I mean, you're saying they're "frustrating", "unfair", "can ignore your attacks" (??) and "other fights are too easy" (i.e. not bosses). But they're not "difficult"?
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Solasta Solasta: Crown of the Magister Thread - now with Palace of Ice sequel DLC
- Thread starter whydoibother
- Start date
Giving opponents different rules than the player is absolutely catastrophically bad game design.
My characters can't just take multiple turns per round (or rounds per turn? Not sure about the naming here...). The bosses can.
My characters can't just at will ignore entire attacks and status effects. The bosses can.
Oh, btw. the extra turns of the bosses are not shown in the UI, either. They just happen.
Of course that increases the challenge. But it's such a terrible cop-out to do it like that. All that's needed is better encounter design - it's not THAT hard.
"Rules for thee, not for me" will never not make me very angry at the lazy ass designing them.
That's what "wtf is this?!" means.
Watching the opponent play a different game with different rules I find incredibly frustrating - even if I still win in the end.
Can you make up your mind?:
You can't have fights be frustrating and unfair while still being easy but having increased challenge.
That's a real dumb blanket statement lol. Many of the greatest games of all time have entirely different systems governing the player and the AI.
I agree that for the most part P&P-like cRPGs should maintain parity of rules between player an enemies. But we're not exactly breaking that law to a huge degree here - we're just giving the bosses a slight edge in the action economy game. It wouldn't be "different rules" if bosses had, let's say, Action Surge every turn - and Legendary Actions are essentially a much better designed version of that. It's a good way to make bosses way more relevant as foes without tried-and-true boring shit like HP- and stat bloat, infinite CC or mass nukage.
Your characters get to be governed by a real person with the infinite edge that gives you over a pre-scripted opponent. SHIT DESIGN lol
Yes. That's how Legendary Actions work:
It's 5E's way too ensure bosses aren't just run-of-the-mill enemies with more stats that get one-shot without ever being a real threat, like many of them were in previous editions. In Solasta, it means they're the only enemy who get to do anything before you lay waste to them.
It's no more different rules than if you had an opponent of sufficient level to cast Time Stop. Just like Legendary Actions that would mean that he had a significant action economy advantage over you.
I agree that the encounter design is Solasta's biggest problem - or rather, it actually has quite genius encounter design, it just populates that design with waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too few mobs of too low level to present any kind of challenge. Would have been so easy to fix.
Legendary Actions are not an issue at all, though.
In fact, that's why Solasta is so fucking weird. They did all the hard work of encounter design: interesting areas, positional importance, monsters with great abilities that make the environment meaningful. Then they failed at the easiest bit: add enough of those monsters with sufficient challenge rating.
Feels like the game should have a hard setting where instead of adding HP or damage to monsters it should just double the monster count in each fight.
Feels like the game should have a hard setting where instead of adding HP or damage to monsters it should just double the monster count in each fight.
Last edited:
Are you okay?
You rolled a 1 on reading comprehension multiple times in a row now.
I don't know how you'd even get that idea.
Of course, a fight can be both unfair and easy.
Unfair doesn't mean that something is easy or hard. It just means that the circumstances are different for the participants, that certain parties get advantages the others don't (or disadvantages, etc.).
Unfair just means an uneven playing field.
I'm fine with unfair odds in combat - what I'm not fine with is unfair game mechanics. If that Legendary bullshit is part of 5E, then that only confirms how it is worse than previous editions...
What would work would be if the player also gets maybe an extra turn and an "ignore this result" once per combat or so. That way, the mechanic would at least exist for the player as well, the boss would "only" get more of it. I'd prefer no shenanigans like that at all, of course, I'm just showing how they did the worst design possible.
I also never said the boss fights were easy.
You said that.
I think the boss fights are fine, difficulty wise. Well, the ones that I played before the rest of the game bored me too much.
No game should be designed to be hard only for people who know the ruleset inside out or are veterans of the genre - that would be idiotic (at least if it was the only available difficulty).
Difficulty is also a scale. So something can absolutely be easy and have increased challenge at the same time. Increased challenge only means higher challenge than something that is (even) easier.
So even you should actually agree that boss fights have an increased challenge in the game.
Usually, I'd agree with the idea, but only if they also had speed-up options.
To double the amount of waiting in a game that already wastes way too much of your time? The thought alone causes me physical pain.
As it is, I could only see higher monster stats or better abilities working well. Similar to how D:OS did higher difficulties.
I agree. But Solasta is the easily the easiest D&D game I've ever played. Its difficulty settings unfortunately do not remedy the issue since they only tweak stats - and an odd choice of them as well (like attack rolls and saves). What Solasta really needed were options to put more enemies of a higher CR into the encounters.
Obviously something as involved as PoE's Path of the Damned is asking a little too much from a small team, but simply adding some more monsters to every fight on a higher difficulty would have gone a long way.
I thought I would be missing this, but I think they succeeded in making the turn-to-turn combat flow fast enough that I'm not gasping for a speed-up option (even if it would be preferred, obviously).
An alternative to putting in more monsters is just adding monsters of a higher CR. Why are we fighting a few zombies or ghouls with a level 5 party? I realize that some fights are level-appropriate on paper, but they don't really factor in the abundance of magic items compared to a regular 5E campaign, nor the fact that Player vs. AI will always be an edge to the player compared to Player vs. GM. And that's without mentioning the fights that are just baffling, like throwing a small handful of CR0.25 monsters at a 5th level party.
Mortmal
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Messages
- 9,581
Some people really love to read themselves but not others ... No need of any long winded post , special mention for codexers with patron tags , who dont even bother to read the books , dont make any effort to understand how 5e works . The problem with solasta ? Not enough low level mobs ? the CR ? NO ! just one simple thing, limited rest, thats all . I am pretty sure it was intended , the camp sites are well spread out between the encounters that was supposed to be unique use. Then they had a look at play testers , and realized how retarded the average guy is, and made it easy, they have to make money .
Apparently its not easy enough still when you dont even bother to make a good party composition , used to be the same for every d&d rpgs as well , 1E 2E , 3.5 or pathfinder . Solasta is not what i call a game for veterans who need to know every rules.
Apparently its not easy enough still when you dont even bother to make a good party composition , used to be the same for every d&d rpgs as well , 1E 2E , 3.5 or pathfinder . Solasta is not what i call a game for veterans who need to know every rules.
Thought you had me on ignore, sweet summer child?
I agree that rest is not limited enough (very weird for a game that limits long resting to chosen zones that those zones are literally everywhere). But take the Necromancer's Castle for instance - limiting rest here would only matter for 1 or 2 fights, because the other fights you can trounce without expending a single resource. This is chiefly due to player power level compared to the mobs, of course, but it's also because of how easy it is to gain advantage yourself while enforcing disadvantage on the enemy - especially the latter. Casting 1 cantrip on everyone's weapon and enemies have disadvantage in a quarter of all fights in the game. They went a little overboard with their reliance on those mechanics.
I'm completing The Hill area currently, and so far I've only spammed cantrips and basic attacks the entire map. How would less resting alleviate the issue when you literally don't need to rest?
I'm pretty sure games like Solasta don't sell to the mainstream no matter how easy it is.
That would be nice, but maybe this was a budget thing.
Personally, I wouldn't mind re-using models for similar but higher-CR monsters, but perhaps they did? That's all guesswork, of course.
I honestly don't think that would work as the only change.
Maybe this would change late game, but as far as I played, you never needed to use your limited abilities to begin with. I did it anyway, just for fun, just to see something other than basic attack - but basic attack only would have worked for almost all non-boss encounters just fine.
Mortmal
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Messages
- 9,581
Thought you had me on ignore, sweet summer child?
I agree that rest is not limited enough (very weird for a game that limits long resting to chosen zones that those zones are literally everywhere). But take the Necromancer's Castle for instance - limiting rest here would only matter for 1 or 2 fights, because the other fights you can trounce without expending a single resource. I'm completing The Hill area currently, and so far I've only spammed cantrips and basic attacks the entire map. How would less resting alleviate the issue when you literally don't need to rest?
I'm pretty sure games like Solasta don't sell to the mainstream no matter how easy it is.
We can agree on this it's not selling to mainstream, it never was on top of steam sales, however its on the gamepass. They tuned it for the gamepass alas. Wish they included a classic mode for us, there's very little to do to implement that.
That's why I'm so sad there isn't such a difficulty mode. How hard can it be to just add a few monsters, perhaps remove a few rest zones? Given the level editor surely it's not a matter of more than just plopping them in there with a few clicks. What's it gonna take, like, a days work? Yeah it's not gonna be balanced to a mirror sheen in terms of gameplay experience at that point, but if you select the 'IMPOSSIBLE' difficulty (or equivalent) you did sign up for a rough ride.
The fact is though that you're completely wrong about this being a question of limited resting alone - in fact it's almost the opposite: the fact that you don't need to rest tells you everything that's wrong with the encounter design.
It is hilarious however that an indie game obviously made on a shoestring-budget totally disproves Larian's concerns about implementing the 5E implementation of reactions. Aside from Divine Smite which maybe could be handled better they're implemented pretty well in Solasta.
Mortmal
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Messages
- 9,581
It's a 5E basic guideline its supposed to be 6 medium/easy encounters per day 2 short rest in between one long rest in the end, that or a few hard/deadly . Dont tell me you dont need to rest after 6 encounters in solasta. Now adding monsters to raise the cr is a solution too, but that's a bit work on their part , its a small team, probably have some things to re script and not sure every gaming pc will handle it . With unlimited rests every encounters should be 2X 3X deadly, thats a lot of monsters or including higher cr one , then this ton more work as there's not enough in solasta, they are not implemented in the bestiary ... Also depends a lot on the group composition, much harder to do in a crpg you are supposed to have a DM to adjust things ont he fly.
What a rip-off that Spellblade's don't get Shield but most Paladins do :D
Don't tell me you're one of those people who plan encounters from a CR budget when you GM too
I don't. I literally completed every fight outside Master's Fortress without resting - and I'm not abusing any mechanics. It's basic math, really: enemies have disadvantage because they're all light sensitive, you hit on almost every single attack because they have so low AC (due to the composition of the encounters). So you lose very little HP while enemies lose a lot. You don't have to cast spells even in key fights (like the final vampire fight before entering the fortress itself).
So yes, I don't need to rest after 6 encounters in Solasta, generally speaking. Not because I'm a God of RPGs but because the game's math is heavily tilted in the players favour.
Solasta is literally the easiest D&D game I've ever played. I can't think of one that's easier, at least.
Why is it more resource intensive on the team to just plop some more monsters in there? I mean maybe it is what do I know, I just can't think of a reason why it would be.
Solasta runs on my roommates laptop, it's from 2009 :D
To be a significant challenge constantly sure. But that's a high ceiling. All I'm asking for right now is just some semblance of difficulty.
I realize I'm in the minority of cRPG players who can't get things difficult enough ever, but like I said, Solasta is another beast entirely. I can't think of an easier D&D game.
Don't tell me you're one of those people who plan encounters from a CR budget when you GM too
I don't. I literally completed every fight outside Master's Fortress without resting - and I'm not abusing any mechanics. It's basic math, really: enemies have disadvantage because they're all light sensitive, you hit on almost every single attack because they have so low AC (due to the composition of the encounters). So you lose very little HP while enemies lose a lot. You don't have to cast spells even in key fights (like the final vampire fight before entering the fortress itself).
So yes, I don't need to rest after 6 encounters in Solasta, generally speaking. Not because I'm a God of RPGs but because the game's math is heavily tilted in the players favour.
Solasta is literally the easiest D&D game I've ever played. I can't think of one that's easier, at least.
Why is it more resource intensive on the team to just plop some more monsters in there? I mean maybe it is what do I know, I just can't think of a reason why it would be.
Solasta runs on my roommates laptop, it's from 2009 :D
To be a significant challenge constantly sure. But that's a high ceiling. All I'm asking for right now is just some semblance of difficulty.
I realize I'm in the minority of cRPG players who can't get things difficult enough ever, but like I said, Solasta is another beast entirely. I can't think of an easier D&D game.
Oh and another factor that I've mentioned before: Solasta is VERY generous with magic items, which is just another reason that the "5E basic guidelines"-comment is laughable. I actually like that Solasta sheds 5E's normal approach to magic items since they are way too stingy with them in official campaigns IMHO, but it's just another pure math-addition in the players favor, meaning they should have taken it into consideration with the encounter design.
I may have done goofed.
I entered some cursed underground maze area that I can't exit, and I have 1 less food than I need to rest. And I don't have the spell for creating food equipped. And I can't rest to equip it. And I am out of spell slots. And there's fighting ahead. And I'd have to go back a few saves to be able to go buy food. And those saves are across the annoying fire/poison trap areas.
Solasta also lets you view what magic items you can buy from vendors ahead of time, so you can plan your build around the knowledge that soon you will be able to buy X or Y build defining item, like those ones that set stats to a very high number.
I entered some cursed underground maze area that I can't exit, and I have 1 less food than I need to rest. And I don't have the spell for creating food equipped. And I can't rest to equip it. And I am out of spell slots. And there's fighting ahead. And I'd have to go back a few saves to be able to go buy food. And those saves are across the annoying fire/poison trap areas.
Solasta also lets you view what magic items you can buy from vendors ahead of time, so you can plan your build around the knowledge that soon you will be able to buy X or Y build defining item, like those ones that set stats to a very high number.
Parabalus
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2015
- Messages
- 17,535
Are you playing on the highest difficulty?
Wouldn't really rate the IE games as harder.
Yes, I switched recently. Like I said it's a really bizarre way of adding difficulty (modifying to hit chance and saving throws). I'd much prefer harder and more enemies.
For 80% of the game's fights maybe, but even BG has plenty of fights with casters that are more challenging that anything Solasta has thrown at me so far. And if we're talking BG2 or IWD2 you're off your rocks. BG2's mage-, lich- or dragon-fights are WAY harder than anything on Solasta even without SCS, and IWD2 puts more pressure on your resources early than most RPGs out there.
Last edited:
I think its more of a case of some abilities trivializing some fights, like Spirit Guardians for example, or that big Ball of Light spell for vampires. Because the encounter has to be balanced for parties that didn't bring that ability, it becomes very easy for parties that do bring that ability. And its supposed to be the crowning encounter of the whole area!
Most encounters can be made very easy by utilizing some specific ability, or setting up shop on some specific area, and some encounters are designed such that your party may be able to dispatch of the enemy without ever losing stealth, just from range.
If the encounter is 3 skeletons, you kill them in 1 big fireball.
If the encounter is 5 skeletons, you kill them in 1 big fireball.
Adding more doesn't make the fight more difficult. Rather, you could add some barricades, or some traps, or otherwise modify the terrain to the advantage of enemies. Some encounters have this, others don't. Seems random, like out of the level designers one thought of doing it, and the other didn't.
It's like you only bothered to read half of my comment
More enemies make sense in fights like vampires - they can already withstand some punishment so their chief problem is that there are so few of them.
In fights with goblins, for instance, what you need is more of them, more spread out, and some lieutenant enemies added as well.
I would like to see the level 6 party that has to rest after clearing 1 pack of dire wolves, 1 pack of tiger drakes and 4 packs of vampire spawn (encounters outside Master's Fortress). Maaaaaaybe I'd believe it in a party of 4 wizards for obvious reasons. Or maybe if you got critted eight times in a row.
Grunker said:
Come to think of it, they don't get Blur either. Pretty weak class overall compared to Paladins who are as good as ever
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.