KickStarter Solasta Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Renevent]

There are no companions. You're creating the whole party.

Awesome, didn't know that, sounds good then.

 

[Bara]

Reverse Gravity is a 7th level spell and those shouldn't even exist.

The guy in question mentioned disintegrate(6th) and lv cap = 10 is due resource limitation.

No, I mean in general. I only allow up to 6th level spells on my tables and that's only if you are a almost a pure caster (19th character level, which we have never reached anyway).

Is your right, but the high level magic is a part of D&D. When a caster becomes capable of shaping the reality and not as if only the PC could cast this spells. Enemies can use reverse gravity and even wish against the party. Some people prefer lower magical setting, I just wonder why playing D&D for that? If someone likes low tech, low magical setting, I would suggest to play another game, because D&D is high magical.

Have to disagree with that as both the old White box rules and B/X rules for D&D only ever went up to 6th level spells. The spell level didn't increase until revised BECMI set and 1st edition came out. So if to qualify as a high magical setting is to have spells beyond 6th level D&D wasn't original that. Not that I have a preference either one got into a B/X & 1e game during this pandemic and both have been a blast.

I can respect Lacrymas for wanting to limit spell levels to 6th to capture an old-school feel but not their reasons of arcane casters being a problem yet divine casters which have access to the same tools are A okay. The mental gymnastics for that one became it's own thread and then... something else.

There are no companions. You're creating the whole party.

Awesome, didn't know that, sounds good then.

Yeah it's pretty nice feature too as they give the party a feeling of already knowing each other too so there none of that "why would these people be adventuring together at all" moments.

 

[Lacrymas]

Divine spellcasters get "the same" tools only at spell level 7+ really. Their spells are pretty tame below that (no fireball or chain lightning for example) and focus more on debuffs/buffs/utility at the cost of direct damage spells, which I prefer. Arcane spellcasters are a problem in a setting in general because it's hard to limit their power due to their vagueness, as opposed to divine spellcasters which place at least narrative boundaries on their spells and are tinged with some kind of philosophy which further limits them as individuals.

 

[Bara]

Your the DM you know right? If there needs to be narrative boundaries on arcane casters for them to be inline with divine casters you can just make those.

We've also been through it before already but I'll say it again philosophy and morality isn't exclusive only to divine/religious people. Hell arcane casters could very well just be religious themselves and have a god they worship associated with magic like in almost every setting.

Your opinion on arcane casters seems to be tied to some weird personal experience you had and now take as a universal law.

 

[Lacrymas]

How many people who play wizards you know place boundaries on their magic use or play with a religious ban on some of it? I'd wager the number is close to 0. And I do place boundaries all the time, I never allow them to be overpowered. I say this to everyone new, if they don't like it nobody is forcing them to play with us. That's why my homebrew setting doesn't include arcane spellcasters, I choose to weed out the cause instead of trying to wage a futile war against the symptom.

 

[V_K]

Divine spellcasters get "the same" tools only at spell level 7+ really.

Druids are divine casters and get some pretty crazy spells early on. As they should.

 

[Bara]

How many people who play wizards you know place boundaries on their magic use or play with a religious ban on some of it? I'd wager the number is close to 0. And I do place boundaries all the time, I never allow them to be overpowered. I say this to everyone new, if they don't like it nobody is forcing them to play with us.

Currently? Two groups of people so 12. We rotate in and out characters due to the lethality.

 

[Lacrymas]

Bullshit. That's not a thing that happens unless they agree with me about the problems arcane spellcasters create and I refuse to believe there are that many people in a single group of friends judging by the reactions I've received about my anti-arcane sentiments here. Even if by some miracle this is true, this doesn't mean the vast majority of people who play arcane spellcasters do so.

 

[Bara]

Well I mean if that's what you want to believe that's up to you but it's flat out true.

Maybe you just have a hard time finding people that can also buy into the idea of limitations because of the reasons you present to them?

 

[Ysaye]

How many people who play wizards you know place boundaries on their magic use or play with a religious ban on some of it? I'd wager the number is close to 0. And I do place boundaries all the time, I never allow them to be overpowered. I say this to everyone new, if they don't like it nobody is forcing them to play with us. That's why my homebrew setting doesn't include arcane spellcasters, I choose to weed out the cause instead of trying to wage a futile war against the symptom.

The Dragonlance (White, Red and Black mages) and Dark Sun (Preservers and Defilers) settings essentially put a narrative reason for placing some limitations on Wizards don't they? Or at least they put a limitation at least on the good ones, whilst the evil ones just have social disadvantages...but then alignment is right out these days isn't it?

No one can be good or bad, only extremely powerful.

 

[Cryomancer]

Their spells are pretty tame below that (no fireball or chain lightning for example) and focus more on debuffs/buffs/utility at the cost of direct damage spells, which I prefer. Arcane spellcasters are a problem in a setting in general because it's hard to limit their power due to their vagueness

So, is only personal preference. Because everyone knows that CoDzilla >>>> Wizards on 3.5e. They don't have fireball but has chain lightning and on 2e, a cleric of a death deity can learn how to animate the dead at lv 5 while a necromancer specialized wizard can only do that at lv 9 paying a tier 5 instead of tier 3 spell.

Note that the Solasta Battle domain cleric can cast for eg https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/285396-battle-domain-solasta

https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/285396-battle-domain-solasta

Did you played starfinder? Technomancer can only cast circle 6 spells and to cast wish, needs to sacrifice two circle 6 spells and fuse then, but they implemented magical hacks which are metamagic on steroids. And guess what, most video games doesn't allow you to cast reality shaping spells and even wish on bg2 is extremely limited. Hell, I prefer to use maximized sirroco(circle 6 + 3 from metamagic) on pfkm than most tier 9 spells. Exactly because the game lacks the most powerful high level magic spells.

Solasta has verticailty and balanced or not, I wanna see reverse gravity into the game. Even if is a one time scroll.

Lastly, as a GM, you can severely limits which spells your caster can learn. If you limit then to a "theme", instead of wizards, you will gonna have abjurers, illussionists, necromancers, pyromancers, etc.

 

[Harthwain]

Bullshit. That's not a thing that happens unless they agree with me about the problems arcane spellcasters create and I refuse to believe there are that many people in a single group of friends judging by the reactions I've received about my anti-arcane sentiments here.

Don't be a fool. You have absolutely no ground to put into question somebody's personal experience, just because it clashes with what you believe. It's not that unlikely for a group of friends/close associates to agree on something.

Even if by some miracle this is true, this doesn't mean the vast majority of people who play arcane spellcasters do so.

And where he said that?

 

[Lacrymas]

So, is only personal preference. Because everyone knows that CoDzilla >>>> Wizards on 3.5e. They don't have fireball but has chain lightning and on 2e, a cleric of a death deity can learn how to animate the dead at lv 5 while a necromancer specialized wizard can only do that at lv 9 paying a tier 5 instead of tier 3 spell.

Clerics and Druids catch up to Wizards at a very high level, they don't have spells like Fireball at spell circle 3. They get chain lightning only with the Air domain, which was originally only available to a single god. Incidentally, they catch up when all hands are off and all casters can alter reality. And even then, I'm ~ok with arcane spellcasters up until spell circle 6. Animating the dead is your weird obsession and has nothing to do with anything, it's not op if the summons are capped, which they should be. As for Solasta, yes, I was totally in shock the Battle domain gives Fireball, it was hilariously easy to bombard the enemies and end every battle in 1-2 rounds. Spells like Fireball, Chain Lightning, Firestorm should be avoided at all costs because they are a solution to almost all combat problems. They do insane damage and on top of that it's AoE. In my homebrew system, I'm planning on removing all direct damage spells (maybe I'll keep some anti-undead ones), only leaving AoE damage spells that do little damage. I'm also in favor of AoE spells that do insane damage but they do that damage to the party as well.

Even if by some miracle this is true, this doesn't mean the vast majority of people who play arcane spellcasters do so.

And where he said that?

What's the point of saying what he is saying then? This isn't about fringe cases like me or his miraculous groups of friends.

The rabid defense of arcane spellcasters that happens every time I mention how they create more issues than they solve also tells me there is a problem that needs fixing.

 

[Bara]

What's the point of saying what he is saying then? This isn't about fringe cases like me or his miraculous groups of friends.

The rabid defense of arcane spellcasters that happens every time I mention how they create more issues than they solve also tells me there is a problem that needs fixing.

And that problem is probably your approach if your having a hard time to find people to play with narrative restrictions on arcane casters.

If its such a epidemic as you say settings like Darksun and Dragonlance would have never taken off as product lines.

Hell even if there was no narrative justification people can buy into easy enough. B/X D&D is still played today wether through retro-clones or the original material which in there level cap is 14 and highest spell level is 6.

Honestly it comes off like you never played the editions prior to 3rd.

 

[Harthwain]

What's the point of saying what he is saying then? This isn't about fringe cases like me or his miraculous groups of friends.

His point is that tabletop RPGs can be customized to fit their players' (or GMs') needs.

The rabid defense of arcane spellcasters that happens every time I mention how they create more issues than they solve also tells me there is a problem that needs fixing.

Being a spellcaster shouldn't invalidate the challenges, but at the same time casters do bring something unique to the game: their own ability to interact with the in-game world. Take away the ability to cast spells and you're taking away one of the strong points of any RPG - the interactivity. I am of the opinion that magic should be rewarding, but it should also come with significant enough risks to not make the use of it be as carefree as it often is. Think: Wild Mage.

 

[Lacrymas]

And that problem is probably your approach if your having a hard time to find people to play with narrative restrictions on arcane casters.

If its such a epidemic as you say settings like Darksun and Dragonlance would have never taken off as product lines.

Hell even if there was no narrative justification people can buy into easy enough. B/X D&D is still played today wether through retro-clones or the original material which in there level cap is 14 and highest spell level is 6.

Honestly it comes off like you never played the editions prior to 3rd.

I don't have trouble finding people to play with restrictions because I'm the one who places the restrictions. This is mostly an epidemic in video games, but I'm absolutely sure the vast majority of tabletop players don't play with restrictions on magic. Do we have stats about how popular Dragonlance and Dark Sun are compared to Forgotten Realms? That's not my general point, however. What I am saying is that arcane spellcasters as written are a problem, which you seem to agree with if you play with restrictions.

What's the point of saying what he is saying then? This isn't about fringe cases like me or his miraculous groups of friends.

His point is that tabletop RPGs can be customized to fit their players' (or GMs') needs.

The rabid defense of arcane spellcasters that happens every time I mention how they create more issues than they solve also tells me there is a problem that needs fixing.

Being a spellcaster shouldn't invalidate the challenges, but at the same time casters do bring something unique to the game: their own ability to interact with the in-game world. Take away the ability to cast spells and you're taking away one of the strong points of any RPG - the interactivity. I am of the opinion that magic should be rewarding, but it should also come with significant enough risks to not make the use of it be as carefree as it often is. Think: Wild Mage.

I do customize it in tabletop. As for spellcasters, I am all for divine spellcasters, I just have a problem with the arcane variety.

 

[Cryomancer]

Clerics and Druids catch up to Wizards at a very high level

Nope. They surpass then. Even at low level, a call lightning spell is on par with fireballs on 3.5e. They only lack offensive spells at "dungeons & kobolds" levels aka lv 1~4 where the arcane casters has only awful options and use more spells like sleep/grease

And divine casters not only are on par with arcane casters in offensive magic but they also

• Has higher AC with no spellcasting failure
• Has more buffs
• Are capable of healing
• Has easier time protecting vs insta death effect and spells that target mobiilty(deathward/freedom of movement)
• On melee they have greater chance of hitting and far more shape shift spells

Animating the dead is your weird obsession and has nothing to do with anything, it's not op if the summons are capped, w

Wrong. Hard limitation is the WORSE way to handle multiple summons.

On arcanum, you can technically summon a endless horde of demons however, you require fatigue to maintain then. On Gothic 2 - returning(not confuse with the base game), you as a necromancer needs to spend mana on maintaining your undead creations an took dozens of hours to be be able to have 3 skeleton warriors sustained only by my mana regen.

3.5e animate dead allow you to control up to your caster leve * 2 hd worth of undead, so a low level caster can't control a high level vampire created by a scroll, but can control a 1 HD skeleton squad.

5e already has requirement for concentration and losing concentration means losing control over your summon.

Also, solasta has a total of zero summoning/undead creating spells,

As for Solasta, yes, I was totally in shock the Battle domain gives Fireball, it was hilariously easy to bombard the enemies and end every battle in 1-2 rounds. Spells like Fireball, Chain Lightning, Firestorm should be avoided at all costs because they are a solution to almost all combat problems

Wrong because the lv cap is 6, takes a long time till you get this spells and even then, you have very limited resting in solasta.

You can't rest scum in solasta.

And the damage is not that high. Fireball on 5e deals 8d6 damage, or 28 damage on average. A fighter with a polleaxe and 20 STR in a single round if hit both attacks can deal 2 * (d10 + 5) or 21 damage on average And he can do that with unlimited resources.

Shock Arcanist is a bit better evoker, but is a homebrew class.

If warlocks come by and considering how much you can short rest in solasta, I would be in favor of not having more "blasty" patrons like the Fiend.

. Do we have stats about how popular Dragonlance and Dark Sun are compared to Forgotten Realms?

On Dark Sun, even your house cat can known some type o psionics and ... There are even 10th tier spells there.

 

[Lacrymas]

Even though I'm not one for dick measuring competitions, Call Lightning not only does less damage (3d6 with no scaling, as opposed to 1d6 per level for fireball) and is only in a straight line from you. And lol @ comparing Fireball with a Fighter's auto attack. You can't convince me arcane spellcasters as written are somehow not overpowered because I have enough experience to know they are.

 

[Thac0]

In medieval England during the 15th century, it was apparently a mark of shame for a knight if he wasn't able to vault into his saddle with his full panoply worn. It shows how well designed the armour was and the expectations that warriors had for agility and flexibility.

It was not only a mark of shame in medieval Europe, it carried actual legal consequences.

In the Sachsenspiegel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenspiegel saxon mirror very important medieval law textbook) you would lose your ability to create testaments if you were not able to climb a horse in armor, there are specific rules how high the saddle has to be and everything.

Reason being it was assumed that if you grow too weak to do such a fundamental task you are probably ailing in mind aswell and should lose parts of your legal abilities.

 

[Thac0]

And the damage is not that high. Fireball on 5e deals 8d6 damage, or 28 damage on average. A fighter with a polleaxe and 20 STR in a single round if hit both attacks can deal 2 * (d10 + 5) or 21 damage on average And he can do that with unlimited resources.

Wait wait wait let's do our math clean. 5e is balanced around you having at most +4 to damage on lvl 5 where you get Fireball/Extra attack. Also most double handed fighters use 2d6+4 for 11 x 2 = 22 damage.
If you have the proper fighting style it is more complicated math as you have (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 as the average dice damage for 4 and a bit instead of 3.5.

But many fighters go sword and board because shields are gud, which gives them 1d8+4+2 for 10.5 x 2 damage in 21. So wrong formula right solution?

Anyway 5e definitly has caster supremacy. But archers are really good aswell, being reliant on melee is the only real outlier in power.

 

[NJClaw]

Even though I'm not one for dick measuring competitions, Call Lightning not only does less damage (3d6 with no scaling, as opposed to 1d6 per level for fireball) and is only in a straight line from you. And lol @ comparing Fireball with a Fighter's auto attack. You can't convince me arcane spellcasters as written are somehow not overpowered because I have enough experience to know they are.

I'm sorry, Call Lightning is not a straight line from the caster, so you are wrong and your argument is invalid. Bye bye.

 

[Lacrymas]

Even though I'm not one for dick measuring competitions, Call Lightning not only does less damage (3d6 with no scaling, as opposed to 1d6 per level for fireball) and is only in a straight line from you. And lol @ comparing Fireball with a Fighter's auto attack. You can't convince me arcane spellcasters as written are somehow not overpowered because I have enough experience to know they are.

I'm sorry, Call Lightning is not a straight line from the caster, so you are wrong and your argument is invalid. Bye bye.

Oh, wait, it's actually worse than I thought, it's a straight line from the sky, so almost no AoE is possible.

 

[NJClaw]

Lacrymas

You are very cute, but you really don't know your spells.

 

[Lacrymas]

Yeah, see my edit. It's worse than I remembered, lol. It's not even comparable to Fireball at all.

 

[Cryomancer]

Call Lightning not only does less damage (3d6 with no scaling, as opposed to 1d6 per level for fireball) and is only in a straight line from you.

Completely wrong. On 5e is 3d10 WITH A LOT OF SECONDARY EFFECTS which can last 10 minutes and on 2e is

https://pihwiki.bgforge.net/Baldur's_Gate:_Divine_Spells_List#Call_Lightning

Keep in mind thta on BG2, clerics and druids also has the following advantages in addition to all 3e advantages

• Far more ignoring MR spells like Eartquake, Fire Storm, etc
• Getting ultra powerful spes like gate earlier on on 7th circle
• Immunity to poison at lv 15 as a druid
• Less xp to level up. With 300k xp, a druid is lv 12. A mage, lv 10.
• Higher lv cap. A cleric can reach lv 21 on Shadows of Amn and lv 40 on Throne of Bhaal. A mage, only 17/30.

A challenge for you guys. Look how many people complain about Horrid Wilting being "OP" an how many complain about Call lilghtning which can dish a similar damage on bg2, at circle 3 instead o 8... IF THIS DOESN'T PROOF ANTI ARCANE BIAS, IDK WHAT WILL.

But many fighters go sword and board because shields are gud, which gives them 1d8+4+2 for 10.5 x 2 damage in 21. So wrong formula right solution?

But you can't compare someone dedicated on dealing damage with someone who sacrifices damage for more defense. A evoker is more closes in ""role"" to a two handed DPS focused martial guy than a heavy armored guy.

Anyway 5e definitly has caster supremacy. But archers are really good aswell, being reliant on melee is the only real outlier in power.

IMO D&D should get more types of arrows too.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

But one thing which I love in GURPS is that there are no balancefags. A .338 lapua magnum rifle on gurps technomancer or a spell like geyser can kill the average "high hp" player many times in a row with a single shot/cast. Nobody complains that magic or firearms should be nerfed, so a guy with a katana is so effective as a magician or a sniper with anti materiel rifle in dealing with armored vehicles or nasty chimeras.

Quite the contrary, those who lilke melee go play more low tech, NO magical settings and let the high tech or high magical settings alone.