Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - Update 1.4.0y

[Couchpotato]

The enhanced edition for the game is releasing in just over 3 weeks. If anyone is thinking about playing now I highly recommend waiting. Apparently it is supposed to be a "huge" patch.

Aye I excepted that as well. Along with many other patches after that. I forecast the need to re-download a crap ton of more GB's. We need awards for games like this.

The bigger problem is how each storefront updates and the damn Unity engine.

Funny enough years later I bet this game is never patch free as they still patch Kingmaker.

 

[Redglyph]

You can repeat yourself about it being a hack as some kind of fact, if you wish

I'm not repeating myself, I'm explaining what you have mistaken for criticism - or "elitism", since you have discarded my explanation and chosen to stick with your first impression that I meant it like that.

You did the same with Andrew23 by choosing to interpret his meaning of subjective. If you disagree with something, just argue the point rationally, but don't dismiss it entirely with a tangent or quoting a word and using it with sarcasm because it can't be taken seriously.

 

[DArtagnan]

I didn't mistake it for criticism, I disagreed with your rigidly limiting concept of cheating.

Then again, some people consider loading a saved game cheating. I'm sure some even consider that a fact, too.

Sometimes, people disagree without it being anything personal or "irrational".

If you insist on me thinking it's criticism on your part, I don't think there's a way to avoid it - as that would mean you don't trust me.

I can only repeat that I'm not concerned if it is or not.

If it's not criticism, that's cool - but it doesn't change that I don't agree with you in the slightest when it comes to the respec feature.

 

[JDR13]

I wouldn't call respeccing cheating, but I hate the fact that it's become accepted in a game like Pathfinder.

I'm fine with it in action-RPGs, but I would never use it in a traditional crpg. That's just me though.

 

[bjon045]

I don't like respeccing as well. I would much prefer if the respeccing was much more limited i.e maybe switch out a few feats.

The only reason why I think it is kind of acceptable is that unfortunately in Kingmaker I found that certain items/weapons were massively underrepresented. I had to slog through the whole game with a +1 weapon until a +4 became available just before the final dungeon. Meanwhile I was constantly selling +3/+4 variants of other weapons constantly. I think in a cRPG it is better to group weapons at the feat level - more options is a good thing - it isn't like a real RPG were the DM can make sure everyone gets something useful.

 

[DArtagnan]

I prefer not to respec myself - and so I try to avoid it.

But I'm a veteran D&D player with extensive experience - and even I have trouble planning a build that's optimized in Wrath, because there are so many obscure requirements or ways these games just happen to work in terms of encounter design or balancing. Then there's the fact that Pathfinder isn't D&D - and I never tried Mythic paths before.

That said, for me personally, I tend to just start over or stop playing if my build doesn't work.

To me, that would represent a failed strategy or plan on my part. It's not that I think of respeccing as cheating (in fact, I find the notion if it being cheating out of touch with modern standards - but obviously it can be cheating from a subjective point of view) - but I *hate* the feeling of disrupting my plan and my character.

That said, if I've progressed sufficiently far into a game - and I discover some obvious flaw in an otherwise excellent build that would only take minor adjustments to correct, I don't mind respeccing for them - as long as the character "feels" the same afterwards.

The way I plan a character is that I have a vision of how he plays and how he should be strong - and I want to test if it works. That vision must be preserved - and if respeccing results in something else, I won't do it.

Like bjon mentioned, there are many of these games that simply don't provide enough items for specific combinations - and it's pretty dumb to expect the player to just not do damage because they can't find the items they planned to use.

An example of terrible game design.

The BG games are even worse in that way, but they're also much older. Modern Pathfinder games should know better.

All that said, I'm aware that we don't represent the mainstream players - and to ask them to understand a system so complicated and give them zero options to redo some unfortunate choices, except starting over and waste potentially dozens of hours just because "they didn't know or forgot they'd need the arbitrary 1 more point in whatever skill at precisely level whatever to do what they planned for" - would represent another example of terrible design by the standards of today, in my opinion.

Then again, that's also how I would DM my PnP campaigns back in the day. I would allow players to adjust things because they didn't know what they were doing - and I'm also not the kind of DM who would just stop a campaign because the party got stuck.

If they couldn't solve a riddle or progress through a quest because they missed some random clue I thought was so obvious, I would wait a few hours - and then probably give them another hint.

This is why I also applaud the invention of the quest journal in games - because I don't think the experience is enhanced enough by relying on manual book-keeping when contrasted with the convenience of automatic recording.

I never considered people infallible - so I would never, ever, expect anyone to see and record everything that wasn't clearly important - and I would never expect them to have a complete understanding of complex rules, especially if they were newer players.

In the old days, save games weren't a thing. It just wasn't technically feasible because the storage options either didn't exist or were too expensive.

So, when you encountered something hard and you died - game over.

I wonder if save games was a good idea.

What say you?

 

[Redglyph]

We can call it "extraordinary help from the DM" if "cheating" feels too negative; I'm just calling a spade a spade since it's outside of the ruleset boundaries after all. The fact remains that it's disruptive and so it should not be part of the normal gameplay. Owlcat Games must have included it because fans were asking for it, I've seen the request a few times in their forums. I'm surprised they did because they usually leave that to mods, like some QoL features such as a proper range of zoom in/out and the ability to change the portrait.

I've often realized my character was not what I had planned, for example missing a weapon proficiency when building a dual-wielding rogue, which put me in a difficult situation. I just waited patiently for the next opportunity, and I was proud when I managed to survive despite the shortcoming. It's part of the game to fall and pick oneself up, and Pathfinder is very flexible in that regard.

Saving games is a necessity of long video games because you can't possibly let the computer run the game for months until the game is finished. Save-scumming however is not how it's supposed to be played either (yet I've done it many times). But it's not disruptive since it brings back to a known, stable state, though it may spoil the element of surprise.

Anyway, it seems that none of us use the respec feature or only on rare occasions. So I'm still having a hard time seeing how that temporary bug was a massive issue. Besides, this bug wasn't there when people reviewed the game, it occurred along with other annoying bugs when Owlcat was in their initial patch frenzy that broke a series of features, and this particular bug was fixed a few days later.

 

[bjon045]

So, when you encountered something hard and you died - game over.

I wonder if save games was a good idea.

What say you?

You must be talking about the times of antiquity Even some of the earliest cRPGs had save games i.e. Demons Winter, Phantasie etc.

I don't like save scumming but generally it is a good thing. I like playing at a difficulty level where I occassionally get suprised and have a party wipe. Having to redo a couple of hours in a game is rarely a good feeling. But having to adjust tactics for the final boss fight can be quite rewarding when you finally win.

Historically games were simpler too. In games like Bard's Tale you basically wouldn't mess it up. Everyone ended up with max stats and there was little variation in the classes. The gold box games had a little diversity but it was obvious because that diversity was limited by the maximum class level for most multi-class builds.

 

[DArtagnan]

We can call it "extraordinary help from the DM" if "cheating" feels too negative; I'm just calling a spade a spade since it's outside of the ruleset boundaries after all. The fact remains that it's disruptive and so it should not be part of the normal gameplay. Owlcat Games must have included it because fans were asking for it, I've seen the request a few times in their forums. I'm surprised they did because they usually leave that to mods, like some QoL features such as a proper range of zoom in/out and the ability to change the portrait.

You can call it what you want, obviously

You seem to think this is about you being negative or judgmental - and not simply a disagreement about what it means to have a respec feature. I think this is the third time I have to specifically point out that I don't CARE if you're being judgmental/negative or not.

I simply disagree that your position is factual and that's all this is.

I fully understand that you think you have the authority to determine what something is in an objective way - disregarding the disagreement on display by several people.

That's also completely ok with me, I just don't think it will help the exchange much.

It's like saying to the people who disagree: "You either agree with me, or you're wrong."

That's not helpful, but it doesn't have to be. You're under no obligation to understand that other people can disagree without being wrong.

Saving games is a necessity of long video games because you can't possibly let the computer run the game for months until the game is finished. Save-scumming however is not how it's supposed to be played either (yet I've done it many times). But it's not disruptive since it brings back to a known, stable state, though it may spoil the element of surprise.

So, you would say that loading a saved game for any other reason than to continue from where you last left the game, is cheating?

Say, you encountered a group of enemies that you weren't prepared for - and your party was wiped.

Loading a saved game - just once - under those circumstances is cheating, right?

I mean "extraordinary help from the DM"

To me, that's a standard convenience feature as well. The cheating aspect is something I would leave to the player for himself to determine.

Some players like to impose strict rules on themselves, and that's completely valid.

But it's when those players start applying their own standards to everyone and calling them factual - that it becomes challenging to agree with.

Some developers include an "Iron Man" mode as well, because they understand that loading saved games when you die is the norm.

Anyway, it seems that none of us use the respec feature or only on rare occasions. So I'm still having a hard time seeing how that temporary bug was a massive issue. Besides, this bug wasn't there when people reviewed the game, it occurred along with other annoying bugs when Owlcat was in their initial patch frenzy that broke a series of features, and this particular bug was fixed a few days later.

I think the people who lost 50+ hours of progress can explain it better than I can.

There's a reason this was reported and stickied as critical by the developers themselves.

It wasn't an issue for me at all, though, as I never respecced. I know it was reported by players as I was playing (close to launch) - but I wouldn't know when it was confirmed.

My issues had to do with turn-based combat being (nearly) unplayable for me (a handful of skills didn't trigger at all during TB combat - or in the wrong way) and terrible performance.

I would consider those rather massive - but I concede that's very subjective.

 

[DArtagnan]

You must be talking about the times of antiquity Even some of the earliest cRPGs had save games i.e. Demons Winter, Phantasie etc.

I'm not even talking about RPGs - but the early primitive home computer games like for ZX-81 - or arcade games. Arcade games obviously had a monetary incentive not to have save games, though

I don't like save scumming but generally it is a good thing. I like playing at a difficulty level where I occassionally get suprised and have a party wipe. Having to redo a couple of hours in a game is rarely a good feeling. But having to adjust tactics for the final boss fight can be quite rewarding when you finally win.

Yeah, I find myself doing a variety of things in that way.

I think it depends on how invested I am in the game - and how fair I think the encounters are.

For Wrath, there are many ridiculously frustrating fights - and I don't think anyone is meant to beat all of them without dying a few times. At least not on "Core" rules.

It seems to be very intentionally hardcore and rigid in certain ways, though - for some reason - I had less trouble than I did in Kingmaker.

If I had to play these games in iron man mode - I would just as soon kill myself.

Historically games were simpler too. In games like Bard's Tale you basically wouldn't mess it up. Everyone ended up with max stats and there was little variation in the classes. The gold box games had a little diversity but it was obvious because that diversity was limited by the maximum class level for most multi-class builds.

Well, I think that might be understating it a bit.

It comes down to personal experience with the systems and games in general.

Try beating Pool of Radiance with 6 thieves and without modifying stats

 

[DArtagnan]

@Redglyph

Instead of going in circles and stealing the thread even more.

First of all, you don't strike me as a judgmental person. Not more so than any other, anyway. You seem like a positive and tolerant person in general. You also seem like a smart guy.

Anyway, with that out of the way:

Can we compromise and call respeccing: "Help from the DM"?

Not a standard convenience feature and not extraordinary help/cheating.

I could agree to that

 

[Redglyph]

I simply disagree that your position is factual and that's all this is.

I fully understand that you think you have the authority to determine what something is in an objective way - disregarding the disagreement on display by several people.

And here is the authority argument again. You should really stop second-guessing what people are saying, or talk them down. That doesn't help the exchange.

Please clarify what, according to you, is not a fact. Do you disagree with
- the fact that changing the abilities is not in the ruleset?
- the fact that changing the abilities is disruptive regarding the past that lead to the current abilities or the past actions that the player roleplaying with those abilities?
- the fact that this feature is meant for players who don't want to continue playing with their initial choices (the ones they've made on each level-up)?

And how is this in disagreement with what the others said? Or how did I disregard any disagreement? I'm only explaining what I mean by "cheating" to avoid misinterpretation, using the word technically for something that was not meant to be. I agree that "cheating", with the wider meaning, is common and it's not something I'd frown upon, as I said the players have the ultimate say in how they play the game with the tools at their disposal.

There's a reason this was reported and stickied as critical by the developers themselves.

A critical bug means a bug that, when triggered, breaks the normal progression. In this instance, the game is corrupted, and they announced it so that people wouldn't accidentally break their games, as they usually did for every critical bug. It does not mean that it's a mandatory feature.

I won't continue on the game saving line, because once again you're twisting what I've written and I don't see the point of discussing it in those conditions. So I propose to leave it at that.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yeah, ok, let's leave it

 

[Redglyph]

Anyway, with that out of the way:

Can we compromise and call respeccing: "Help from the DM"?

Not a standard convenience feature and not extraordinary help/cheating.

I could agree to that

Sure, I don't mind what we call it or how it's used. I just wanted to clarify what seemed to be misinterpreted by "cheating", which is arguably a strong word, I probably just lacked the proper vocabulary to convey what I meant in the first place.

My main concern though was that I felt it very difficult to try and explain it, that's really my only reason for coming back on that. But I'm happy to leave it too since it's become a bit long and distracting from the interesting discussion.

Apart from any consideration of critical, cheating and so on, I also think it's good to have those convenient features since there's a demand for it, and at least they tried to make the respec as IC as possible (I believe they usually called that "re-training").

 

[purpleblob]

Welcoming Dart to my ignore list again