Solasta Solasta: Crown of the Magister Thread - now with Palace of Ice sequel DLC

[Thac0]

I uninstalled it for now, and will let my impressions cool down a bit before I blogpost my opinion about it.

One thing I want to write about for now however is difficulty.
I am quite firmly of the opinion that the optimal way to have fun with the difficulty is taking only the offensive upgrades from Cataclysm. With +3 to hit and +50% to damage your units drop fast, but unless you have major bad luck noone will die from a single enemy attack. And it keeps enemies threatening until the deep late game, where your AC bloats too much for the enemies to keep up.
Extra HP truly makes enemies too grindy, I clocked in 47 hours in total. A good 7 over the average of 40 that most players report.
If you play only with enhanced damage taking the surprise turn becomes pretty much an auto win button, but I am hesistant to ambush enemies in the first place, if not the geometry of the place clearly hints towards that being the intended way to fight.
I will probably replay this game eventually, as soon as they add some classes I like in 5e, like Bard, Druid, Warlock. That or the fabled multiclassing I have a boner for. Then I will definitly play with my difficulty settings of +3 to hit and +50% damage, no ambushes.

 

[Strange Fellow]

Help me out here men: how can it be that 3.8% of players have gotten the Steam achievement for beating the game, but only half that percentage have obtained the gems from the volcano and lava forest? This confuses me.

 

[Thac0]

Help me out here men: how can it be that 3.8% of players have gotten the Steam achievement for beating the game, but only half that percentage have obtained the gems from the volcano and lava forest? This confuses me.

Probably an update error. Recent achievments gives much more realistic numbers.

 

[RPK]

You do get regular AoOs though, just not in response to every sneeze.

So enemy can literally twerk in your face while chanting some satanic spells but you can't kick them because they do it right next to you?

You can. On your turn.

Sorry, you are already ded. And they still twerking on your face.

Then that's what you deserve for being either too slow (low initiative), too weak (couldn't kill the enemy before that), or too dumb (didn't think to disable them beforehand or prepare a counterspell). Neither makes you entitled to magically start attacking at double speed.

it's not magically attacking at double speed. A round represents 6 seconds of time, during which you and your opponent are parrying, feinting and attacking. at the end of that 6 seconds, the d20 abstracts all of that action into one chance of doing damage or not.

if your enemy does something stupid, like turning around and twerking, you get a free chance to hit him with your weapon. One might call this an attack of opportunity or something like that.

 

[V_K]

it's not magically attacking at double speed. A round represents 6 seconds of time, during which you and your opponent are parrying, feinting and attacking. at the end of that 6 seconds, the d20 abstracts all of that action into one chance of doing damage or not.

if your enemy does something stupid, like turning around and twerking, you get a free chance to hit him with your weapon. One might call this an attack of opportunity or something like that.

This explanation would have made sense if:
- "Doing something stupid" that provokes an AoO included, for example, attacking another adjacent enemy - since "realistically" that also leave you at a diminished capacity to defend. TDE emulates that by the way, by only allowing one parry per round.
- A combatant engaged in melee with enemy A wouldn't get AoOs on enemy B - since "parrying, feinting and attacking" enemy A supposedly requires all their concentration;
Seriously, appealing to "realism" in a TB system with hit points is beyond stupid. If you want to argue for AoOs, argue for their mechanical value, don't pull this "realism" shit.

 

[Lacrymas]

Getting up provoking AoOs is a good idea in the context of 5E btw, it makes enemies a little bit more scary and they desperately need it.

 

[Reinhardt]

It's not making them scarier. Even weak monsters can be scary if dm plays them smarter. Giving them bonuses because you can't pull it is just proof you are shit at your job.

 

[Lacrymas]

Even weak monsters can be scary if dm plays them smarter.

Not really, unless you fudge the dice rolls, and that can't happen in video game format either way.

 

[RPK]

it's not magically attacking at double speed. A round represents 6 seconds of time, during which you and your opponent are parrying, feinting and attacking. at the end of that 6 seconds, the d20 abstracts all of that action into one chance of doing damage or not.

if your enemy does something stupid, like turning around and twerking, you get a free chance to hit him with your weapon. One might call this an attack of opportunity or something like that.

This explanation would have made sense if:
- "Doing something stupid" that provokes an AoO included, for example, attacking another adjacent enemy - since "realistically" that also leave you at a diminished capacity to defend. TDE emulates that by the way, by only allowing one parry per round.
- A combatant engaged in melee with enemy A wouldn't get AoOs on enemy B - since "parrying, feinting and attacking" enemy A supposedly requires all their concentration;
Seriously, appealing to "realism" in a TB system with hit points is beyond stupid. If you want to argue for AoOs, argue for their mechanical value, don't pull this "realism" shit.

they do account for it via flanking which is +2 to hit for all your attackers. It's not an attack of opportunity because you are not completely unable to defend yourself, which is what AOOs represent - an opponent letting his guard down.

Thing that provoke an attack of opportunity are not being able to defend yourself from a melee attack at all - concentrating on casting a spell, standing up from prone, shooting a bow etc.

It makes sense that attacking someone adjacent gives them a bonus to hit, but not a free attack because you are not concentrating on doing something else entirely.

I have always liked the way TDE system handles parries (although I've only played it in cRPGs).

 

[NJClaw]

they do account for it via flanking which is +2 to hit for all your attackers. It's not an attack of opportunity because you are not completely unable to defend yourself, which is what AOOs represent - an opponent letting his guard down.

Thing that provoke an attack of opportunity are not being able to defend yourself from a melee attack at all - concentrating on casting a spell, standing up from prone, shooting a bow etc.

It makes sense that attacking someone adjacent gives them a bonus to hit, but not a free attack because you are not concentrating on doing something else entirely.

Giving a bonus to attack rolls or an attack of opportunity is a completely arbitrary decision. "Not being able to defend yourself" means nothing. Why should someone be unable to defend himself while standing up? And if someone is unable to defend himself, why do the enemies have to roll against his AC? Why isn't it simply an automatic hit? And how can a paralyzed creature, who literally cannot move, defend himself better than someone who is standing up? If being paralyzed doesn't cause an AoO, how can you argue that standing up should because "you're not able to defend yourself"?

Trying to justify mechanics with realism can be helpful to understand what's going on during combat, but it can only go from the mechanic to the explanation and not in the opposite direction.

 

[lukaszek]

on that topic its hilarious when Im forced to wake up my tanks since enemies got trouble hitting them in their sleep. Thats where rng ideology gets ya

 

[V_K]

At least it's a roll with advantage. Small mercies.

 

[Alienman]

And yet determinism sux.

 

[RPK]

they do account for it via flanking which is +2 to hit for all your attackers. It's not an attack of opportunity because you are not completely unable to defend yourself, which is what AOOs represent - an opponent letting his guard down.

Thing that provoke an attack of opportunity are not being able to defend yourself from a melee attack at all - concentrating on casting a spell, standing up from prone, shooting a bow etc.

It makes sense that attacking someone adjacent gives them a bonus to hit, but not a free attack because you are not concentrating on doing something else entirely.

Giving a bonus to attack rolls or an attack of opportunity is a completely arbitrary decision. "Not being able to defend yourself" means nothing. Why should someone be unable to defend himself while standing up? And if someone is unable to defend himself, why do the enemies have to roll against his AC? Why isn't it simply an automatic hit? And how can a paralyzed creature, who literally cannot move, defend himself better than someone who is standing up? If being paralyzed doesn't cause an AoO, how can you argue that standing up should because "you're not able to defend yourself"?

Trying to justify mechanics with realism can be helpful to understand what's going on during combat, but it can only go from the mechanic to the explanation and not in the opposite direction.

obviously you can poke holes in any system, but it's not an arbitrary decision. it states very clearly in the rules that an AOO is for when you let your guard down during the course of the round. You have to roll against AC because your AC accounts for the armor you're wearing and the person standing up is presumably making some sort of effort to be evasive while doing so.

A paralyzed character is helpless and with raw, an attacker can perform a coup de grace, which is an automatic crit, and fort save or you're dead. yeah, you might be able to argue that anyone standing next to someone who is hit with hold person should get an AOO, but that is just OP for that sort of spell. some concessions have to be made to game balance.

 

[NJClaw]

So you can accept that being literally unable to move doesn't give a free attack to your enemies in the name of game balance, but you can't possibly see how the same thing might also apply to standing up from prone?

If you're paralyzed, the enemy has advantage on his attack roll and each hit is a critical hit. If you're prone, the enemy has advantage on his attack roll. Not causing an AoO makes sense for both cases in the same exact way.

it states very clearly in the rules that an AOO is for when you let your guard down during the course of the round.

Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity Attack.
You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature. The Attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

You can avoid provoking an opportunity Attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity Attack when you Teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your Movement, action, or Reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity Attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

I think we first need to agree on the meaning of "it states very clearly".

 

[RPK]

So you can accept that being literally unable to move doesn't give a free attack to your enemies in the name of game balance, but you can't possibly see how the same thing might also apply to standing up from prone?

If you're paralyzed, the enemy has advantage on his attack roll and each hit is a critical hit. If you're prone, the enemy has advantage on his attack roll. Not causing an AoO makes sense for both cases in the same exact way.

it states very clearly in the rules that an AOO is for when you let your guard down during the course of the round.

Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity Attack.
You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature. The Attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

You can avoid provoking an opportunity Attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity Attack when you Teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your Movement, action, or Reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity Attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

I think we first need to agree on the meaning of "it states very clearly".

DOH! i am myopically focused on 3.5 for some reason. Where it does actually say that it's "When you let your guard down" https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm.

my bad for talking about 3.5e in a 5e. thread.

The reason I can accept that is that being paralyzed has its own set of rules. And again, I actually don't know if 5e. has the coup de grace rule, I was talking about 3.5. that'll learn me for trying to work and browse the interwebs at the same time.

 

[NJClaw]

that'll learn me for trying to work and browse the interwebs at the same time

I hope you'll learn from this mistake and never work ever again.

 

[lukaszek]

so... killed spider queen, got an axe

Spoiler

why only option I have is to keep this axe? is it due to my chaotic neutral alignments?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

so... killed spider queen, got an axe

Spoiler

why only option I have is to keep this axe? is it due to my chaotic neutral alignments?

Possibly, the available options are dependent on your PCs personality traits, which are related to alignment but not entirely determined by alignment. I had two options available at this juncture, and IIRC it was my greedy, egoistic rogue who urged the party to keep the axe. Perhaps if all your party members are greedy or egoistic, then they will act accordingly.

 

[RPK]

that'll learn me for trying to work and browse the interwebs at the same time

I hope you'll learn from this mistake and never work ever again.

that's a hell of an idea :D

 

[HoboForEternity]

reached level 10 in the lost god area. so that's it? i am pretty much steamrolling everything now in the second hardest difficulty with the smart and merciless AI on.

 

[Desiderius]

so... killed spider queen, got an axe

Spoiler

why only option I have is to keep this axe? is it due to my chaotic neutral alignments?

Possibly, the available options are dependent on your PCs personality traits, which are related to alignment but not entirely determined by alignment. I had two options available at this juncture, and IIRC it was my greedy, egoistic rogue who urged the party to keep the axe. Perhaps if all your party members are greedy or egoistic, then they will act accordingly.

Pretty sure RPing greedy and egotistic is mandatory on the Kotex, at least from what I've seen.

 

[lukaszek]

so... killed spider queen, got an axe

Spoiler

why only option I have is to keep this axe? is it due to my chaotic neutral alignments?

Possibly, the available options are dependent on your PCs personality traits, which are related to alignment but not entirely determined by alignment. I had two options available at this juncture, and IIRC it was my greedy, egoistic rogue who urged the party to keep the axe. Perhaps if all your party members are greedy or egoistic, then they will act accordingly.

Pretty sure RPing greedy and egotistic is mandatory on the Kotex, at least from what I've seen.

yeah but in this case my party is not using 2handers. I feel that my greed is misguided

 

[V_K]

so... killed spider queen, got an axe

Spoiler

why only option I have is to keep this axe? is it due to my chaotic neutral alignments?

Possibly, the available options are dependent on your PCs personality traits, which are related to alignment but not entirely determined by alignment. I had two options available at this juncture, and IIRC it was my greedy, egoistic rogue who urged the party to keep the axe. Perhaps if all your party members are greedy or egoistic, then they will act accordingly.

Oh, so personalty traits aren't just cosmetic? That sounds like big incline to me.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

what about drinking potions when engaged with an enemy? Without punishing this action you either have to cut potions or have characters effectively multiplying their hp pool. Do you create a new mechanic for that? What about changing equipment when engaged?

If I'm not mistaken, all of those already eat up the main action as a general rule. So effectively enemies do get a free attack on you since you can't do anything major in the same round; no need for additional punishment. Personally, I find the pacing of combat to be better that way than overusing AoOs.

But if you punish drinking potion during engagement only with losing main action, you will end up with a pretty non dynamic combat situation. I attack, enemy drinks potion, rinse repeat. When potions ends, attacker wins. Losing main action makes counterattacking difficult. When using AoO the fight might end up right at the beginning, but if defender survives AoO, the defender has a chance to use main action to counterattack.