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

[mediocrepoet]

Don't mind Fedora. If you had to get up every day and see his face in the mirror, you wouldn't want to gaze at the same unholy mess in your games either.

 

[Litmanen]

How does it works with the DLCs?

I have seen I can play Palace of Ice importing my main campaign save, where I'm supposed to reach level 10. is this DLC normally thought for a level 10 (to 12) party?

What about the other campaign I see there (The Lost Valley, Caer Falcarn, Dun Cuin)? Do I have to create new characters and start from level 1? What about Dun Cuin that says Level 5-10 (or something like that)? Do I start with a level 5 party?

Thank you, guys!

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Palace of Ice is intended to be played with an imported party from the base campaign, since it follows that plot and assumes the party begins at about the level at which the base campaign ends.

The Lost Valley is intended to be started with a party of level 1 characters, rising similarly in level over the course of it as in the base campaign.

Haven't played the other two myself, but it seems that Caer Falcarn is a shorter campaign intended to be started with level 1 characters rising to level 4, who can then be imported into the similarly-brief Dun Cuin campaign.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Palace of Ice is intended to be played with an imported party from the base campaign, since it follows that plot and assumes the party begins at about the level at which the base campaign ends.

The Lost Valley is intended to be started with a party of level 1 characters, rising similarly in level over the course of it as in the base campaign.

Haven't played the other two myself, but it seems that Caer Falcarn is a shorter campaign intended to be started with level 1 characters rising to level 4, who can then be imported into the similarly-brief Dun Cuin campaign.

The difference here is that Palace of Ice imports the save from Crown of the magister so some decisions taken there also get some airtime in Palace of Ice.
Whereas with all custom modules, you get the option to export the characters at the end of the module. So that's how you can have the same party transferred from Caer Falcarn to Dun Cuin.
Alternatively you can manually level up characters in the character roster for all those modules that want a higher level party at the beginning.
Honestly Litmanen, Dun Cuin and Caer Falcarn are absolutely unexceptional linear modules. Just straight dungeon crawls, Caer Falcarn didn't even have towns with NPCs. You're better off playing lost valley instead.

 

[Litmanen]

Palace of Ice is intended to be played with an imported party from the base campaign, since it follows that plot and assumes the party begins at about the level at which the base campaign ends.

The Lost Valley is intended to be started with a party of level 1 characters, rising similarly in level over the course of it as in the base campaign.

Haven't played the other two myself, but it seems that Caer Falcarn is a shorter campaign intended to be started with level 1 characters rising to level 4, who can then be imported into the similarly-brief Dun Cuin campaign.

Palace of Ice is intended to be played with an imported party from the base campaign, since it follows that plot and assumes the party begins at about the level at which the base campaign ends.

The Lost Valley is intended to be started with a party of level 1 characters, rising similarly in level over the course of it as in the base campaign.

Haven't played the other two myself, but it seems that Caer Falcarn is a shorter campaign intended to be started with level 1 characters rising to level 4, who can then be imported into the similarly-brief Dun Cuin campaign.

The difference here is that Palace of Ice imports the save from Crown of the magister so some decisions taken there also get some airtime in Palace of Ice.
Whereas with all custom modules, you get the option to export the characters at the end of the module. So that's how you can have the same party transferred from Caer Falcarn to Dun Cuin.
Alternatively you can manually level up characters in the character roster for all those modules that want a higher level party at the beginning.
Honestly Litmanen, Dun Cuin and Caer Falcarn are absolutely unexceptional linear modules. Just straight dungeon crawls, Caer Falcarn didn't even have towns with NPCs. You're better off playing lost valley instead.

Thank you both, guys!

I think I'll give it a try with both main campaign (and maybe Palace of Ice) and then try a new character for Lost Valley (if the game deserves it).

 

[ERYFKRAD]

then try a new character

Party, dammit, party.

(if the game deserves it).

I'd say it does. Lost Valley is a at least a campaign about siding with one of or none of the factions in the valley to get out of it. The implementation of 5e is much more faithful to the sourcebook and the ease of use and flow of this game is way better than BG3, even if it falls behind in some production values and the sort of semi open areas that BG3 had.

 

[Nortar]

I think I'll give it a try with both main campaign (and maybe Palace of Ice) and then try a new character for Lost Valley (if the game deserves it).

Definitely try Palace of Ice after the main campaign, it's a dwarf-centric adventure.
As a nice bonus, it features the only half-decent face in the whole Solasta and it's a comely dwarven lass!

And if you like the gameplay, give a try to Artyoan modules, especialy their 6-man variants.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

it features the only half-decent face in the whole Solasta and it's a comely dwarven lass!

Aren't all dwarven lasses comely to you?

 

[Nortar]

it features the only half-decent face in the whole Solasta and it's a comely dwarven lass!

Aren't all dwarven lasses comely to you?

Well yeah, but some take a lot of pre-beer-ing before they come as such.

 

[Litmanen]

then try a new character

Party, dammit, party.

(if the game deserves it).

I'd say it does. Lost Valley is a at least a campaign about siding with one of or none of the factions in the valley to get out of it. The implementation of 5e is much more faithful to the sourcebook and the ease of use and flow of this game is way better than BG3, even if it falls behind in some production values and the sort of semi open areas that BG3 had.

I think I'll give it a try with both main campaign (and maybe Palace of Ice) and then try a new character for Lost Valley (if the game deserves it).

Definitely try Palace of Ice after the main campaign, it's a dwarf-centric adventure.
As a nice bonus, it features the only half-decent face in the whole Solasta and it's a comely dwarven lass!

And if you like the gameplay, give a try to Artyoan modules, especialy their 6-man variants.

I don't think I'll have time to try also users' modules. My backlog is big and I don't have normally a lot of time to play.
But I'll try my PARTY maybe in the official modules

 

[Nortar]

And if you like the gameplay, give a try to Artyoan modules, especialy their 6-man variants.

I don't think I'll have time to try also users' modules. My backlog is big and I don't have normally a lot of time to play.
But I'll try my PARTY maybe in the official modules

It depends on what you're playing games for - to strike them out of your backlog or to have fun.

I myself prefer to play games in the way intended by the devs first.
But who knows, maybe you would like it enough to want for more.
And in that case check out Forsaken Isle and Morrows Deep. I have not seen the newer modules yet.

The story is decent (at least not as retarded as Solasta's "no head - no soraks") and combat encounters are head and shoulders above almost everything in the base game.

 

[Cryomancer]

I honestly prefered the main OC over the Palace of Ice. Honestly, 5e don't work past lv 12. Combat becomes tedious.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I honestly prefered the main OC over the Palace of Ice. Honestly, 5e don't work past lv 12. Combat becomes tedious.

What? If anything it becomes even more effortless

 

[Nortar]

I honestly prefered the main OC over the Palace of Ice. Honestly, 5e don't work past lv 12. Combat becomes tedious.

D&D of any edidtion works better on low to mid levels.
I suspect you would not like the truth, but the main reason high levels are shit is not tediousness of combat, but

Spoiler

 

[Litmanen]

And if you like the gameplay, give a try to Artyoan modules, especialy their 6-man variants.

I don't think I'll have time to try also users' modules. My backlog is big and I don't have normally a lot of time to play.
But I'll try my PARTY maybe in the official modules

It depends on what you're playing games for - to strike them out of your backlog or to have fun.

I myself prefer to play games in the way intended by the devs first.
But who knows, maybe you would like it enough to want for more.
And in that case check out Forsaken Isle and Morrows Deep. I have not seen the newer modules yet.

The story is decent (at least not as retarded as Solasta's "no head - no soraks") and combat encounters are head and shoulders above almost everything in the base game.

I'm absolutely not against users' modules, let's be clear here. And the thing is that it took me 3 months to finish Underrail and 1 to finish Pillars of Eternity. So, I have a long backlog not because I want to play hundreds of games, but because I'm really slow (and have not a lot of time).

When I play a game, I do it just once because I love the feeling of doing things without knowing the consequences, the story and what's waiting for you in the next room. So, NORMALLY, I play a game the first time, store my feelings inside me and go on. But I have also this feeling that I want to try different approaches and, for me, a user's module in Solasta is still a "Solasta" thing. So, I like to eventually switch to another game. But, maybe one day I'll be faster and I'll have time also for these modules.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

And if you like the gameplay, give a try to Artyoan modules, especialy their 6-man variants.

I don't think I'll have time to try also users' modules. My backlog is big and I don't have normally a lot of time to play.
But I'll try my PARTY maybe in the official modules

It depends on what you're playing games for - to strike them out of your backlog or to have fun.

I myself prefer to play games in the way intended by the devs first.
But who knows, maybe you would like it enough to want for more.
And in that case check out Forsaken Isle and Morrows Deep. I have not seen the newer modules yet.

The story is decent (at least not as retarded as Solasta's "no head - no soraks") and combat encounters are head and shoulders above almost everything in the base game.

I'm absolutely not against users' modules, let's be clear here. And the thing is that it took me 3 months to finish Underrail and 1 to finish Pillars of Eternity. So, I have a long backlog not because I want to play hundreds of games, but because I'm really slow (and have not a lot of time).

When I play a game, I do it just once because I love the feeling of doing things without knowing the consequences, the story and what's waiting for you in the next room. So, NORMALLY, I play a game the first time, store my feelings inside me and go on. But I have also this feeling that I want to try different approaches and, for me, a user's module in Solasta is still a "Solasta" thing. So, I like to eventually switch to another game. But, maybe one day I'll be faster and I'll have time also for these modules.

Bud I hear you, but there's always gonna be a backlog. Might as well have fun longer than tick names off a list.
Still, getting ahead of ourselves, curious about what you make of the game first.

 

[Litmanen]

curious about what you make of the game first.

A mess, as always

 

[Cryomancer]

but the main reason high levels are shit is not tediousness of combat, but

That depends on the setting. Pick a lv 13 Caster in Dark Sun. He :

• Need to disguise his spells as psionics as casters are hated there, so no flashy spells like fireball
• A single spell scroll is incredible rare and contrary to 3.5e, casters can't learn spells by leveling up, they need to find scrolls, a lv 13 preserver would be very lucky to have ONE tier 5/6 spell in his spellbook.
• Reagents for spells also incredible rare
• Preparing spells and gathering energy to prepare spells is not easy. Some kits like Shadow Wizards from preservers & defilers sourcebook can die while preparing spells
• Melee enemies are much, much deadlier in Dark Sun. A Half giant gladiator could probably kill him in a single round with a club.
• (...)

The power of magic should be purely dependent on the setting. The same lv 13 caster should be ridiculous OP in a Netherese campaign.

That said, the main problem with 5e high level content is imo that enemies and your party have too much hp and takes a eternity to kill or die in the game. When I played Palace of Ice, I played with a custom ruleset, essentially doubling the damage given and taken by messing with the in game sliders. The game become much better.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

D&D of any edition works better on low to mid levels.

What do you consider "mid levels"? Gary Gygax himself preferred running adventures for levels of around 9-12, demonstrated by his published D&D/AD&D adventure modules, though this tends to be obscured by the popularity of the low-level exceptions B2 The Keep on the Borderlands and T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (the first portion of which had been published earlier as T1 The Village of Hommlet).

 

[Cryomancer]

D&D of any edition works better on low to mid levels.

What do you consider "mid levels"? Gary Gygax himself preferred running adventures for levels of around 9-12, demonstrated by his published D&D/AD&D adventure modules, though this tends to be obscured by the popularity of the low-level exceptions B2 The Keep on the Borderlands and T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (the first portion of which had been published earlier as T1 The Village of Hommlet).

If I remember correctly, he is one of the many who believed that mid level is 4 and everything above 7 is epic level. I did a python script to calculate the average AD&D module level (https://pastebin.com/JdSAvLyE) and the output is here :

Overall Average Low Level: 6.00
Overall Average High Level: 9.50
Average Level: 7.75

So yes, most AD&D adventures are lv 6~9.5 adventures.

 

[rojay]

A lot of the modules TSR published were taken from tournament games, where you played pre-rolled characters and had 3-4 hours to finish the adventure. Those tended to start around levels 5-7, and the modules they released were basically fleshed-out versions of what was played at conventions.

That probably skews the numbers a bit, but you're right about the average levels and one can't argue with numbers. I just wouldn't draw too many conclusions from them.

 

[Nortar]

D&D of any edition works better on low to mid levels.

What do you consider "mid levels"? Gary Gygax himself preferred running adventures for levels of around 9-12, demonstrated by his published D&D/AD&D adventure modules, though this tends to be obscured by the popularity of the low-level exceptions B2 The Keep on the Borderlands and T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (the first portion of which had been published earlier as T1 The Village of Hommlet).

A good question.
As I never had a reason to formalize tiers of play, my perception is subjective.

1-4 - low level ("camaraderie, adventure and steel on steel!")
5-8 - mid level (you can fly and shoot fireballs)
9-12 - high level (you can teleport across the world, death is no longer the end)
13-16 - very high level (death is barely an inconvinience, you also get a minor wish)
17+ all the awesome marvels epic shit you can Wish for

But it depends a lot on your DM and your party.
And who if not Gygax himself is best suited for running higher level campaigns.
But if a party DM's Orcus is just an orc with extra hp and a bigger club - well then it does not really matter what levels that party plays.

 

[Cryomancer]

A lot of the modules TSR published were taken from tournament games, where you played pre-rolled characters and had 3-4 hours to finish the adventure. Those tended to start around levels 5-7, and the modules they released were basically fleshed-out versions of what was played at conventions.

That probably skews the numbers a bit, but you're right about the average levels and one can't argue with numbers. I just wouldn't draw too many conclusions from them.

My point is just that there are a lot of people who like to dictate how other groups should play their games. If TSR made such adventures, it was because people brought such adventures and played such adventures. Hence trying to dictate that no one should play above LV 2 like some people want is BS. If I decide to run a Lv 6~10 adventure, I'm not playing an epic-level game. I'm just playing a game around the same average level that the original AD&D had. And even if I was, what my group does is my group problem.

1-4 - low level ("camaraderie, adventure and steel on steel!")
5-8 - mid level (you can fly and shoot fireballs)
9-12 - high level (you can teleport across the world, death is no longer a problem)
13-16 - very high level (death is barely an inconvinience, you also get a minor wish)
17+ all the awesome marvels epic shit you can Wish for

I think differently. For me:
Low level = Lv 1~6
Mid level = Lv 7~12
High level = Lv 13+

Certain classes only get their most iconic stuff at midlevels. Paladins, for example, only get a cleric spell at LV 9. Necromancer specialized wizards can only animate dead at LV 9. The book domains of dread say that before becoming a Dark Lord, Strahd was a "mediocre" mage at LV 6, if I remember correctly.

In retroclones, it depends. I would classify differently. There are zero high-level adventures for LotFP. Is a "low dark fantasy" setting with ZERO flashy spells, where even a freaking Infernal Lion has 6 hit dices. I would classify a LV 7 character as high level. Hyperborea limits your characters to LV 12, and at LV 9, they are expected to become "nobles" and own land. Shadowdark Max PC level is 10. So, I would say that for hyperborea, LV 1~4 = low. LV 5~8 = medium and LV 9~12 = high. I can see a LV 10 character in hyperborea having a similar experience of someone playing Test of Warlords (CM1- lv 15) for AD&D. Hyperborea also do stuff like giving Axe proficiency to Cryomancers, so mages can be somehow useful without spell slots or at very low levels.

 

[MerchantKing]

D&D of any edition works better on low to mid levels.

What do you consider "mid levels"? Gary Gygax himself preferred running adventures for levels of around 9-12, demonstrated by his published D&D/AD&D adventure modules, though this tends to be obscured by the popularity of the low-level exceptions B2 The Keep on the Borderlands and T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (the first portion of which had been published earlier as T1 The Village of Hommlet).

If I remember correctly, he is one of the many who believed that mid level is 4 and everything above 7 is epic level. I did a python script to calculate the average AD&D module level (https://pastebin.com/JdSAvLyE) and the output is here :

Overall Average Low Level: 6.00
Overall Average High Level: 9.50
Average Level: 7.75

So yes, most AD&D adventures are lv 6~9.5 adventures.

How many of those modules involve killing level 8 gods?

 

[Litmanen]

Level 4 here, main campaign.

I have read a lot of comparisons between BG3 and this game. Solasta, FOR SURE, implements better the 5th edition and crafting system makes apparently more sense but, beside that, there is nothing this game does better.

It's a very good game, but extremely linear (until now); combats offer very few different tactical opportunities; obviously NO non-combat option to solve things; dialogues are simple, basic and utilitarian. It is a modern era ToEE, that isn't a bad thing, for sure.

But there is no comparison at all with BG3. Two different leagues.

Yes, obviously, also two different budgets.