Do we have any idea on the difference with regards to testing (or say, the reception to the beta?) between PotR and KM in order to know if PotR might released in a more polished state?
I only played Kingmaker once the "definitive edition" came out, and enjoyed a largely bugless game, but it is my understanding that when Kingmaker originally released - it was an unmitigated mess.
I enjoyed KM a lot. I backed PotR, and am excited for it. I'm just wondering if PotR is going to be one of those "wait six months and then play it" kind of situations or not. I guess only time will tell?
I'm not in the beta but I browse the Owlcat forum quite a bit. And from what I gather there, the game is already in a pretty good state. Whenever they release an update for the beta you get the usual "this is not working anymore" issues. But nothing major or game-breaking. They did say right at the beginning that they were using some sort of game development process (including software) meant to stress-test the game for bugs, because releasing this game in a much more polished and bug-free state was a core goal for them.
Here's the link to the latest KS update. There are a few more goodies in there. Also, from a previous update, the intelligent weapon that serves as a mini-companion is also now in the game. The player gets to decide what weapon it will be.
Do we have any idea on the difference with regards to testing (or say, the reception to the beta?) between PotR and KM in order to know if PotR might released in a more polished state?
I only played Kingmaker once the "definitive edition" came out, and enjoyed a largely bugless game, but it is my understanding that when Kingmaker originally released - it was an unmitigated mess.
I enjoyed KM a lot. I backed PotR, and am excited for it. I'm just wondering if PotR is going to be one of those "wait six months and then play it" kind of situations or not. I guess only time will tell?
I'm not in the beta but I browse the Owlcat forum quite a bit. And from what I gather there, the game is already in a pretty good state. Whenever they release an update for the beta you get the usual "this is not working anymore" issues. But nothing major or game-breaking. They did say right at the beginning that they were using some sort of game development process (including software) meant to stress-test the game for bugs, because releasing this game in a much more polished and bug-free state was a core goal for them.
That's great to hear. I would imagine that since this is the same engine (I believe), and the rules are already mostly in place - this release would be smoother. That the beta feedback appears to back this up and because they're pushing the date back (I see that as a positive), I'm hopeful.
ATM, the game play seems polished enough. There are some grammar and narrative issues that I’ve personally come across but nothing game breaking. Immersion breaking though.
That said, two things: the first is it’s difficult to actually play test every build and every feat, which iirc, is where a lot of the first bugs were in KM. They seem to be using the same engine, so, those bugs shouldn’t be persistent here. That, and a lot of the other bugs and issues came from the Kingdom management side, which this game does not have.
Secondly, the full game isn’t released. The first half might be polished, but who knows what the second half holds. I tend to find most games like this. The first half of the game is a pleasant experience, the last half bugs and issues tend to creep up.
IMO, it’s always good to wait for at least a hot fix or two if you’re personally looking for a bugless experience. If you don’t mind the occasional one, then
I saw the Kitsune portraits for player characters and I'm in love. In my first full run of Baldur's Gate (BG1>Sod>BG2>ToB) I played a Half-Elf Bard who I RPed as a Kitsune with a custom portrait. Now I can actually play that character as an actual Kitsune. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is my #1 favorite RPG, so I'm sure Wrath will replace it as my favorite.
I hope I will be able to finish WoTR for a change. P:K was unkind enoughbto throw a gamebreaking bug at my face after 80+ hours spent, that prevented me to progress the main story...
I hope I will be able to finish WoTR for a change. P:K was unkind enoughbto throw a gamebreaking bug at my face after 80+ hours spent, that prevented me to progress the main story...
Strange. I've repeat-played the game all the way through (at least through the penultimate chapter), and no game-breaking bugs. Perhaps this was specific to your game in some way?
I hope I will be able to finish WoTR for a change. P:K was unkind enoughbto throw a gamebreaking bug at my face after 80+ hours spent, that prevented me to progress the main story...
Strange. I've repeat-played the game all the way through (at least through the penultimate chapter), and no game-breaking bugs. Perhaps this was specific to your game in some way?
The game failed to show me Anarg's Tomb location, no matter what I did, which ended up with the collapse of my kingdom under barbarian horde raids.
Do we have any idea on the difference with regards to testing (or say, the reception to the beta?) between PotR and KM in order to know if PotR might released in a more polished state?
I only played Kingmaker once the "definitive edition" came out, and enjoyed a largely bugless game, but it is my understanding that when Kingmaker originally released - it was an unmitigated mess.
I enjoyed KM a lot. I backed PotR, and am excited about it. I'm just wondering if PotR is going to be one of those "wait six months and then play it" kind of situations or not. I guess only time will tell?
The current Beta was released 5th may, I´ve been playing it all week and it seems fairly stable, adds new content, crafting and new mythic paths and some big bugs are gone. There are not game-breaking bugs so far for me (cross fingers).
Well, mounted combat and pets still have some issues in TB, but nothing to write home about.
It´s still not very optimized... at least on my PC it slows to a crawl in the massive crusade battles and sieges.
They improved a lot in storytelling, writing and voice actors, to be sure. Lots of interactions with the companions and some interesting NPCS. The maps are bigger, with plenty to explore and a lot of subquests. And allies to recruit. Most of the decisions you made and the people you recruit have some impact on the game.
I love the new classes and the new camping mechanics. The entire game seems to be a battle for survival against difficult odds... It seems you always are fighting an uphill battle. If you thought Kingmaker was hard...
PD: I do not know if it´s going to be like that all the game, but unlike in Kingmaker, I found Blaster arcane casters not very useful... Well, our mages, because enemy mages are nasty. They improved the IA and spell selection of the buggers.
I found LOTS of enemies with Magic resistance, incorporeal and energy resistances (Kinda reminds me of ToB) ... and wizs, magus, sorcs, etc have little chance to overcome it at lower levels... Right now I´m playing a no-mage party. It´s a first.
The witch comes with the Hex to remove resistances, so she pairs well with arcane casters, but sadly it is not very reliable... and you need two rounds to start doing damage... to one enemy because hexes are for one creature only.
Instead of having your wizards, sorcs, arcanists... etc specialize in conjuration spells (those usually ignore Magic resistance) you can simply use shamans, druids, oracles instead.
Right now I only use the wizards to craft scrolls. A pity because she is hilarious.
I hope I will be able to finish WoTR for a change. P:K was unkind enoughbto throw a gamebreaking bug at my face after 80+ hours spent, that prevented me to progress the main story...
Strange. I've repeat-played the game all the way through (at least through the penultimate chapter), and no game-breaking bugs. Perhaps this was specific to your game in some way?
The game failed to show me Anarg's Tomb location, no matter what I did, which ended up with the collapse of my kingdom under barbarian horde raids.
Oh I see.
There are tricks to getting that right, both in terms of certain Kingdom Management things you have to do (which is why it's not a good idea to put it on complete auto but rather on the easiest setting so you can manually ensure you do those certain things), and also finding and talking to a certain NPC. Just Google the information. It's what I did my very first time playing, and then I followed what people said to do, and everything worked perfectly.
I hope I will be able to finish WoTR for a change. P:K was unkind enoughbto throw a gamebreaking bug at my face after 80+ hours spent, that prevented me to progress the main story...
Strange. I've repeat-played the game all the way through (at least through the penultimate chapter), and no game-breaking bugs. Perhaps this was specific to your game in some way?
The game failed to show me Anarg's Tomb location, no matter what I did, which ended up with the collapse of my kingdom under barbarian horde raids.
Oh I see.
There are tricks to getting that right, both in terms of certain Kingdom Management things you have to do (which is why it's not a good idea to put it on complete auto but rather on the easiest setting so you can manually ensure you do those certain things), and also finding and talking to a certain NPC. Just Google the information. It's what I did my very first time playing, and then I followed what people said to do, and everything worked perfectly.
Yeah, I tried to cheat my way to get it fixed, but apparently I screwed everything even more to the point, I couldn't really do anything. I wanted to finish the game since I invested a significant time on it, but it's not good enough for me to start over. It has too many flaws to play it once more. I really hope Owlcat learned their lessons.
They redid the character creation screen, and it is better than the previously. Each class now has a difficulty rating and a visual wheel illustrating on the strength and weaknesses of the class when it comes to things like Melee, range attacks, spell casting, support, control and defense. This allows the player to know how this class is suppose to be played allowing one to choose a class more beneficial to their playstyle.
They also give a breakdown of one to three special abilities the class possesses. So for the Witch one, it explains briefly what Hexes are, informs that the player will be choosing a Patron and that they'll be receiving a familiar.
Screencap of the UI:
The subclass (as well as the feat) section still needs work and follow this type of breakdown before getting into the details, but even this one step drastically improves accessibility to people who are unfamiliar with the pathfinding system.
I think with this these types of changes I am going to attempt to plan out a Damphir Winter Witch for my first playthrough as I think I have the confidence to actually be able to plan it out properly with how all the information is laid out to me. I just finally finished Zero Horizon Dawn and I think this game is going to be the one I put most of my time and energy into next.
~
They also added Voice Acting which so far from what I heard is hit and miss. I prefer games like this, especially those with descriptive text intertwined with dialog, not to have VOs, but I know I am in the minority. I still prefer how Baldur's Gate did it, give the first line as VO so you the reader/listener can grasp the emotion and tone of the conversation and then allow them to read the rest at their own pace. With the small sampling of dialog I have got so far, the delivery seems a tad emotionless. I wonder if there is a way to toggle it off?
Kingmaker already had a fairly large number of options with the character creator in regards to classes and subclasses. Wrath of the Righteous takes it to a completely new level. You'd be hard pressed to find a larger set of options when it comes to narrowing down how you want to play.
That's my point. There are sooo many options that it can be overwhelming to a person new to Pathfinder. I remember starting Kingmaker the first time and taking about 90 minutes just reading through all the class descriptions attempting to figure out what it all meant and I still didn't figure it all out and a lot of characters in that game were trial and error. They've corrected that a lot with this set up, which I hope they expand upon through out the character creation process.
Yeah, it´s hard to find a balance between newcomers and grizzled veterans of Pathfinder.
With the amounts of character creation options (They even added kitsune and Oreas o_O ), there´s still people that are demanding classes like swashbuckler or investigator; or obscure occult archetypes...
Hard to make all people happy, it seems.
They added a ton of tutorial info to explain many things... some of them are still empty in the beta.
Lots of lore added to the game, tho, the way already made in the prequel and in games like tyranny or POE , with a bold word that you can click to read the info.
That's my point. There are sooo many options that it can be overwhelming to a person new to Pathfinder. I remember starting Kingmaker the first time and taking about 90 minutes just reading through all the class descriptions attempting to figure out what it all meant and I still didn't figure it all out and a lot of characters in that game were trial and error. They've corrected that a lot with this set up, which I hope they expand upon through out the character creation process.
I had to use a 20 minute Youtube video to plan out my Druid, and I couldn't just skim through it either. I had to watch the whole thing and reference it 5 or 6 times while I was in the character creation as well.
That's my point. There are sooo many options that it can be overwhelming to a person new to Pathfinder. I remember starting Kingmaker the first time and taking about 90 minutes just reading through all the class descriptions attempting to figure out what it all meant and I still didn't figure it all out and a lot of characters in that game were trial and error. They've corrected that a lot with this set up, which I hope they expand upon through out the character creation process.
I had to use a 20 minute Youtube video to plan out my Druid, and I couldn't just skim through it either. I had to watch the whole thing and reference it 5 or 6 times while I was in the character creation as well.
I kindof stumbled into my build, and I'm thankful it ended up being a strong one (Scaled Fist -> Sorcerer -> Dragon Disciple). What always bothered me about Pathfinder was the relative imbalance within the archetypes. For example - The other two builds I had wanted to run was a dex based Dualist build, but discovered that it was objectively worse than Aldori swordlord. I also wanted to run a multiclass Fighter/Wizard, only to find that the Magus is essentially designed to replace that build within a single archetype.
Some of the above is a feature of the system: Pathfinder is so complex that you cant really avoid some multiclasses or archetypes are both objectively better and render their weaker variants are redundant. It's good and bad.
That's my point. There are sooo many options that it can be overwhelming to a person new to Pathfinder. I remember starting Kingmaker the first time and taking about 90 minutes just reading through all the class descriptions attempting to figure out what it all meant and I still didn't figure it all out and a lot of characters in that game were trial and error. They've corrected that a lot with this set up, which I hope they expand upon through out the character creation process.
I had to use a 20 minute Youtube video to plan out my Druid, and I couldn't just skim through it either. I had to watch the whole thing and reference it 5 or 6 times while I was in the character creation as well.
I kindof stumbled into my build, and I'm thankful it ended up being a strong one (Scaled Fist -> Sorcerer -> Dragon Disciple). What always bothered me about Pathfinder was the relative imbalance within the archetypes. For example - The other two builds I had wanted to run was a dex based Dualist build, but discovered that it was objectively worse than Aldori swordlord. I also wanted to run a multiclass Fighter/Wizard, only to find that the Magus is essentially designed to replace that build within a single archetype.
Some of the above is a feature of the system: Pathfinder is so complex that you cant really avoid some multiclasses or archetypes are both objectively better and render their weaker variants are redundant. It's good and bad.
The first time you open up Kingmaker, it is absolutely intimidating, in a way I never felt even in my most absolute novice days with Baldur's Gate. Moreover, they have crammed the sourcebook into a thousand nearly full-page tooltips for each spell and ability. These two games are advanced in a way nothing else in the isometric CRPG genre are, with the possible exception of Temple of Elemental Evil, which I admit I also have to use a build guide for. People say 2nd Edition is the archaic, hard to understand version of D&D, but I have 10x more problems with 3rd Edition (and really, Pathfinder is just a Master Class version of 3.5).
Oh, I agree with that, but you´re looking at the game from a gamer perspective, not from a roleplayer of an RPG game, the one the videogame is based on.
The point of most of the archetypes is to give you options to make the character you want, unconstricted by your class... Do you want a druid that makes sneak attacks? an armoured cleric that fights with sacred claws and bites? a monk that uses charisma to do monk-y things? a ranger that shoots traps with your arrows? A raging barbarian mounted in a dinosaur? A paladin that has class training in open locks and smites evil with a crossbow? You´ve got it.
Many of the archetypes are not "the best there is", they´re just fun to try.
I understand it can be overwhelming... but that´s what makes it an RPG that is still played +10 years. You always have something new to try.
I finally found the new talking-weapon "NPC" included in the new beta... Nice to have a weapon with an attitude.
It seems he/it has his own subquest, story and dialogues like a companion.
Unlike most of the talking weapons in other games, in this one, you can talk to him and ask him to become any weapon you want, so you can use it with any character. It´s a nice touch.
Oh, I agree with that, but you´re looking at the game from a gamer perspective, not from a roleplayer of an RPG game, the one the videogame is based on.
The point of most of the archetypes is to give you options to make the character you want, unconstricted by your class... Do you want a druid that makes sneak attacks? an armoured cleric that fights with sacred claws and bites? a monk that uses charisma to do monk-y things? a ranger that shoots traps with your arrows? A raging barbarian mounted in a dinosaur? A paladin that has class training in open locks and smites evil with a crossbow? You´ve got it.
Many of the archetypes are not "the best there is", they´re just fun to try.
I understand it can be overwhelming... but that´s what makes it an RPG that is still played +10 years. You always have something new to try.
I fully recognize that on some level, this is a "me" issue. I'm sure there are plenty of players who can look at the fighter/wizard multiclass, compare it to the Magus - find it lacking, and still totally enjoy playing it. For whatever reason, that's something I have a hard time doing.
It's a constraint of this being a video game. While I'm sure that there are also some pretty huge imbalances between archetypes and builds when played at the table, a canny DM can make sure everyone feels strong and are pulling their weight. Obviously no game can really do that, and I accept that.
Now, all that said - the Pathfinder game system and PF:KM always felt like a game that incentivized you to powergame. So I do feel like there's an implicit contradiction of playing a game that wants you to powergame/min-max, and then playing the weaker version of something. I dont really see that as very good game design - but it's that way in order to give the player tons and tons of control over their character's build. As with all things, it's just give and take.
It's not weaker version of anything, it's about the freedom to balance out your character as you see fit.
In itself, saying a fighter/wizard is weaker than a magus is just false. It depends entirely on how you build and how you want your character's skills to balance out.
A magus is a balanced fighter/mage type character. You can only go to level 6 spells, you have good fighting abilities but not on par with pure melee class. The class "specialty" is in combining weapons and spells by launching some spells (such as touch spells) through the weapons. So it is a really nice class if you want a typical fighter/mage experience.
But supposing you don't. Maybe you want a fighter who is really all about weapons, but you want a handful of lower level defensive spells to augment. So you could take 3 levels of wizard to get yourself some Shield and Mirror Image spells but the rest of the way you're a fighter. Or you could go vice versa, play a wizard who has a few Fighter levels. Both of those are different experiences and characters to a magus.
If you do want a "balanced fighter/mage" and decide to do Fighter 10/Wizard 10, then you might question why you just didn't go Magus 20 or Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10 (and tbf, going Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would be weird instead of Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10, as the latter is clearly way more powerful and loses nothing). But a Magus 20 vs the aforementioned Eldritch Knight build is not in any way clear cut about which is the superior option.
Sure, the ability to multiclass freely does open up weird powergamey builds with dip levels in all sorts of classes to build an overall monster. But really it's more about the flexibility to blend the balance of skills as you want and create the niche characters that you want to represent.
It's not weaker version of anything, it's about the freedom to balance out your character as you see fit.
In itself, saying a fighter/wizard is weaker than a magus is just false. It depends entirely on how you build and how you want your character's skills to balance out.
A magus is a balanced fighter/mage type character. You can only go to level 6 spells, you have good fighting abilities but not on par with pure melee class. The class "specialty" is in combining weapons and spells by launching some spells (such as touch spells) through the weapons. So it is a really nice class if you want a typical fighter/mage experience.
But supposing you don't. Maybe you want a fighter who is really all about weapons, but you want a handful of lower level defensive spells to augment. So you could take 3 levels of wizard to get yourself some Shield and Mirror Image spells but the rest of the way you're a fighter. Or you could go vice versa, play a wizard who has a few Fighter levels. Both of those are different experiences and characters to a magus.
If you do want a "balanced fighter/mage" and decide to do Fighter 10/Wizard 10, then you might question why you just didn't go Magus 20 or Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10 (and tbf, going Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would be weird instead of Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10, as the latter is clearly way more powerful and loses nothing). But a Magus 20 vs the aforementioned Eldritch Knight build is not in any way clear cut about which is the superior option.
Sure, the ability to multiclass freely does open up weird powergamey builds with dip levels in all sorts of classes to build an overall monster. But really it's more about the flexibility to blend the balance of skills as you want and create the niche characters that you want to represent.
I mean - agree to disagree? You sortof answered half your own arguments in your own post. You could go 1 level fighter and 19 levels of wizard, but that's not a really apt or strong comparison to a fighter/wizard multiclass in which you expect to be proficient in both melee and spell casting depending on the situation.
There are a bunch of different ways to build/kit out a fighter/wizard type character. Tons - but it seems to me (and the research I've done, since I dont have the time to individually compare each by replaying the game dozens of times) that one or two of them stand heads and shoulders above the rest.
We're focusing on Fighter/wizard - and maybe that wasnt the best example (although I think it is still a valid one). I think it's relatively true that there are plenty of other archetypes that have balancing issues
It's the same reason why I struggle to see why someone wouldnt want to go Arcane Trickster over pure wizard. You lose a few spells - and get a ton of sneak attack damage potential.
I get it. Some people prefer the flexibility to do what you want. I think that's great. I like flexibility too - but I also enjoy balance. I think any system as large as this one will always have an issue between balance and flexibility. It's my interpretation that they decided in the end to put emphasis on the latter. There isnt a wrong decision here, both are valid. It's just not to my preference.
Balance is overrated in single player games like WotR.
Things don’t need to be balanced completely. Half the fun for me is taking things that aren’t suppose to have synergies and fiddling until I make something half decent.
In NWN, I loved making archers with Devastating Critical on them. I obviously sacrificed a lot to get there and playing a melee build with DevCrit, or another Archer with insane AB would have been more viable but the thrill of one shotting an enemy from a distance was a fun accomplishment.
Not everyone power games and I do wish games take this into consideration, especially ones that give as much options as the Pathfinder series.
Now, all that said - the Pathfinder game system and PF:KM always felt like a game that incentivized you to powergame. So I do feel like there's an implicit contradiction of playing a game that wants you to powergame/min-max, and then playing the weaker version of something.
@Jaheiras_Witness has already addressed a lot of what I was going to say, but I would ask: where is this 'incentive to powergame' coming from? I don't feel any such incentive when I play P:Km. In fact, the very idea of "powergaming" in the context of P:Km didn't even occur to me until I read your post. Sure, everyone likes having their PC be "powerful" in some sense, but I don't necessarily see that in some objective sense. I've often mixed in levels of this or that class in seriously crazy builds just for fun of it. I also routinely use sub-optimal weapons just because I happen to like those weapons and find them "cool." So I don't see how one could say, objectively speaking, that the game system incentivizes powergaming. If anything, it incentivizes experimenting and doing crazy stuff, at the expense of powergaming.
And for all the worries about multiclassing enabling crazy combinations, by far the strongest powergaming builds I've seen or played in Kingmaker involve 18 or 19 levels in a core class with a 1 or 2 level dip into either Monk or Paladin. For example:
Monk 1/Sword Saint 19
Monk 1/Psychokineticist 19
Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18
Rogue 1/Wiz (or Sorc) 9/Arcane Trickster 10 (for this one you have to bear in mind that Arcane Trickster is a prestige class continuation of mage/thief, so ultimately this is still a Dip 1/Spellcaster 19 class).
Hi, so, I have a question about the fighter archetype, Dragonheir Scion: is it, as of yet, unfinished, because Pathfinder wiki says that DS should get bonuses to natural class (among other things) same as Sorcerers, or are they gonna leave it as is?
Now, all that said - the Pathfinder game system and PF:KM always felt like a game that incentivized you to powergame. So I do feel like there's an implicit contradiction of playing a game that wants you to powergame/min-max, and then playing the weaker version of something.
@Jaheiras_Witness has already addressed a lot of what I was going to say, but I would ask: where is this 'incentive to powergame' coming from? I don't feel any such incentive when I play P:Km. In fact, the very idea of "powergaming" in the context of P:Km didn't even occur to me until I read your post. Sure, everyone likes having their PC be "powerful" in some sense, but I don't necessarily see that in some objective sense. I've often mixed in levels of this or that class in seriously crazy builds just for fun of it. I also routinely use sub-optimal weapons just because I happen to like those weapons and find them "cool." So I don't see how one could say, objectively speaking, that the game system incentivizes powergaming. If anything, it incentivizes experimenting and doing crazy stuff, at the expense of powergaming.
I suppose it could come down to your opinion of the definition of powergaming - but the fact that I need to boost my AC above 50 or 60 to consistently stand in melee combat at the house at the end of time suggests that the game is expecting you to play with some serious optimization. Sure, you could *not* play that way, but I feel like you would need to cope with additional strategies (or cheese) to successfully make it through. This is assuming, among other things, a blind playthrough and a lack of walkthrough resources.
I'm sure there are crazy talented people who have speed run the final chapter woefully undergeared and underprepared, but I wouldnt point to that as an example that the game doesnt incentivize powergaming/min-maxing, just the power of meta game knowledge.
So I'm very familiar with the Pathfinder system and played PnP for years and made my characters not super min-maxed, but knew what sort of feats to take.
The house at the edge of time is THE worst part of the game and the only part I ever felt was unfair. But I'm also not great at these kind of CRPGs as in I had to lower the difficulty of ToB near the end in the same way I did for Kingmaker.
Comments
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/3180554
That's great to hear. I would imagine that since this is the same engine (I believe), and the rules are already mostly in place - this release would be smoother. That the beta feedback appears to back this up and because they're pushing the date back (I see that as a positive), I'm hopeful.
That said, two things: the first is it’s difficult to actually play test every build and every feat, which iirc, is where a lot of the first bugs were in KM. They seem to be using the same engine, so, those bugs shouldn’t be persistent here. That, and a lot of the other bugs and issues came from the Kingdom management side, which this game does not have.
Secondly, the full game isn’t released. The first half might be polished, but who knows what the second half holds. I tend to find most games like this. The first half of the game is a pleasant experience, the last half bugs and issues tend to creep up.
IMO, it’s always good to wait for at least a hot fix or two if you’re personally looking for a bugless experience. If you don’t mind the occasional one, then
The current Beta was released 5th may, I´ve been playing it all week and it seems fairly stable, adds new content, crafting and new mythic paths and some big bugs are gone. There are not game-breaking bugs so far for me (cross fingers).
Well, mounted combat and pets still have some issues in TB, but nothing to write home about.
It´s still not very optimized... at least on my PC it slows to a crawl in the massive crusade battles and sieges.
They improved a lot in storytelling, writing and voice actors, to be sure. Lots of interactions with the companions and some interesting NPCS. The maps are bigger, with plenty to explore and a lot of subquests. And allies to recruit. Most of the decisions you made and the people you recruit have some impact on the game.
I love the new classes and the new camping mechanics. The entire game seems to be a battle for survival against difficult odds... It seems you always are fighting an uphill battle. If you thought Kingmaker was hard...
PD: I do not know if it´s going to be like that all the game, but unlike in Kingmaker, I found Blaster arcane casters not very useful... Well, our mages, because enemy mages are nasty. They improved the IA and spell selection of the buggers.
I found LOTS of enemies with Magic resistance, incorporeal and energy resistances (Kinda reminds me of ToB) ... and wizs, magus, sorcs, etc have little chance to overcome it at lower levels... Right now I´m playing a no-mage party. It´s a first.
The witch comes with the Hex to remove resistances, so she pairs well with arcane casters, but sadly it is not very reliable... and you need two rounds to start doing damage... to one enemy because hexes are for one creature only.
Instead of having your wizards, sorcs, arcanists... etc specialize in conjuration spells (those usually ignore Magic resistance) you can simply use shamans, druids, oracles instead.
Right now I only use the wizards to craft scrolls. A pity because she is hilarious.
They also give a breakdown of one to three special abilities the class possesses. So for the Witch one, it explains briefly what Hexes are, informs that the player will be choosing a Patron and that they'll be receiving a familiar.
Screencap of the UI:
The subclass (as well as the feat) section still needs work and follow this type of breakdown before getting into the details, but even this one step drastically improves accessibility to people who are unfamiliar with the pathfinding system.
I think with this these types of changes I am going to attempt to plan out a Damphir Winter Witch for my first playthrough as I think I have the confidence to actually be able to plan it out properly with how all the information is laid out to me. I just finally finished Zero Horizon Dawn and I think this game is going to be the one I put most of my time and energy into next.
~
They also added Voice Acting which so far from what I heard is hit and miss. I prefer games like this, especially those with descriptive text intertwined with dialog, not to have VOs, but I know I am in the minority. I still prefer how Baldur's Gate did it, give the first line as VO so you the reader/listener can grasp the emotion and tone of the conversation and then allow them to read the rest at their own pace. With the small sampling of dialog I have got so far, the delivery seems a tad emotionless. I wonder if there is a way to toggle it off?
With the amounts of character creation options (They even added kitsune and Oreas o_O ), there´s still people that are demanding classes like swashbuckler or investigator; or obscure occult archetypes...
Hard to make all people happy, it seems.
They added a ton of tutorial info to explain many things... some of them are still empty in the beta.
Lots of lore added to the game, tho, the way already made in the prequel and in games like tyranny or POE , with a bold word that you can click to read the info.
I had to use a 20 minute Youtube video to plan out my Druid, and I couldn't just skim through it either. I had to watch the whole thing and reference it 5 or 6 times while I was in the character creation as well.
I kindof stumbled into my build, and I'm thankful it ended up being a strong one (Scaled Fist -> Sorcerer -> Dragon Disciple). What always bothered me about Pathfinder was the relative imbalance within the archetypes. For example - The other two builds I had wanted to run was a dex based Dualist build, but discovered that it was objectively worse than Aldori swordlord. I also wanted to run a multiclass Fighter/Wizard, only to find that the Magus is essentially designed to replace that build within a single archetype.
Some of the above is a feature of the system: Pathfinder is so complex that you cant really avoid some multiclasses or archetypes are both objectively better and render their weaker variants are redundant. It's good and bad.
The first time you open up Kingmaker, it is absolutely intimidating, in a way I never felt even in my most absolute novice days with Baldur's Gate. Moreover, they have crammed the sourcebook into a thousand nearly full-page tooltips for each spell and ability. These two games are advanced in a way nothing else in the isometric CRPG genre are, with the possible exception of Temple of Elemental Evil, which I admit I also have to use a build guide for. People say 2nd Edition is the archaic, hard to understand version of D&D, but I have 10x more problems with 3rd Edition (and really, Pathfinder is just a Master Class version of 3.5).
The point of most of the archetypes is to give you options to make the character you want, unconstricted by your class... Do you want a druid that makes sneak attacks? an armoured cleric that fights with sacred claws and bites? a monk that uses charisma to do monk-y things? a ranger that shoots traps with your arrows? A raging barbarian mounted in a dinosaur? A paladin that has class training in open locks and smites evil with a crossbow? You´ve got it.
Many of the archetypes are not "the best there is", they´re just fun to try.
I understand it can be overwhelming... but that´s what makes it an RPG that is still played +10 years. You always have something new to try.
It seems he/it has his own subquest, story and dialogues like a companion.
Unlike most of the talking weapons in other games, in this one, you can talk to him and ask him to become any weapon you want, so you can use it with any character. It´s a nice touch.
I fully recognize that on some level, this is a "me" issue. I'm sure there are plenty of players who can look at the fighter/wizard multiclass, compare it to the Magus - find it lacking, and still totally enjoy playing it. For whatever reason, that's something I have a hard time doing.
It's a constraint of this being a video game. While I'm sure that there are also some pretty huge imbalances between archetypes and builds when played at the table, a canny DM can make sure everyone feels strong and are pulling their weight. Obviously no game can really do that, and I accept that.
Now, all that said - the Pathfinder game system and PF:KM always felt like a game that incentivized you to powergame. So I do feel like there's an implicit contradiction of playing a game that wants you to powergame/min-max, and then playing the weaker version of something. I dont really see that as very good game design - but it's that way in order to give the player tons and tons of control over their character's build. As with all things, it's just give and take.
In itself, saying a fighter/wizard is weaker than a magus is just false. It depends entirely on how you build and how you want your character's skills to balance out.
A magus is a balanced fighter/mage type character. You can only go to level 6 spells, you have good fighting abilities but not on par with pure melee class. The class "specialty" is in combining weapons and spells by launching some spells (such as touch spells) through the weapons. So it is a really nice class if you want a typical fighter/mage experience.
But supposing you don't. Maybe you want a fighter who is really all about weapons, but you want a handful of lower level defensive spells to augment. So you could take 3 levels of wizard to get yourself some Shield and Mirror Image spells but the rest of the way you're a fighter. Or you could go vice versa, play a wizard who has a few Fighter levels. Both of those are different experiences and characters to a magus.
If you do want a "balanced fighter/mage" and decide to do Fighter 10/Wizard 10, then you might question why you just didn't go Magus 20 or Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10 (and tbf, going Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would be weird instead of Fighter 1/Wizard 9/Eldritch Knight 10, as the latter is clearly way more powerful and loses nothing). But a Magus 20 vs the aforementioned Eldritch Knight build is not in any way clear cut about which is the superior option.
Sure, the ability to multiclass freely does open up weird powergamey builds with dip levels in all sorts of classes to build an overall monster. But really it's more about the flexibility to blend the balance of skills as you want and create the niche characters that you want to represent.
I mean - agree to disagree? You sortof answered half your own arguments in your own post. You could go 1 level fighter and 19 levels of wizard, but that's not a really apt or strong comparison to a fighter/wizard multiclass in which you expect to be proficient in both melee and spell casting depending on the situation.
There are a bunch of different ways to build/kit out a fighter/wizard type character. Tons - but it seems to me (and the research I've done, since I dont have the time to individually compare each by replaying the game dozens of times) that one or two of them stand heads and shoulders above the rest.
We're focusing on Fighter/wizard - and maybe that wasnt the best example (although I think it is still a valid one). I think it's relatively true that there are plenty of other archetypes that have balancing issues
It's the same reason why I struggle to see why someone wouldnt want to go Arcane Trickster over pure wizard. You lose a few spells - and get a ton of sneak attack damage potential.
I get it. Some people prefer the flexibility to do what you want. I think that's great. I like flexibility too - but I also enjoy balance. I think any system as large as this one will always have an issue between balance and flexibility. It's my interpretation that they decided in the end to put emphasis on the latter. There isnt a wrong decision here, both are valid. It's just not to my preference.
Things don’t need to be balanced completely. Half the fun for me is taking things that aren’t suppose to have synergies and fiddling until I make something half decent.
In NWN, I loved making archers with Devastating Critical on them. I obviously sacrificed a lot to get there and playing a melee build with DevCrit, or another Archer with insane AB would have been more viable but the thrill of one shotting an enemy from a distance was a fun accomplishment.
Not everyone power games and I do wish games take this into consideration, especially ones that give as much options as the Pathfinder series.
Monk 1/Sword Saint 19
Monk 1/Psychokineticist 19
Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18
Rogue 1/Wiz (or Sorc) 9/Arcane Trickster 10 (for this one you have to bear in mind that Arcane Trickster is a prestige class continuation of mage/thief, so ultimately this is still a Dip 1/Spellcaster 19 class).
I suppose it could come down to your opinion of the definition of powergaming - but the fact that I need to boost my AC above 50 or 60 to consistently stand in melee combat at the house at the end of time suggests that the game is expecting you to play with some serious optimization. Sure, you could *not* play that way, but I feel like you would need to cope with additional strategies (or cheese) to successfully make it through. This is assuming, among other things, a blind playthrough and a lack of walkthrough resources.
I'm sure there are crazy talented people who have speed run the final chapter woefully undergeared and underprepared, but I wouldnt point to that as an example that the game doesnt incentivize powergaming/min-maxing, just the power of meta game knowledge.
The house at the edge of time is THE worst part of the game and the only part I ever felt was unfair. But I'm also not great at these kind of CRPGs as in I had to lower the difficulty of ToB near the end in the same way I did for Kingmaker.