Yes, and it's totally retarded.
1st. You cannot get 18-20 STR and high enough CON without sacrifice to other stats. This means you cannot play paladin, AT ALL!!! While original DnD 3.5 rules allow paladin to be good warrior even with 15-16 STR and 15-16 CON.
2nd. Totally unbalanced stat bonus. IT SHOULD NEVER BE APPLIED TO LOWER LEVELS!!!
This means you cannot play melee character even on ADVANCED!!!
Retarded devs forgot that 1st levels must be as breeze, easy, without any trouble. When even normal difficulty is so hard, when you do not have casters in your team!!!
Sorry, but again, if you do not choose to play caster, you are stuck with 3 fighters and 1 bard9which is not real caster!).
3 Devs broke main, THE COMMON rule. Game must be completed by ANY CLASS. And no any class is allowed to kill whole screen of enemies. Even overpowered Paladin/Champion of Torm has it flaws - unprotected from elemental magic.
4 They said game was designed for coordinated optimized party.
But why the hell they make us all to fight to get this whole party?!
Just try. Just try. Try to even get cleric dwarf into your party as party of 4:pal, fighter, barb, bard. And you will fail. Try to replace pal with smth else(but melee) - and you will fail. Try to replace fighter to other melee - and still you will fail.

So devs make you to choose caster, ONLY CASTER. In all other games you had a choice since the very start. You had at least 2 casters(divine and arcane), some fighters or rogues, some archers.

But you have no choice in this game. And don't even try to think that level 3 will help you to win that battle on higher difficulty. Even at lvl 4 and 5 you cannot successfully break 25 AC treshold!!!
When even regular monster has more AC than your tank, is this fair?!

Totally retarded difficulty settings You have to manually disable all mindless options.

Again, I must remind that 1st 6 levels are the most important. These are core levels. The give you basis to higher levels. When you cannot even complete your team, is this good game? No.

Totally retarded, poorly designed game start. And, honestly, I cannot remeber any cRPG game with such start. Even PoE1 is easier, since you can get 5 party members without mandatory and "totally impossible to win" fights.

Just saying: Path of the Damned is a joke comparing to advanced difficulty in PF:Kingmaker.

Level 1 casters are almost totally useless. Melees most certainly are not. They can actually survive.

The game is hard at level 1 though, certainly. Like pretty much any (proper) RPG ever released, including classics like Baldur's Gate.

I would disagree with the second sentence of what I've quoted. Two reasons:
* There's plenty of (proper) RPGs that aren't hard at level 1, assuming that the player is in an area appropriate for a level 1 party and fighting appropriate enemies.
* I consider it bad design to have a video game, on its default settings, start out hard, particularly if the game gets easier, which is a problem in way too many RPGs and games with RPG growth mechanics.

I can cite two good examples of RPGs that have a better done difficulty curve than those that start out hard at level 1:
* Final Fantasy 5. The early part of the game, you may not have many options (you're basically attacking all the time because the only other option is to use a healing potion). You get past that, get access to the job system, start learning new abilities, and the game then starts upping the challenge level, leading to bosses where you have to actually *think* in order to win. For example, you might have an enemy that summons other enemies if it's the last one to die, an enemy that blinds your party if it's the last one alive, one that explodes if high with lightning, and an undead enemy, all in the same dungeon. (Furthermore, there's incentives to engage with these mechanics, particularly with the game's blue magic and (unrealistic) steal mechanics.)
* Elminage Gothic. The game starts out rather easy from a combat perspective (though the first area is a bit hard to navigate). The entire first dungeon isn't that hard, but then once you reach the second dungeon you start encountering enemies that can behead you, and the game's difficulty ramps up from there.

As for difficulty, the idea behind the difficulty curve is this:
* Early in the game, the player is still learning; the player is not familiar with the gameplay, the game mechanics, or the game's controls. Hence, it makes sense that the game should go easy on the player, so that the player has a chance to learn the game, instead of being turned off of it right away.
* Then, once the player has learned the basics, the game can up the challenge level and the game's complexity. Now that the player is used to the game, the game can now test the player's knowledge and skill that they've developed over the course of the game up to this point.
* There's also the issue that, in games like this, the player's available options increase as the game progresses, so once can make the later game more difficult without being as likely to make things unwinnable or unfair. (FF5, which I mentioned earlier, doesn't give much option early; I could also mention Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, where the very first battle of the game gives you no option other than to attack, and unfortunately it's possible to lose that battle due to bad luck.) Why not try playing a paladin with 15-16 in both stats, instead of focusing on STR at the expense of other stats? In fact, as a human you could easily have 16 STR and 14 in 4 other stats (10 in the remaining) under 25 point buy.

(Also, please don't use that r-word that you've been using; it's actually rather offensive.)

Thank you for response. I know about retarded, but it is necessary definition.
What I said about. I had to make henchman(not sure how it's called in English). 20 starting INT - totally different game! Of course, specialist mage - conjurer. And yes, +2 DC at lvl 1. And it works.

Problem that you have to manually make such character. And you have 2 choices: main character or henchman(which costs gold). But it clearly shows that game is badly balanced. Game start shouldn't be so hard. When even normal difficulty is so hard for melee class - it's not nice. And yes, you can play rogue-style and be great DD. Or play some kind of alchemist. But what about other classes?

Since you party is too short at the start, there shouldn't be any such skaling in starting areas. At least in mandatory locations. Also, just saying, greese will easy most of combats. At least at the start. However, lvl 5-6 monssters are better protected. And I do not know why. DC 20-22 should be enough for these levels, but no.

I mean, difficulty give monsters additional stat bonus, save, AC. And it is double dipping. It would be fine if they get only AC for melee, to hit for ranged, +DC for casters. Instead, they get ALL THESE.

Plus, about word retarded. Devs are my compatriots. And they really think that hard should be HARD! But no. It was bad decision. But they had enough time to fix starting balance. And they fix only some things.

True enough, but not sure they could really do all that much to "fix" it, because it's really part of the game rules themselves, and the game follows them pretty tightly (apart from stat bloat in especially later enemies). Level 1 characters will have next to no HP, so a stray crit will almost always kill, and even a single hit can do it too, or close enough.

I played the standalone DLC dungeon... a lot some weeks back. Played through it about 20 times. The first floor was always the most difficult, not so much with a full group, but when I played with 1 or 2 characters, it was brutal. A group of 3 goblins or mites for example would regularly wipe the floor with me. Played a solo sorcerer a few times, and the only way to get past that first floor was heavy reloading until the "dice" were nice to me. Not much you can really do about that, unless putting super weak single enemies in there (Jamandi's house), which wouldn't be all that interesting either.

For the most part I therefore think it's simply part of the core gamerules that they have based this game on. I don't find this to be a big issue when you have a normal group at difficulties up to Challenging. But on Hard and Unfair, hell yeah, it's a reload fest of astronomic proportions. Not fun at all, but some people still struggle through it for some reason. Probably bragging rights or those retarded achievements. I don't get it, but hey, people are different :shrug:

For the most part I like that this game is more hardcore in its difficulty, but the early game is definitely very difficult, because we have low HP and almost no tools to deal with enemies. Things get much better once you get to level 3-5, have better spells and a more reasonable health pool.

1)
The aim of a Paladin is to not get hit, not soaking up damage. As such, 14 Con is plenty.

So with 14 con, you have:

18|10|14|10|10|15

Which is more than enough. alternatively reduce will or dex by 2 for 16 cha, as you also find belts that boosts all 3 stats, i.e:

+4 Str, dex + con. Making your 18|8|14|10|10|16 into 22|12|18|10|10|16



2)
This is fair criticism. They went over board with stat\AC inflation, however this stops being an issue around level 6, as you'll be swimming in magic items and stat-boosts(+4 belts giving str, con and dex all at the same time, for example).. The biggest issue becomes RNG \ Dice-rolls(had an 40 round encounter where 20 were sub 8 rolls..., RNG can be cruel).


3)
The game is completable with any class, but you do need to pay attention to at least some party synergy. Having 6 rogues won't get you far.

However most of this complaint is unfair to lay on the devs, rather you should be voicing this to either Wizards of the Coast ( as D&D 3E suffers from the exact same issues you just described in this point ), or Paizo ( Pathfinder creators ).


4)

Agree. Should've taken a note from Pillars of Eternity 2 on this one, where you get 2\3 choices of what class the companion should have\be (within the theme of the character). Basically a more refined\better Divinity: Original Sin 2 system (which gives 100% choice on class for companions).


-- You're either playing on higher difficulty (looks like unfair difficulty which... It's in the name), or you're not actually talking about regular monsters, but higher-level encounters in the low-level zones ( like the worg in Old Sycamore, this would be an level 4-5 encounter, in a level 2-3 zone). The game likes to have high-level encounters in arbitrary (optional) areas of the map. Horrible design, I agree. Most traditional RPGs work the opposite.. They tend to start off somewhat hard and become progressively easy as you get stronger. Baldurs Gate worked this exact way. Level 1 is the peak of difficulty in it. Once you hit level 4, difficulty takes a pretty significant downwards spiral. Arcanum, and Fallout...

And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I consider that to be bad design. (Either that, or the developers didn't properly balance their game.)

(Also, there are plenty of other games that have this issue, including things like some metroidvanias (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, also Bloodstained (especially on higher difficulties). Or I could mention Final Fantasy 2, where, if you know what you're doing, the game difficulty drops to 0 after a while.) Or Saviors of Sapphire Wings.

Note that this can cause the dialog to not match with the gameplay; a certain SoSW character will be described as a healer in dialog, even if you make her a Samurai, for example. (Or imagine BG1/BG2 Minsc as a wizard (perhaps with a hamster familiar?), but with his dialog unchanged.)

The thing you consider "bad design" here, is the staple of the genre: RPG. The very thing people enjoy about this genre, is the thing you dislike.

An RPG, especially an CRPG ( which is this game's sub-genre ) should start off a bit difficult, and become easier as you progress, otherwise, what's the point of level progression?

Gothic 1 starts of hard, turns easy because your character becomes stronger. That's the gimmick. if you give someone that's never played Gothic 1 an level 20 character, they'll breeze through the game, because at level 20, the game is easy, as per the design.

There's unquestionably a lot of bad design decisions in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, that just isn't one of them. Why I like the way Pillars 2 did it, They ensured to make the choices make sense to the actual characters which is why it's not a free for all, eliminating the immersion issue IMO.

Hell, just letting us chose the archetype of whatever class the character is would've gone a long, long way... So you recruit the characters at level 1, rather than your level - 1...


However, it's a band-aid solution to an actual core issue, which stems from budget constraints. namely: Lack of companions. Baldurs Gate 1 (or even 2) didn't need this type of system, because they had enough companions that are diverse enough to fill whatever nichè the player throws at the game. You could, without any issue, make a diverse cast that fufill all the archetypes using companions alone.


Also the first companions you get being tied to dialogue choice \ alignment, and not MC Class is... Poor design decision, because every one of the LIMITED companions of Pathfinder, is too specific... Depending on your alignment \ dialogue, MC is too central to what the party composition should be. This is a no-no.

BG1 has you get a rogue, followed by Wizard and Figther. no matter what MC is, he already fits right in. next 2 companions you get, pretty much after 2 map transitions, is an Druid (heal + buff) and another Figther.

BG2 is: Wizard\thief, Ranger ( works as an tank until you get a figther, ranger in 2e are very competent melee) and druid ( heal + buff). No matter what MC is, he'll fit right in as the primary synergy has already been set.

I disagree. The game should start out easy enough for the player to get used to it, and for the characters to earn their first key abilities without serious issue. Then, later on, the game can pick up the difficulty, as the player is more prepared to deal with the difficulty, and the characters have the tools to deal with the increased difficulty.

With that said, this is still making a few assumptions:
* I'm looking at the game's default difficulty. If the game has a hard mode, then all bets are off there.
* The player is fighting level-appropriate opponents in level-appropriate areas. If the player takes their level 1 party to a more advanced area, then it's OK for them to be having trouble. If the player deliberately avoids leveling up, whether by avoiding non-boss enemies (like in Final Fantasy 5's low level challenge), or by not leveling up despite having the opportunity (like in Final Fantasy 10's No Sphere Grid challenge), then it's OK for things to get maddeningly difficult. BG2 did have some issues with regard to class coverage with companions. In particular:
* There's a lack of a good thief character who stays with you the entire game and is actually a pure thief.
* The only Paladin has a kit that throws away the abilities that make a Paladin a Paladin.
* The game features 3 new classes taken from 3rd Edition D&D (which was new at the time), yet there are no companions in those classes.

SoSW does have an excuse for the "lack of immersion" issue; that game is actually a remake of a Japan-only game called Students of the Round. In that game, each character has a fixed class (so, for example, that healer I was talking about, Rorone, always has Healer as her main class). While the main class is fixed, you could at least choose a sub-class later on, and you have free choice there. SoSW just made it so that you can now change a character's main class, while also allowing free stat respec and even the option of changing the shape of a character's soul (which serves the gameplay functions that race usually does).

On the other hand, even in SoSW, the main character's class is fixed; they must always be in the Valiant class. The Valiant class is a class that is only available to the main character, and is always the main character's class. (Reminds me of Dragon Quest 3's main character, who has a unique class that can't be changed.) in SotR, the main character can't even get a subclass until post-game; SoSW changed that, and you can get them a subclass before the option becomes available to anyone else.


By the way, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, to my understanding, has a U shaped difficulty curve. The game starts out hard, gets easier as you progress (as long as you don't do poorly in the kingdom management minigame), but then gets an abrupt difficulty spike near the end, to the point where people have complained about the sudden difficulty spike at that point.

Yeah, P:KM is poorly balanced, you get no argument from me on that, only disagree with the ealry game being too difficult, or that the early game should be easy. In an RPG, early game should be difficult \ have gate-keeping to emphasize that you're weak, and need to get stronger ( by improving the character ).

Good balanced games, are games where every death that happens, is mostly players fault. Like going into an clearly high-level section when underleveled, or simply by doing poor choices. not by going sligthly too far left on a low-level area... Pillars 1 did this much better ( though the ruins in the first town is kind of a dick move ), but they clearly designed the game with the idea that reloading isn't mandatory. You can play it ironman, and feel like deaths are your own fault, not the fault of the game. Not so in this one.

To not get me started on companions. Having sub-optimal builds in a game that wants to be min-max focused \ difficult, is utter ridiculous. Why the devs even bothered including pre-made companions is questionable, since you clearly wasn't meant to use them.

Fair, was a bit hyperbolic. The biggest issue isn't the stat points, but rather the choice of archetypes, they're a bit too nichè and offers little synergy even with each-other, let alone the MC. Valerie as a bastard sword user for example ( on top of amir also being one... ) means you'll need to waste another feat if you'd want to give her any other weapon. Harrim not able to use most dwarven weapons ( which is a big part of the bonus of being a dwarf in the first place ), without again, wasting feats.

But you're right that they aren't "end of the world" issues. Just feels like a slap in the face compared to other CRPGs that at least attempt to make companions something desired to use, rather than make them intentionally flawed.

Well, as I said, the start was really hard. And it all becamed much much easier. It's strange to make the game so tough at the beginning.

In chapter 3 right now, my pal is lvl 10, so have enough powers. Also, I was able to beat Bokken. That fight was so hard, but I used Wolf and Octavia for the win.

Heh. Haven't seen one of these posts in a couple of years. Always somewhat entertaining.
Lvl 1 in DnD older editions are hard. If you think PF low lvl is tough, you should've seen earlier edition games, both CRPG and tabletop.
Lots of easier options out there these days; you're more than welcome to play those. This isn't that kind of a game.