has already been melee attacked by character A this round, then that enemy gains the "flanked" tag/condition ; which everyone (including attacker B) can henceforth use and abuse until character B's next round. But don't take my word on it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
rojay posted:I thought that if an enemy was engaged in melee by one character, a second character (who has the ability) could sneak attack through either a melee or ranged attack. Are you maybe thinking of D&D 5e? That's how it works there.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
I know it's not really supported well in Kingmaker, but is there a dual throwing weapon build anyone has loaded up on a merc and liked? I know it's feat taxed to hell (since you need all the ranged weapon feats AND the dual wielding feats, and you still need decent DEX for both) but I just like the thought of a more non-traditional ranged build than just being the bowguy. My other thought being like a slingstaff slayer, which to be fair does get a fair spot better support in the grand scheme of things and a bit easier to set up feats for.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
The problem with throwing builds is less feat taxing and more itemization. Pathfinder just isn't set up to support a throwing character. Consider: A high-level ranger or fighter with the full TWF chain gets 7 attacks per round. By default, you need a throwing weapon for each of those attacks, and it has to be enchanted at full price which gets hideously expensive. And that's just for a single round of attacks. It also weighs like 30 pounds. The Returning weapon enchantment exists, but there's two problems with that. First, it takes up a +1 bonus, meaning you're just flat weaker than any other ranged character. Second, Returning weapons only return at the start of your next turn, and if you don't have a hand free for them, they drop to the ground at your feet. That means that, to be blunt, they just don't work as part of a full attack.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The problem with throwing builds is less feat taxing and more itemization. Pathfinder just isn't set up to support a throwing character. Consider: A high-level ranger or fighter with the full TWF chain gets 7 attacks per round. By default, you need a throwing weapon for each of those attacks, and it has to be enchanted at full price which gets hideously expensive. And that's just for a single round of attacks. It also weighs like 30 pounds. While this is absolutely true for base Pathfinder, I feel the need to point out that in these two games ammo isn't a thing - this includes throwing weapons. If you've got a throwing axe +2, you're going to be making all your ranged attacks from that hand normally with just the one. I don't think it was ever shown off in Kingmaker, but there have been several enemies in WotR so far that have been TWF throwing builds that just throw like 9 axes a turn at you. And there's nothing stopping the player from doing the same, other than the feat issues.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
How do people feel about the copy/pasted maps in this game? Lazy and annoying or is it just accurate to a real TT campaign (GM reusing assets as much as possible)?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Hah, sorry if it came out that way - not what I was trying to say (and certainly not casting aspersions at you specifically !). What I was trying to say is that, to me at least, focusing on how the second sentence is written to the exclusion of everything else is akin to those US gun folks who assert that only the second part of their pet amendment matters, the first bit is irrelevant and therefore no gun law whatsoever is justified. Lol, no, I wasn't actually offended. Just, ow, well played. Pathfinder is just weirdly written in general in a lot of ways, I agree. Zurai posted:The problem with throwing builds is less feat taxing and more itemization. Pathfinder just isn't set up to support a throwing character. Consider: A high-level ranger or fighter with the full TWF chain gets 7 attacks per round. By default, you need a throwing weapon for each of those attacks, and it has to be enchanted at full price which gets hideously expensive. And that's just for a single round of attacks. It also weighs like 30 pounds. There's a very good feat for it, Ricochet Toss, but they printed that fairly late and it requires Quick Draw and either a prerequisite feat that's a half-strength weapon specialization or for you to be a fighter (specifically, you need Weapon Training in thrown weapons or the feat Martial Focus). WarpedLichen posted:How do people feel about the copy/pasted maps in this game? Eh, it didn't bother me all that much.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:How do people feel about the copy/pasted maps in this game? its hard to be annoyed by it because at least its not a dungeon
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:How do people feel about the copy/pasted maps in this game? For rando wilderness areas? Does not bother me in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The problem with throwing builds is less feat taxing and more itemization. Pathfinder just isn't set up to support a throwing character. Consider: A high-level ranger or fighter with the full TWF chain gets 7 attacks per round. By default, you need a throwing weapon for each of those attacks, and it has to be enchanted at full price which gets hideously expensive. And that's just for a single round of attacks. It also weighs like 30 pounds. Pretty sure Kingmaker throwing weapons are treated like a brace that have infinite ammo, but yeah, the itemization is still bad. Still I want it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
There's a few variances of encounter maps and very little 100% cut and paste on fixed areas, usually they add some change or cosmetic to spruce it up a bit. When it breaks that it's usually some meaningless one-off monster encounter like the Water elemental in chapter 1 sharing a common map with other stuff. I'd have rather had more cut and paste and less bugs at launch to be honest. All the new stuff they added for the DLC was original, I don't think I noticed any C&P at that point. The infinite dungeon of course is the exception.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
I played preordered and played Dragon Age 2 from start to finish the week it came out, so I honestly don't care about copy and paste maps as long as there's some effort put in to make them feel slightly unique.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
I'm only part way through act 2 but "Lawful Good" seems to be heavy on the "Lawful" and light on the "Good". So far the options/companion selections have included genocide x 2, leaving a torturer and his victim be, then a bit more genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 09:08
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:I'm only part way through act 2 but "Lawful Good" seems to be heavy on the "Lawful" and light on the "Good". So far the options/companion selections have included genocide x 2, leaving a torturer and his victim be, then a bit more genocide. If I'm thinking of the same, it's where "lawful good" is mass murdering the "evil" races, which is its own problem in the world of pnp RGGs where you have inherently evil/bad races. Lawful Good in general was either bad from a lawful perspective, or bad from a good perspective. By the alignment wheel standard, committing mass genocide of the kobold/troll races are a "lawful good" thing. Lawful Good and Evil were so bad that often I'd be picking LN, NE as a LE player and, and the few times I ever choose a good option the LG option was so hilariously bad it wasn't even something I'd remotely consider. It's not even like I wanted to, it's just so often a lawful evil choice would clearly be detrimental in some major way just to see content, like executing every foreign court visitor as a spy the moment you see them. For chaotic evil, have a "kill kill kill!" option for everyone you meet makes sense, not so much for any sense of law and order.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 09:22
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:I'm only part way through act 2 but "Lawful Good" seems to be heavy on the "Lawful" and light on the "Good". So far the options/companion selections have included genocide x 2, leaving a torturer and his victim be, then a bit more genocide. This is something the devs specifically got slammed for by basically everyone and they have promised they are trying to avoid this situation in Wrath. We’ll see if they succeed. Lawful Good completely sucks rear end in Kingmaker no two ways about it. Neutral Good is where it’s at.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
The problem was more that you had dialogue options being 'Lawful Good', 'Chaotic Neutral', 'Neutral Evil' , so an NG character would have to go outside of his alignment in some way no matter what. Makes sense since having 9 different options in every instance is too much. Wrath fixes this by having just 'Good', Lawful' etc options.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 10:55
|
|
|
The added in 99 atonement scolls for a pittance to a kingdom vendor. Basically as close as you can get to them admitting it was a total gently caress-up in general on their part. Alignment has been a running joke for well over 20 years when applied to rigid design. It's based in the idea of a player/GM acting in the spirit of something, not tracking a running score of alignment points. Paladins in 2ed were where I first heard it described as "lawful stupid" Captain Oblivious posted:This is something the devs specifically got slammed for by basically everyone and they have promised they are trying to avoid this situation in Wrath. We’ll see if they succeed. I'd heard some promising things about it, the MPs seemed geared towards a single ideal rather then a specific alignment. Aeons require a lawful alignment of some kind, Lichs require evil, I assume Angels require good, etc. pentyne fucked around with this message at 11:32 on May 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 11:26
|
|
|
JamMasterJim posted:The problem was more that you had dialogue options being 'Lawful Good', 'Chaotic Neutral', 'Neutral Evil' , so an NG character would have to go outside of his alignment in some way no matter what. This sounds like a big improvement, looking forwards to it!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Frankly, in Kingmaker I almost wondered if "lawful good" sucking rear end was on purpose and kind of a political statement; almost everyone outside of the party who is lawful is loving awful, the lawful options you get in dialogue universally suck, and all the really sympathetic or likeable characters are neutral or chaotic. It felt too consistent to not be on purpose. But yes, from what I've seen, the split in Wrath makes a lot more sense and hits differently, thanks in part due to the context of needing to be a commander. So the context of "law" means something a bit different.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
It's probably easier to have sensible "lawful" decisions in a military environment, yeah. It probably doesn't hurt that one of/the main antagonists are chaotic evil demons, either.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
seems strange that I can bound by the law of a realm for which I literally make the laws tbh ah so slavery is legal here... when did I get the option to decide on that????
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:seems strange that I can bound by the law of a realm for which I literally make the laws tbh Slavery is decidedly not legal here (in the wider region your barony is part of). The River Kingdoms are pretty laissez-faire about things, but "NO SLAVERY PERIOD" is one of the six fundamental principles/customs they strive to live by, to the point that escaped slaves from all around flee towards there because they know people here won't give them up to slavers no matter what.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
There's no law that says you can't
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Yeah, the issue is that in the traditional law of the area, trolls don't count as sapients for the purpose of the other application of laws. Which is dumb as poo poo because you're the one who could MAKE THOSE LAWS but Wrath really does handle a lot of this much better
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 08:38
|
|