Gold Box Knights of the Chalice 2 classes shit all over Kingmaker's mess

[ERYFKRAD]

Pugilist are just dollar store monk LARPERs anyways.

More like monks are the fancy dandy pay2win pugilists.
That's why so many monks take the vow of poverty later.

 

[Cryomancer]

For those who believe that PF:KM and PF:WoTR has too many classes

big selling point of 3e is that it has record-setting numbers of playable races (over 200), base classes (52, or 53 if you count the erudite as its own class rather than a variant psion, or 54 if you count samurai twice since there are literally two classes named samurai that have nothing to do with each other), and Prestige Classes (782 according to Wizard's official index, and that's missing at least the ones introduced on their website https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_3rd_Edition

About two classes with the same name that has nothing to do with each other, see PF1e pact wizard. A class which I wanted OwlCat to put so much but sadly they never added. You can play as one with mods.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/co...zard-archetypes/pact-wizard-wizard-archetype/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/co...d-archetypes/pact-wizard-wizard-archetype-ff/

 

[ERYFKRAD]

For those who believe that PF:KM and PF:WoTR has too many classes

big selling point of 3e is that it has record-setting numbers of playable races (over 200), base classes (52, or 53 if you count the erudite as its own class rather than a variant psion, or 54 if you count samurai twice since there are literally two classes named samurai that have nothing to do with each other), and Prestige Classes (782 according to Wizard's official index, and that's missing at least the ones introduced on their website https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_3rd_Edition

About two classes with the same name that has nothing to do with each other, see PF1e pact wizard. A class which I wanted OwlCat to put so much but sadly they never added. You can play as one with mods.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/co...zard-archetypes/pact-wizard-wizard-archetype/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/co...d-archetypes/pact-wizard-wizard-archetype-ff/

That is too goddamn many too.

 

[Pink Eye]

That's more classes than the fingers on my hands.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

To be honest, three classes is definitely sufficient.

Clerics and wizards and all the other magic abusing classes should just be called sparkly fairies and should be able to choose whatever sparkly shit they want to specialize in. IRL 'magi' (eg hermetic order of the golden dawn) are just forms of priest that call on gods for their 'magic' anyway.

Monks should be unable to fight, just like in real life:



Everything else should fall into one customizable class called adventurer where you can choose which feats, features and skills you want that aren't related to sparkly fairies.

This is like an MMA fighter beating up a pilates instructor. Wouldn't be so easy with a monk who trained martial arts all his life (not a pseudo "martial art" like tai chi), which is what video game monks are supposed to be like.

 

[Stoned Ape]

Spoiler

To be honest, three classes is definitely sufficient.

Clerics and wizards and all the other magic abusing classes should just be called sparkly fairies and should be able to choose whatever sparkly shit they want to specialize in. IRL 'magi' (eg hermetic order of the golden dawn) are just forms of priest that call on gods for their 'magic' anyway.

Monks should be unable to fight, just like in real life:



Everything else should fall into one customizable class called adventurer where you can choose which feats, features and skills you want that aren't related to sparkly fairies.

This is like an MMA fighter beating up a pilates instructor. Wouldn't be so easy with a monk who trained martial arts all his life (not a pseudo "martial art" like tai chi), which is what video game monks are supposed to be like.

Broadly speaking, there are two forms of martial art; those which include aggressive sparring and pressure testing, and those that don't.

The first type are generally effective against people that can fight, the second type generally aren't (and generally prohibit free sparring due to their techniques being 'too dangerous to use safely').

Every type of 'mystic' martial art that I know of fall into the second category (ie bullshit which is made up and practiced against non-resisting partners in order for the teacher to look good).

In the past, shaolin monks primarily fought using weapons, unarmed combat was a last resort because it is less effective than using a weapon.

Western warrior monks (eg Templars, Hospitlars, etc) all wore armour and used weapons.

I'd have no problem including such examples of the above monks under adventurers, it's the bullshit mystic crap that goes along with the d&d/pathfinder monks to give them magic aura armour better than fullplate that I have a problem with.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

But 3 is a bit too far

Nah you only need 3.
Barbarian for fighting and extra fighting
Paladin for fighting, diplomacy and the occasional heal and righteous fury.
Ranger for fighting and the occasional sneaking.

Gnome Illusionist Wizard is suspiciously missing from this list. This is very close to antinanatism fueled by turnip-envy.

 

[Reinhardt]

monkehs are boring. playing ddo as one and missing literally ANY other class i've played before

 

[ERYFKRAD]

But 3 is a bit too far

Nah you only need 3.
Barbarian for fighting and extra fighting
Paladin for fighting, diplomacy and the occasional heal and righteous fury.
Ranger for fighting and the occasional sneaking.

Gnome Illusionist Wizard is suspiciously missing from this list. This is very close to antinanatism fueled by turnip-envy.

I don't care

 

[Darth Canoli]

For those who believe that PF:KM and PF:WoTR has too many classes

big selling point of 3e is that it has record-setting numbers of playable races (over 200), base classes (52, or 53 if you count the erudite as its own class rather than a variant psion, or 54 if you count samurai twice since there are literally two classes named samurai that have nothing to do with each other), and Prestige Classes (782 according to Wizard's official index, and that's missing at least the ones introduced on their website https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_3rd_Edition

About two classes with the same name that has nothing to do with each other, see PF1e pact wizard. A class which I wanted OwlCat to put so much but sadly they never added. You can play as one with mods.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/co...zard-archetypes/pact-wizard-wizard-archetype/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/co...d-archetypes/pact-wizard-wizard-archetype-ff/

It's not about too many classes but too many redundant and/or poorly designed classes.

As for luj1 claim about NWN being better than Kingmaker, I partially agree.
NWN 1 character building is more focused, better classes, epic feats.
Also, NWN exploration is better, the maps and traveling design is better and there is no poorly designed management phase wasting your time.

On the other hand, the combat is better in kingmaker but the game barely takes advantage of it since you get 1 fight per 30 loading screens.

 

[Stoned Ape]

Clerics and wizards and all the other magic abusing classes should just be called sparkly fairies and should be able to choose whatever sparkly shit they want to specialize in. IRL 'magi' (eg hermetic order of the golden dawn) are just forms of priest that call on gods for their 'magic' anyway.

Just to reaffirm this point, probably the two most iconic 'wizards' were actually what boils down to an angel (Gandalf) and a character based on a 6th Century druidic priest (Merlin).

 

[Desiderius]

After replaying Kingmaker and trying to make some good mercenaries, I noticed martial classes don't offer much interesting mechanism and after realizing this, I also realized casters were also way more interesting in KotC 2.

Martial classes
Fighter as the perfect killing machine, Kingmaker's one is good, KotC 2 as well with wade in and a lot of feats, maybe a slight advantage to kingmaker here. (At least with mods and weapons training feats)
KotC 2 revamped Barbarian is now better than Kingmaker's
KotC 2's Death Knight with his aura, smite, life drain and small speed boosts (+5feet feats)
KotC 2's Samurai, no armor speed penalties, swordstyle giving him a +X bonus, up to +8 I think at level 20, replacing the sword's enchantment.
KotC 2's Gladiator with his combined combat style giving bonus while wielding different weapon types

A clear win for KotC 2, better and more varied mechanisms.

Casters
KotC 2 has Bishops/Clerics with domain powers (celerity, spells boosts, some maximized, empowered, extended for free, some improved in many ways, special summons, special powers) while Kingmaker offer some variety for divine casters but nothing as groundbreaking.
Druids in KotC 2 have many interesting reserved spells Kingmaker lacks.
Psionicist in KotC 2 offer a whole new panel of great spells and power points (aka mana pool)
Warlocks mixing mage's spell slots and psionicist power points and spells.

I'm passing the more academic classes or most of the hybrids from KotC2.

Kingmaker offer many subclasses with slight variations but nothing really groundbreaking overall.
The alchemist is interesting but it's just a bomb machine with muy elements, powerful but really bland, mechanically-wise.
The kineticist is kind of weird, I never got into it, I just don't like it.
Many other classes, some quite interesting but I don't find anything as deep as Kotc 2 psionicits and all its feats or KotC2's Bishop with its 5 domains.

So, for those of you who played both, what do you think?

They're both great. We should buy out Kingmaker IP and give it to Pierre and Holic is what we should do.

 

[warcrimes666]

 

[Cryomancer]

Is not only 3.5e which has a problem with "class bloat", I recently started to play EverQuest and imagine if the typical D&D Wizard is divided into :

• wizard : Evocation mostly
• enchanter : Illusion and Enchantment mostly
• necromancer : Necromancy mostly
• magician : Conjuration mostly

** Of course, I"m overlysimplifying to make a point. The way that EQ deals with spells specialization and spells works in EQ are vastly different.

FriendlyMerchant would love to play it as Gnome Enchanter

 

[Abu Antar]

In KotC, there is no reason to bring a fighter. Go 2 x Cliric and 2 x Mage.

 

[Volourn]

No.

 

[Humanophage]

I'd say they're about the same. There isn't an awful lot of build diversity in KotC2. A regular fighter dumps all over the other warrior classes because of Wade In, which even the pounce belt cannot compensate for (and it's one of the most expensive items). They look fun on paper, but in practice they are rubbish compared to the fighter. There is also no point in not using a reach weapon as your main weapon for a fighter. Consequently, every good fighter ends up being a dual-wield half-giant with a reach weapon in the main hand. They have so many feats you can take them all. There is also little point in tanking in KotC2, unlike in P:K, so shields are out. The fact that you can dual-wield two-handed weapons needlessly blurs the line.

The casters aren't that different either. You get clerics, druids, wizards, and psionics. The rest are a mix of those. It's more interesting than fighters, especially in terms of resource management. But it's not especially inventive. For the most part, they're about casting AoE damage spells to kill everyone before they can act. P:K has decent options for casters as well.

I think KotC2's trait is that every battle is more or less an exercise in how to kill everyone before they can act. The more original ideas come not so much from the classes as from races and custom items.

 

[Darth Canoli]

I'd say they're about the same. There isn't an awful lot of build diversity in KotC2. A regular fighter dumps all over the other warrior classes because of Wade In, which even the pounce belt cannot compensate for (and it's one of the most expensive items). They look fun on paper, but in practice they are rubbish compared to the fighter. There is also no point in not using a reach weapon as your main weapon for a fighter. Consequently, every good fighter ends up being a dual-wield half-giant with a reach weapon in the main hand. They have so many feats you can take them all. There is also little point in tanking in KotC2, unlike in P:K, so shields are out. The fact that you can dual-wield two-handed weapons needlessly blurs the line.

I disagree, Samurai swordplay only works for a single weapon and it's great.
Also, Barbarian huge amount of STR bonus works better with a 2H weapon (STR bonus x 1.5)
And then Tri-kreen which quad-wield.

You don't have that in pathfinder now, do you?

The Paladin's feats work with a shield equipped so if you want an aura to protect the mages, here you go.

As for the reach weapons, they're great for squishy melee hybrids like the bard or the druid, even a barbarian if you find one with high damage and crit multiplier and there is one.

Last but not least, even an human fighter doesn't get enough feats to take half of them, or you're playing on children difficulty settings.

 

[Humanophage]

I'd say they're about the same. There isn't an awful lot of build diversity in KotC2. A regular fighter dumps all over the other warrior classes because of Wade In, which even the pounce belt cannot compensate for (and it's one of the most expensive items). They look fun on paper, but in practice they are rubbish compared to the fighter. There is also no point in not using a reach weapon as your main weapon for a fighter. Consequently, every good fighter ends up being a dual-wield half-giant with a reach weapon in the main hand. They have so many feats you can take them all. There is also little point in tanking in KotC2, unlike in P:K, so shields are out. The fact that you can dual-wield two-handed weapons needlessly blurs the line.

I disagree, Samurai swordplay only works for a single weapon and it's great.
Also, Barbarian huge amount of STR bonus works better with a 2H weapon (STR bonus x 1.5)
And then Tri-kreen which quad-wield.

You don't have that in pathfinder now, do you?

The Paladin's feats work with a shield equipped so if you want an aura to protect the mages, here you go.

As for the reach weapons, they're great for squishy melee hybrids like the bard or the druid, even a barbarian if you find one with high damage and crit multiplier and there is one.

Last but not least, even an human fighter doesn't get enough feats to take half of them, or you're playing on children difficulty settings.

Maybe I am playing an old version, but with reach weapons, you get a two-tile reach for your fighter's off-hand weapon as well. This means that you have two-tile reach for cleave, typically meaning that you can kill a small cluster of enemies in one go (5x5). You also avoid any damage on hit effects. Not having a reach weapon means that your cleave can only hit adjacent enemies (3x3). You are also much more likely to do AOO with reach, which usually means a free trip and a big hit.

I'm playing on Enchanter (below Archmage), but it's my first time. "All" is a figure of speech, but there is little point in taking all feats - e.g., sunder is useless, you don't need ranged feats, etc. However, you can get any feats you can possibly want and all fighters look about the same. For comparison, with the spellcasting classes picking the right feat is a real issue.

 

[Darth Canoli]

My bad, I thought you said there is no point in using reach weapons.

There, I disagree as well, reach weapons are useful but they make poor skewer weapons, except for an artifact with increased damage or crit multiplier.
I didn't know about the second weapon getting the reach bonus and that's the first time I hear about it, it's 100% a bug and you should use it while it last because cheating days bragging about it are over.

 

[luj1]

It is not even a contest

The stuff you can do with KotC 2 classes is so complex, it is something not even remotely possible in Kingmaker

 

[luj1]

2H weapon (STR bonus x 1.5)

This doesn't work in KotC 2 for me (STR bonus still treated as 1x for 2h weapons)