Thread 3861855

These games are incredibly fucking shallow and bloated with "trap options" that give the appearance of tactical depth.

There are probably maybe a handful of "optimal" "builds" that you can run through the game with, the rest is just arbitrarily or unwittingly making the game harder for yourself by picking bad mechanics that have no reason to exist beyond punishing you for lack of system knowledge AKA "trap options".

There is absolutely no room for inventiveness or outside the box thinking in combat because by nature of the game the more challenging enemies you fight will be buffed out the ass to prevent you from steamrolling them with "cheese" attacks (combat maneuver builds, sneak attack builds, instawin spells, etc), so all combat basically resolves into a game of buff and debuff. Nothing else matters.

The nature of combat in these kinds of dumbed down d&d derivatives is that anything that gets around the buff-debuff cycle ends up being stupidly overpowered. You can't just push someone off a cliff, like in BG3, that would be too easy. You can't just sneak up to someone and cut their throat, that would be to ignore the entire tactical backbone of the game. You can talk your way out of a fight with the big bad dragon, but it's a quick persuade check that resolves with a button press and a fraction of the XP, because fuck you you should be fighting in this superficial tactics ga-I mean role-playing game.

>>3861855 (OP)
>These games are incredibly fucking shallow and bloated with "trap options" that give the appearance of tactical depth.
They're just poorly designed and balanced.

>>3861855 (OP)
You literally get surprise rounds in Kingmaker. The fuck are you talking about?

>>3861855 (OP)
I think it's wholly hilarious how Pathfinder tries to be 3.6 but completely sucks the fun out of making a build. Want to make a fighter/wizard? Too bad magus is now both without downsides. Want a unconventional sorcerer/druid combination? Sylvan sorcerer will do anything you can do but maximized. Every "in between" build where you had to sacrifice something for more widespread options now has a class archetype that does the same with no downsides instead.

>>3861863
this
if you want to cast spells but are too pussy to give up 1 bab you deserve neither

>>3861855 (OP)
>There are probably maybe a handful of "optimal" "builds" that you can run through the game with

Unless you play on unfair, everything is perfectly viable pure class. There are only a handful of archetypes I'd categorize as unfun/barely viable below that.

And the strongest possible options in kingmaker involve save or die spells and alpha strikes (due to starting with it outside of combat or winning initiative).

There are issues with buffs, itemizations, actual tactical options within a fight etc. But you speak like someone who just parrots things he head or assuems all isometric DnD games are like instead of actual experience with the game

>>3861863
>>3861866
The list of classes should be rolled back to what was in 2nd ed DnD and the game would be significantly improved.

>>3861855 (OP)
>Op has never played PF and is 15

Good post

I beat Kingmaker with a solo paladin
I beat Kingmaker with a classic four man pure-classed party of fighter/thief/cleric/mage
Stop listening to retards who tell you you can't beat a game without munchkin min-max cheese builds with six gorillion dips
>If you give players a chance to optimize all the fun out of a game, they will

>>3861891
>optimizes fun out of the game
>tells others they are doing it wrong

>>3861855 (OP)
>"trap options"
I have mixed feelings aboutthis complaint
To be honest I don't see how trap options in general are any different from actual ingame traps in a game that lets you respec. There will always be a best option, and finding it is no different than learning the moveset in action games.
But at the same time implementing a billion shit feats and archetypes nobody should ever pick feels like time that could have been allocated into implementing feats and archetypes people would actually want to pick.

>>3861873
>>3861891


>I beat a game that only rewards minmaxing by not minmaxing and having a shitter, miserable time, ha!

>>3861855 (OP)
>You can’t just push someone off a cliff, like in BG3
Aaand you gave away your bait. C- in effort though.

>>3861895
Who has more fun in a roleplaying game, someone who roleplays and creates the party that they want to use and then uses that party and finishes the game, or someone who seethes about being unable to use the party that they want to use due to it not being “optimal” and a “trap” option, and feels compelled to play in a way other than how they want to?

>>3861863
A fighter (3)/wizard (7)/eldritch knight (10) is objectively more mechanically powerful than a magus (20) because you get access to 9th level spells, entire wizard spell list plus entire fighter proficiency whereas a magus only gets access to 6th level casting with a very limited spellbook selection and restricted equipment. Magus cannot dual wield melee weapons either nor utilize shields due to needing a hand free to combat cast. A magus is more newb friendly since it’s mechanically simplified but it’s still infinitely weaker in the long run than a true multiclass of fighter/wizard/eldritch knight.

>>3861901
Your dichotomy is silly because these games don't have any tangible role-playing beyond dialogue choices that affect further dialogue choices.

Meaningful role-playing would consist, in addition to these dialogue choices, sneaking your way through combat encounters, talking your way out of them, using magic or skills to bypass them to entirely, and so on and so forth.

With the exception of the odd dialogue check, none of these are possible in the pathfinder games, or most dnd derivative CRPGs, whereas they are in real CRPGs like Deus Ex or New Vegas.

So yes, if you understand that this is a game about maximising your statistical advantage and minimising your statistical disadvantage in a game whose primarily mechanic consists in pitting these against your opponent's, yes, that is how you should be playing to make the most of the game as it has been designed.

>>3861901
Both in their own way? Grognards are also a thing in tabletop.

>>3861894
>To be honest I don't see how trap options in general are any different from actual ingame traps in a game that lets you respec.
Trap options are always bad. They're presented as good, viable and equally supported but are false choices.

>>3861906
>real CRPGs like Deus Ex
Ask me how I know you’re a zoomer who wasn’t alive when Deus Ex came out

>>3861895
>if i don't constantly pick the most effective option at every second according to the strategy guides i looked up and which shoehorn me into the same repetitive options, i fold in upon myself.

>>3861901
What a retarded statement. What if someone makes a party they want to use, is presented as not being dogshit but ends up being dogshit due to poor design and balance? Forcing them to bang their head against the wall while not having fun.

People can throw shit at Deadfire all they want, but at least that game allowed different class combinations and such to be viable.

>>3861908
>They're presented as good, viable and equally supported
how exactly?

>>3861909
Ask me how I know you played through the game without realising you could save Paul

>>3861907
>Both in their own way? Grognards are also a thing in tabletop.
Someone who genuinely enjoys min-maxing and making broken builds wouldn’t be complaining about feeling obligated to do so, they’d be doing so and relishing it. This phenomenon described by OP is purely the result of younger players being exposed to one too many guides, builds, and videos on the internet. Creating a custom party used to be an expression of one’s personal tastes and inclinations.

>>3861910
Hate to break it to you, but that's how most people play these Pathfinder games. They either google or ask what builds to go for so they don't fall into the numerous fake trap options. It drives people to be less experimental and free because the game doesn't allow them to be, unless you're some hyper hardcore autist or someone that reads a billion minmax guides and cheese the game.

>>3861911
Can you give specific examples of class combinations that are dogshit and how you'd know they are dogshit without any comparison?

>>3861911
>>3861915
You can literally solo the game. You can literally beat the game with a pure class fighter thief cleric wizard. I feel like I’m either talking to baiting trolls, or to a population with a mean IQ or 80.

>>3861915
you don't have to confirm that i fully understand your problem, bro. you faggots are everywhere in gaming now.
games as work.

>>3861912
If the game allows you to pick between background 1-10 but only 5 of them are well supported while the rest has like one or two nothingburger interactions those are bad and poorly supported. Effectively trap options but all of them presented as equally viable options.
Similar deal with anything. Like if a player is given the option to multiclass with any class and all are presented as equally viable, but some combinations are godlike and some are outright dogshit with zero indication that is bad and also creates a false option.

If you absolutely want to have dogshit or poorly supported options for some reason, they should be labeled as such so it's clear they're only got tryhards or autists. But in reality it's just poor design and balance.

>>3861914
>Creating a custom party used to be an expression of one’s personal tastes and inclinations.
I will forever loath the fact that creating one dumb self-insert is the norm with western rpgs, as most gamers get eldritch PTSD if they have to create more than one char.

>>3861918
Your time on earth is limited. Why would you waste it playing a game that requires you to have insider knowledge of its system ahead of time to avoid being unfairly disadvantaged?

In a fair game a player is punished by taking a risk that doesn't pay off or doing something stupid that he should have known better than to do, not by punishing a player for not knowing what he should have done in advance.

>>3861921
What makes you think they'd all be equally supported or effective? Virtually no RPGs have ever done that. Many choices in RPGs are flavour based and are taken for RP purposes, to reinforce the "theme" of a character. You're acting like these are competitive games.

You've listed nothing specific, by the way, just broad strokes meme complaints that you copied from other people.

>>3861916
Why bother, I can already tell this thread is already flooded by blind fanboys and not people interested in open-minded discussion. I've wasted too much time on this site trying to reason with fanboys that refuse to accept problems in games they like that other mention.

I bail on threads like these the instant I notice blind fanboyism. Because I don't want to waste 2-3 hours of my life trying to reason with close-minded idiots.

>>3861917
Maybe try and move fewer goalposts if you want any intelligent person to care.

>>3861923
You can literally beat the game with a solo martial.
You can literally beat the game with the generic basic bitch party of fighter thief cleric mage.
You do not have to use meme builds to play the game and have fun. Your horns just can’t fit through the door.

>>3861926
Uh, yes, you've said this multiple times already, without ever addressing the clear issue with what you're saying. You made the game arbitrarily harder for yourself by not playing the game the way it was designed to be played, great job. Will you further unoptimizing your next run by cutting your nuts off and soloing the game before you bleed out?

>>3861923
>finite time bro
>why would you want to learn to play a game and not read guides
>watch as i justify my compulsive need to play optimally at all times because of a hypothetical scenario where i have to reload a fight or not play on max difficulty and feel like a "loser"
you don't even understand leisure, "games as work". please, stop reinforcing my posts.

>>3861925
>Why bother
Oh, I know why. Because you can't. You don't really have any specific complaints and don't want to get into the nitty gritty of game design, you just want to bait fanboys and compare game X to game Y to start a slapfight.

>>3861928
You’re posting based on quite a few unlisted assumptions that I don’t think would hold up to scrutiny. As a mental exercise, I’d suggest you preface your post by enumerating the assumptions you’re making, as we used to do on homework problems in school.

>>3861922
>as most gamers get eldritch PTSD if they have to create more than one char.
This comes from unfamiliarity with the ruleset itself. After all, most don't know what works beyond basic idea of "tank, damage, healer" trinity. When you add a fuckton of classes and subclasses with seemingly endless builds people get lost.

>>3861929
Your argument flies out the window the second anyone raises the issue of trap options. There is no legitimate reason for a trap option to exist in this game, or any game, because it serves no purpose but to frustrate your capacity to learn and play the game fairly. So yes, a trap option is literally WORK because its only function is to get in the way of you playing the game effectively.

>>3861932
I don't need to, all relevant arguments are above, and noone has yet debunked any of them.

>>3861906

>>3861906
>Meaningful role-playing would consist
dont care if gameplay is this dogshit like in FNV

>>3861921
>If the game allows you to pick between background 1-10 but only 5 of them are well supported while the rest has like one or two nothingburger interactions those are bad and poorly supported. Effectively trap options but all of them presented as equally viable options.
That's a pretty retarded way to frame the issue. If seeing less content is a trap option then the ability to skip side quests is a trap option.
The same goes for combinations, being able to spot and exploit unheralded synergies is half the fun of making builds.

>>3861933
>After all, most don't know what works beyond basic idea of "tank, damage, healer" trinity
And that's not an issue at all. Create your tank, damage dealer and healer. And the thief. And if it's not a four, but six man party, add whatever you want on top of that.
That shit is not difficult. Games help with that. Stick to the basics if you are unsure.

>>3861935
>I don't need to
Perhaps you didn’t understand. The point of enumerating your assumptions at the beginning of a problem is to get you to self-reflect on the assumptions you’re making, and to consider if they’re justified and reasonable, or not. It’s an exercise for you, not for the others.

>>3861934
how would you know you're being less effective than you could be unless you had a point of comparison? like how do you know a trap option from a suboptimal option?
see, the problem here is that you are a creature of comparison and hyperaware of how other people play games due to guide usage, internet discussion, and watching videos.

>>3861922
Creating the whole party feels like playing fucking xcom rather than an rpg
It never really feels organic

>>3861939
No thanks, you can send me money if you want to pay me to arbitrarily expand my writing, then I might, but I'm not doing it just because you asked me to. You'refree to question what assumptions I may have about any relevant subjects in between tonguing my asshole, however.

>>3861922
>>3861933
>>3861938
Honestly, the REAL issue is modern RPG devs invest so much into companion characters that not using them feels like you're missing out. I wonder how many people used mercenary instead of companions in Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder?

>>3861922
>I will forever loath the fact that creating one dumb self-insert is the norm with western rpgs
why are you specifying western rpgs? western rpgs are basically the only ones that allowed you to create a full party ever.

>>3861942
A little defensive, are we, anon?

>>3861940
>how would you know you're being less effective than you could be unless you had a point of comparison? like how do you know a trap option from a suboptimal option?

You don't need external comparisons for any of the examples we're talking about, it again boils down to the presence or absence of system knowledge. For example, if someone playedthrough these games enough to understand average hit point counts and how other offensive or defensive feats worked, with some critical thought they'd realise that feat like toughness or equivalent skill feat was total diminishing returns. But they've already invested half a game's worth of effort and time at that point.

>>3861943
People tend to use them on third runs and beyond, to try out gimmicks or break the game sideways.
The issue is that devs assume that rpg players always want some dev-made companions to circumvent their self-inserts dicks and for friendship- and romance-simulations.
And I guess they aren't wrong. Look at BG3, more people talk about these wretched "waifus" than the actual game.

>>3861943
>I wonder how many people used mercenary instead of companions in Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder?
I very strongly prefer this in every cRPG, to the point that sometimes I lose interest in going back and replaying older games that don’t have full party creation as an option. But it’s especially bad in all nu-CRPGs, both due to what you mentioned (devs over-investing time and resources in their snowflake companions) and to modern devs having shit writing and shit characters. You can tell the devs get salty about players preferring to use mute generics over their OCs, too. Look at how BG3 nerfed the in-game hireling option relative to DOS2.

>>3861948
>any of the examples we're talking about
you aren't talking about any examples.
>toughness
lol, the OG meme trap option? that's all you have?
even that is useful depending on circumstance, having more hp in the beginning of the game as a low hp class is not bad. again, your point of comparison here is end game power only, you aren't thinking about playing cohesively, just dick measuring.

>>3861952
We're not going to spend 5 hours arguing over what's a trap option, or how much of them there are, or any other petty shit like this. You either admit there are trap options in these games, at which point you can resume arguing against any of the legitimate points I've made, or you don't, and we can all safely stop humouring you and proceed to make fun of you in good conscience.

>>3861954
what are they? like let's get specific. i'd like to talk about them, but you seem to want to talk about generalizations.
what's this "we" thing anyway, i'm talking to "you".

>>3861956
>you seem to want to talk about generalizations
Correct, and you want to talk about specifics because you have no legitimate rebuttal for the valid generalisations I've made. Unfortunately, we are talking about generalisations, so you're shit out of luck.

>>3861958
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>3861958
that makes zero sense. i'm asking for clarity to understand the meat behind your generalizations so as to better engage with your thought process.

we all know this is a fake thread anyway, where we pretend to care in order to justify word games.

>>3861963
>i'm asking for clarity to understand the meat behind your generalizations so as to better engage with your thought process.
I believe that’s the anon who, in response to “state your assumptions”, responded, “pay me and tongue my anus”. They’re not sending their best.

>>3861963
What are you struggling to understand here? The concept of a trap option?

Because let's be clear again, I'm not coming down to your level where we sling shit around for two hours about whether feat X is a trap option or not, that is completely besides the issue at hand, and no amount of trying to force similar red herrings here is going to work out for you.

>>3861969
>What are you struggling to understand here? The concept of a trap option?
yes. please provide specific examples in these crpgs. i will not argue about them. i just want examples that aren't from monte cook's article on ivory tower design.

see, if i was going to shit on pathfinder 1e, i'd talk about feat taxes more than trap options. if i was going to shit on owlcat, i'd talk about stat bloat, minigames, and uneven itemization.
this stuff is boring.

>>3861971
>specific examples
I've already told you, we're not playing that game. You either think this game has trap options, and you can engage with the argument, or you don't. No one is putting a gun to your head here lil bro

>>3861974
i accept your concession, kiddo.

>>3861969
>>3861974
This dumb pussy gets destroyed every single day lmao

>>3861976
That's kinda hot.

>>3861973
>if I was going to talk about the game's faults it would be the minor quibbling issues that are rendered null and void either way by the game's glaring flaws.

Yeah okay man, you sound really smart, so sad you won't be contributing.

>>3861975
Uhhhhhh I don understand where did I specifically concede bro show me where bro where I concede you can't say anything until you tell me where I'm conceding

>>3861978
lmao, they mad now

>>3861979
not playing that game, you either realize you conceded and move on, or you don't.

>>3861982
Sorry, I don't understand the concept of concession, you're going to have to explain it to me in general terms for any of your argument to make sense.

>>3861984
well, what we are dealing with here is an implicit concession.
it happens when you refuse to justify your posts and lean into mockery.

>>3861986
I already justified my argument, it's based on assuming dnd and dnd analogues like pathfinder have trap options. If you don't agree then fuck off, I'll mock you either way.

>>3861988
Buddy you really would have struggled back in the day when you just rolled your stats in order, took what you got, chose a class your stats qualified for, and were expected to roleplay what was on your sheet.

>>3861895
>>3861910
Since anon is a retard who doesn ot face the core of an argument, let's make it retard proof:
Single player game, not PVP. You win by beating the numbers. Whether you beat the enemy AC or saves by 10 or 50 makes no difference, if you can do either consistently.
You do not need to minmax to this unless you play on unfair.

>>3861974
>lil bro

>>3861988
>trap options
that thing you heard about on youtube, right?
your argument is based on automatically agreeing with your adopted premise, which you can't show any specific support for?

>>3861855 (OP)
There are plenty of faults with those games, but your post is beyond retarded.

>>3861949
BG3 tapped the non-RPG players, That's the secret to its numbers. Or Chinese backing, depending on how conspiratorial you are.

>>3861994
>Single player game, not PVP. You win by beating the numbers. Whether you beat the enemy AC or saves by 10 or 50 makes no difference, if you can do either consistently.

Retard proof hypothetical so that you understand the premise of this thread:

You have two games that are both equal in every respect except for the following:

Game A has mechanics that exist in the game for no purpose, either intentionally or unintentionally, other than to hinder your ability to effectively play the game despite being presented as viable options.

Game B does not have these mechanics.

The player in either game does not have the prerequisite knowledge to distinguish the bad mechanics from the rest of the mechanics.

Which is a better or worse game, or alternatively, which would you prefer to play? I don't think I can make this any more moron-proof for you.

>>3861999
He is our resident retard

>>3862004
>mechanics that exist in the game for no purpose, either intentionally or unintentionally, other than to hinder your ability to effectively play the game
For example?

>>3862004
There are no such things as mechanics that serve no purpose in kingmaker.

EVen if we assuem something is completely useless or you can make decisions tha truin your build, by taking a differennt level each turn and worse feats:
The only knowledge you need for the game is to fucking read and have some patience.

So no, I will not call a game bad because niggers like you cannot read. Judging from the intellect you display with these pisst, I can see why you think every option in kingmaker can be a pitfall and you need solutions in forms of guides, which are geared for unfair most of the time.

What job do you do and why is it videogame journalist?

>>3862008
Trap options :)

>>3861855 (OP)
>mfw I want to play WotR, but just finished KM few months back so I fear burnout

>>3862011
What, like a poorly labeled gamma setting that makes you unable to see the screen?

>>3862009
>There are no such things as mechanics that serve no purpose in kingmaker.

What is "either intentionally or unintentionally, other than to hinder your ability to effectively play the game"


>The only knowledge you need for the game is to fucking read and have some patience.
Trap option enjoyer cope. Here's a better alternative, don't play a game that deliberately wastes your time with bad mechanics.

>>3862014
>What is "either intentionally or unintentionally, other than to hinder your ability to effectively play the game"
Good question.

>>3862012
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY SCHIZO MAN

>>3862003
>BG3 tapped the non-RPG players, That's the secret to its numbers. Or Chinese backing, depending on how conspiratorial you are.
I am intensely curious to know what exactly when wrong during BG3s development. The EA in 2020 felt like a completely different game from the release version. Was it Tencent? Or WotC? Or Hasbro? Or just the B*lgians? All of the above? Sadly, we will probably never know

>>3862020
how was it originally?

>>3862026
No Marvel quip dialogue
Elves, humans, halflings, and dwarves weren’t 70% melanin-rich future doctors lawyers engineers and rocket scientists
Default human wasn’t a female Chultian barbarian with 8 INT
No non-binary feminine penises
No vitiligo sliders
“Who do you dream of?”
Nautiloid tutorial dungeon was significantly longer and more interesting
Every origin character hadn’t yet had their backstory rewritten into a focus group approved slurry
We could only play act 1 and so the available content was actually finished and polished

>>3862036
I think you misheard me, I was asking about the game, not your personal problems with black people and women, numbnuts

>>3861855 (OP)
dont we have already 3 different pathfinder/owlcat threads in the catalogue?
Was your argument really so profound that we need another thread for this one game?

>>3862014
What are the bad 'mechanics'?
Because bad options being possible at creation or level-up is not a flawed mechanic. Learn to use terms properly if you are going to whine
And again, unless you are a retard who goes 'only Kineticist or Sorcerer or you hinder yourself', cause they are technically superior, every class is viable without dips below unfair.
Without need for struggle, save scumming or anything of the sort. Just sensible party and character building.

If you want to be unable to screw leveling up or by possible option to be equal no matter what, then what is the point of character progression and player choice?

>>3862144
>Because bad options being possible at creation or level-up is not a flawed mechanic.
They are by definition bad, and therefore flawed. A better game would not have bad mechanics.

>>3862181
>A better game would not have bad mechanics.
This makes no sense, even great games often have bad mechanics.

You don’t understand
You can’t expect me to roleplay an imperfect character, or make flavor and thematic choices
I NEED to minmax
I NEED to have a perfectly optimal character with no flaws, or even the possibility of flaws
Otherwise, the game is LITERALLY unplayable
Btw, all of this is the games fault, not mine

Damn, he's going all out.

>>3862192
lol, he owned you

>>3861855 (OP)
You praised BG3, opinion discarded. At least this game isn't built for the gays. (and worse)

>>3862019
You called?

>>3862185
The customer is always right.

>>3862356
>black paladin
>tyranny lesbian couple
>gay nigger cleric
>gay bad a aasimar
>lolsorandom furry

>>3862185
>You can’t expect me to roleplay an imperfect character, or make flavor and thematic choices
Give me some reactivity then. Or is that too much effort for Owlcat?

>>3861876
Sounds like you want 5e.
Doors that way, faggot ---------->

>>3862459
The reactivity buzzword is so funny.

>>3862463
>Sounds like you want 5e.
Please tell me that you’re only “ironically” pretending to be retarded

>>3861902
eldritch what now?

>>3862576
Chicken butt cow.

>>3861855 (OP)
>You can't just push someone off a cliff, like in BG3, that would be too easy. You can't just sneak up to someone and cut their throat, that would be to ignore the entire tactical backbone of the game. You can talk your way out of a fight with the big bad dragon, but it's a quick persuade check that resolves with a button press and a fraction of the XP, because fuck you you should be fighting in this superficial tactics ga-I mean role-playing game.
This is the main reason I don't actually enjoy most "D&D" video games but find the tabletop incredibly fun. Build autism isn't fun to me because it limits my role playing. I want to resolve conflicts by thinking
>What would this character do?
and choosing the appropriate option. In video games with systems that reward min-maxing, I end up having to play on the lowest difficulty sometimes to get any fun out of it because otherwise I have to spend hours upon hours figuring out how to make my suboptimal role play character work within the system. But I'm also a "gamer" retard and suffer through playing sometimes the whole game on regular or hard modes first for some dumbass reason.

Solasta and BG3 were both more fun to me than older games in this regard to me because they were built around the limitations of 5e, where the expectation is that any dumbass build should be passably good enough.

>>3862628
>Solasta and BG3 were both more fun to me than older games
Funny enough the really old games don't have this problem, because build faggotry wasn't a part of their makeup. You just made a complete party.

>>3862642
>I feel insulted when I have to lower the difficulty, so people who enjoy a challenge should stop having fun
Name me 1 modern CRPG that isn't Underrail, where you need "build autism" to play in the normal/core difficulty

>>3862628
>>3862642
>I feel insulted when I have to lower the difficulty, so people who enjoy a challenge should stop having fun
Name me 1 modern CRPG that isn't Underrail, where you need "build autism" to play in the normal/core difficulty

>>3862674
Knights of the Chalice 2

>>3861921
>Like if a player is given the option to multiclass with any class and all are presented as equally viable, but some combinations are godlike and some are outright dogshit with zero indication that is bad and also creates a false option.
It sounds like you cannot possibly play any game based on anything after 3.5.

>>3862675
>Knights of the Chalice 2
>modern
this is a joke

>>3862809
The guy who makes it is a dumbass, there's absolutely nothing old-school about it. First one, kinda.

It's just poorly designed. The ruleset is fine I guess, aside from the fact there are 10 million classes that are all just some minor variation of a basic class and functionally identical. It's also a annoying that you have all these options for melee characters but in the end it's almost always best just to use basic attack. PF 1E greatest sin is that it demands excessive specialization. It takes the trappings of DND 3.5 and exaggerates it's worst qualities.

The main issue with the games is that the AI is poorly programmed, incapable of doing anything but attack first seen or just going through its spell list, and there's little encounter design. I've said before that I don't know why these games have 3d combat - there's almost never a scenario where the terrain, distance or positioning is actually a factor; these games could be blobber combat and it would play almost exactly the same.

Considering icewind dale had terrain and positional considerations for enemies and players in a fuckin 2d engine back in 2000 it's a sad state of affairs that a modern RPG cant even get that much right...

Combat is uninteresting especially in WOTR because it is binary; you either have big enough numbers to steamroll the enemy or you don't. Theres no rallies, no drama. There's really no tactical decisions to be made.

And the troubling thing is, crpg fans apparently love this slop.

>>3862009
>There are no such things as mechanics that serve no purpose in kingmaker.
True, but virtually all of the non-combat skills are implemented in a way that is ultimately not very engaging.

>>3861863
The entire POINT of classes like Magus is specifically so that you can play a fighter/wizard without being gimp like in 3.5... It's strictly an improvement according to the stated desires of players in the 3.5 days and it's working as intended. If you want to multiclass a fighter with wizard... then you get exactly what you were asking for. You have absolutely zero basis to complain.

>>3861943
I think with games like Kingmaker, Wrath and PoE there's no real reason to not use a companion since there's enough of them to cover all the bases. Why make your own cleric when Tristian or Sosiel are perfectly fine already? Why make your own rogue/cipher when Serafen is literally right there? The point of the diverse cast of companions is so that you don't have to make non-reactive customs just for the sake of mechanics.
The point of being able to make customs is if you don't like the aesthetics or personality of the companions.
There's just no fucking down side to doing things this way. There's nothing to make a valid complaint about...

>>3864113
With the item crafting mod there's some use for Spellcraft and stuff. And if you aren't already extremely familiar with PF1e then the knowledge and lore skills are important for being able to know things about enemy creatures, for example what they're immune to or how to stop a troll from regenerating. Stuff like navigating the world map faster is engaging enough since you have to do it often. I'm not sure how much more engaging you could make disable device since locks and traps are common and you have to actively interact with the environment to find them. Like. What are you even talking about?

>>3862831
The point of Wrath isn't razor-edge tactical combat. It's power fantasy. That's literally the explicit purpose of that story. You aren't meant to be barely surviving or making glorious sacrifices every combat. You're meant to feel like a nascent demigod... because you literally are a nascent demigod in that story...

And even so, the "binary" nature of the encounters are there to ensure that you're at least paying attention and putting some amount of effort into deserving to become a demigod. It's not too much to ask that you actually WANT it before it's given you.

>>3864150
>You aren't meant to be barely surviving or making glorious sacrifices every combat
Clearly they failed miserably then considering how many people get the shit beaten out of them even when playing core

give pathfinder game without kingdom gimmick, pls

>>3864163
You can just turn it off, you know.
But to be fair I feel you, those gimmicks were half assed trash both in the games and in the tabletop campaigns.

>>3864166
Yeah but you're still the baron.

>>3864170
So you're objecting to your role in the story rather than the kingdom management system?
That's more a matter of taste than anything else

>>3864173
Would have rather been the baron's agent.

>>3864177
The barons butler
The marquises minion
The earls equerry
The satraps scullion
The regents retainer
The princes page
The dukes domestic