Solasta - Review @ PC Gamer

Originally Posted by Hastar
Fraud I know we both like Skyrim and if that game had the D&D rules and creatures, I think it would be my favorite game ever. Fighting a Mindflayer in Skyrim with a Paladin, Yes Please.

Aren't there D&D mods for Skyrim? I wouldn't be surprised. I think there was a total conversion project but I haven't followed that at all and don't even know what it meant to change (rules? spells only?).

EDIT: don't despair! I've seen mods to make Baldur's Gate 3 more D&D (it's true - and I know, I'm evil)

I know most of the new creature mods for Skyrim cause a lot of bugs and they seem to never get updated. I haven't seen a D&D conversion.

May I recommend Obsidian's new open world RPG called Avowed. Sure it's not based off D&D but Pillars of Eternity. Still it comes very close that dream of playing a D&D Skyrim.

Originally Posted by Redglyph
The version of D&D may have an impact. I'm used to more recent ones, and playing 2nd Edition felt very bare.

Funny, I thought 5th edition was very bare in comparison to 3rd or 2nd edition. A lot of things are simplified. You can't specialize in a weapon, for example. Your option when you level up are pretty limited, especially in comparison to 3rd edition.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
May I recommend Obsidian's new open world RPG called Avowed. Sure it's not based off D&D but Pillars of Eternity. Still it comes very close that dream of playing a D&D Skyrim.

Interesting. You made me read about his one : https://www.gamesradar.com/avowed-guide/

Is there any ETA on Avowed? Last I heard is 2023+

Originally Posted by Nereida
Is there any ETA on Avowed? Last I heard is 2023+

Late 2022 if were lucky according to a few recent articles. That's if you believe what they write about the game being farther in development then what was announced.

Avowed May Be Further Along Than You Think - GameRant

An eagle-eyed Reddit fan recently spotted some interesting information about Avowed on Senior Area Designer Constant Gaw's LinkedIn. According to the LinkedIn page, Avowed may be further along than Xbox fans think and they may be getting more information about the upcoming Obsidian RPG this Summer.

Originally Posted by Redglyph
EDIT: don't despair! I've seen mods to make Baldur's Gate 3 more D&D (it's true - and I know, I'm evil)

Awesome! After reading up on the BG3 EA version, which I'm not really interested in as I'd rather wait for a full release, it does seem that all the rule changes, as they are currently implemented, dilute class identity and diversity too much for my taste. Going to have look for future reference.

Found it: [ https://github.com/ZerdBG3/DnD-Rebalancing ]
And others by the same author: [ https://github.com/ZerdBG3 ]

Thanks for the pointer.

Originally Posted by Arhu
Awesome! After reading up on the BG3 EA version, which I'm not really interested in as I'd rather wait for a full release, it does seem that all the rule changes dilute class identity and diversity too much for my taste. Going to have look for future reference.

Found it: [ https://github.com/ZerdBG3/DnD-Rebalancing ]
And others by the same author: [ https://github.com/ZerdBG3 ]

Thanks for the pointer.

Blame Wizards of the Coast as the cost of diversity has ruined the ruleset. None of the races have penalties or bonuses and alignment will probably be nixed soon a well.

Though in the case of BG3 blame Larian for any changes.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Blame Wizards of the Coast as the cost of diversity has ruined the ruleset. None of the races have penalties or bonuses and alignment will probably be nixed soon a well.

Please elaborate.

In the case of alignment, it was nixed in Solasta from what I can see, in favor of the Personality flag thing. Fine with me. The flags do roughly correspond to alignments though.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
I've never liked the battle system in DnD. It's always been about depleting HP and a character is as capable near death as fresh.

You must dislike a lot of battle systems then, because that describes 99% of them.

As for combat-focused vs story-focused, ideally I'd like a game to be strong in both aspects. I'm a gameplay over story guy though, so I can enjoy a game with a weak story if the mechanics are good much more than vice versa.

I normally enjoy games most when they have a strong story, and funny enough when they don't have any at all. The RPGs I can't get into normally are because they try to have a story but it's not well written or compelling enough. In the other hand, I can sink hundreds upon hundreds of hours on games like Terraria, that have no story whatsoever.

I can try to clarify though thought my post was fairly clear. How much I like/dislike combat in a game depends on many variables. I may enjoy a lot in some and much less so in others. It is highly game dependent. So trying to apply generalizations or global statements to how I enjoy combat doesn't work well. I suspect this also applies to many here even though some are trying to pigeon hole players into certain buckets … which I don't think is possible.

How someone looks at Solasta doesn't mean they view all games similar in style the same way. I think someone can like game A even if similar in mechanics to game B simply because the overall sum of the parts either turned them away or towards a game.

I have never been a rule fanatic. I have played AD&D on paper and on computer. As long as each is fun that is all that matters for me in the end. Hence why I don't care if the rules in Solasta are perfect and not perfect in BG3.

I do like the general AD&D framework - like the feats, abilities, classes, etc., and enjoy games with those features. But if some get adapted or change … as long as the result is still enjoyable that's fine with me.

So that isn't a major pro in a game like Solasta for me. Its a plus that it is based of a ruleset that I enjoy but not a major one.

The character interaction would be a big plus but the character graphics are not.

And so on and so on. Each game comes with things anyone might like or dislike. Simply having X ruleset or Y combat isn't enough to sell a game for some people (although I am sure it might be for others who put more emphasis on it).

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Blame Wizards of the Coast as the cost of diversity has ruined the ruleset. None of the races have penalties or bonuses and alignment will probably be nixed soon a well.

Though in the case of BG3 blame Larian for any changes.

I'm not sure I understand either. The cost of diversity, do you mean all the add-ons in 3E? And in 5E, races and subraces each have specific traits like advantages on roll, proficiencies and ability score bonuses. For example, dwarves have advantage on saving throws against poison, elves against charm; they have different proficiencies in weapons and armour, etc. Or did you mean something else?

Alignment has become optional, but I'm neutral on this topic, or trying to be I find it nice to try and stick to a code of conduct, but it feels artificial to have to stick too much to it and not be allowed some lapses at the risk of being banned from one's deity, for ex. Or to have to choose specific dialogue lines because they are tagged with alignments (like in Pathfinder).

Aren't there still spells, items and such that either affect only targets of specific alignments, or can be wielded/attuned only by characters of a certain alignment? Or do you mean something else by "alignment has become optional"?

Originally Posted by Arhu
Awesome! After reading up on the BG3 EA version, which I'm not really interested in as I'd rather wait for a full release, it does seem that all the rule changes, as they are currently implemented, dilute class identity and diversity too much for my taste. Going to have look for future reference.

Found it: [ https://github.com/ZerdBG3/DnD-Rebalancing ]
And others by the same author: [ https://github.com/ZerdBG3 ]

Thanks for the pointer.

Sorry, I could have given the link. I saw that on Nexus but that's the same mod.

I'm not following BG3 at the moment, early this year there were multiple little differences and what appeared to be a confusion between the different action phases, some bonus actions were put as interaction, some could be played several times, no reactions, and so on. As long as the result is still balanced and not too different, it doesn't really bother me.

Originally Posted by Nereida
Aren't there still spells, items and such that either affect only targets of specific alignments, or can be wielded/attuned only by characters of a certain alignment? Or do you mean something else by "alignment has become optional"?

AFAIK the players are not bound by their alignment in the mechanics of the ruleset. It's mentioned here and there but for the sake of coherency; for example the rules specify that you keep your alignment if you change shape. Maybe some players will frown if they see you play an evil paladin or a chaotic dwarf, but there is no technical limitation.

Originally Posted by vanedor
Funny, I thought 5th edition was very bare in comparison to 3rd or 2nd edition. A lot of things are simplified. You can't specialize in a weapon, for example. Your option when you level up are pretty limited, especially in comparison to 3rd edition.

3E is more complex that 5E, but I don't think 2E (I assume this means Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) is more complex than 5E. Or did you mean something else when you said bare?

Originally Posted by JDR13
You must dislike a lot of battle systems then, because that describes 99% of them.

Yeah, though I'd probably say dislike was a bit too strong a word choice. Maybe passable is better. I find most rpg battle systems passable.

In real time games I don't have time to notice the hit points, but in turn based it is obvious. I find the focus on hitpoints make battles a numbers game, instead of exciting life and death situations.

Some games at least add limb damage or some types of injuries as a bonus. But I wish they'd change it around the other way and have injuries and game effects straight away, and have hit points be a secondary way of losing. Like the sum of many pains or bleeding adding up.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
Yeah, though I'd probably say dislike was a bit too strong a word choice. Maybe passable is better. I find most rpg battle systems passable.

In real time games I don't have time to notice the hit points, but in turn based it is obvious. I find the focus on hitpoints make battles a numbers game, instead of exciting life and death situations.

Some games at least add limb damage or some types of injuries as a bonus. But I wish they'd change it around the other way and have injuries and game effects straight away, and have hit points be a secondary way of losing. Like the sum of many pains or bleeding adding up.

Then you should like the system in Drakensang because tactical use of weapons/skills causing injuiries/wounds can kill enemies much more efficiently than only reducing health…