Max level is TEN?! XDDD

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Okay, seriously, are you joking? As soon as I found out that the Max Lv is 10 I just Alt+F4 the game. There is 0 motivation to go on. Basically atm at the spot where you give up the crown and I don't see any reason to continue.

A. I did not plan to play half of four characters, so the builds aren't having what I would have given them otherwise and
B. Who in the everliving f*ck thought it would be fun to play a DnD game that has no progression???

Guess why effectively every game in the genre makes it super-hard to level cap? Because then you have finished the progression and the fun things one looks forward to from leveling up. I was really eager and invested to see how the high-level spells would look like and planned strategies ahead, but instead it's what? Either 50 more quests with 0 progression or a couple story quests that let the whole thing fizzle out.

I have never been more aggressively disappointed in a game, because no game managed to make such a great comeback from awful first impressions only to then sh*t the bed with such gusto XD

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Gorgeous_Joe:

I blame WoW for people expecting infinite levels

Back in the day, getting to be a lvl 9 fighter and i ruled the D&D world......even bought a small castle but that was a long time ago.....

I was in a campaign where we were regarded as demigods at Lv3, simply because we were the first humans who regained "classes" after hundreds of years. It was fun, sure, but because we were "overpowered" compared to normal people and had to deal with threats that nobody was prepared for.

And honestly? The more I think about it, the more Solasta looks like the first act of Pathfinder Kingmaker. You run around, collect McGuffins and face a boss. Except KIngmaker starts properly at that point and I guess I expected the same from this game.

Shouldn't have expected quality or quantity after one look at the UI and my character's face to begin with.

Originally posted by bbii:

Originally posted by Faray:

I don't get the back in the day crowd. There's plenty of old school rpgs that had a higher than 10 level cap. Maybe not D&D games, but they are out there.

Don't get me wrong I get why this goes to 10 and that's fine, but this isn't an 'old school only' thing.

W're not really saying that old school RPGs didn't go beyond level 10. Just that after level 10 (especially D&D) you got into much higher level adventures than video games deal with.
A level 9 fighter would have 20-100 Infantry under them.

It wasn't a cap. It was power levels and most adventures were around that level. That is why Tomb of Horrors was made, for high level adventures.

What are those mythical "video games"? Icewind Dale 2 had 30 as its max lv. Planescape Torment had no level cap at all. PoE1 goes up to 12, but luckily they've learned from their mistakes and PoE2 has a cap of 20. Baldur's Gate 2 goes up to 40.

And the reason why there are only so many adventures made for high level is twofold. First off - your goal is to sell as many of those as possible. People tend to buy pre-made stuff when they start out or just want to have a chill ride. Secondly you can't make an out-of-the-box adventure that fits every high-level party. They are way too specialized for that.

You have to tailor the high-level adventures to your players, both thematically and mechanically. They, at that point, already have story, NPCs they dealt with, specific perks and quirks acquired. That what makes those adventures so fun to begin with.

Originally posted by Lockfågel, the Paradox Knight:

Originally posted by Hex: Onii-Chan:

A. I did not plan to play half of four characters, so the builds aren't having what I would have given them otherwise and
B. Who in the everliving f*ck thought it would be fun to play a DnD game that has no progression???

Why would you give your characters things from 1-10 that you didn't expect them to have at 18? That doesn't make any sense. You still clear 1-10 if your level cap is 18. You were playing assuming you'd reach 18, and yet you didn't give them things you'd have given them if they were going to 18... for what reason?

Talk about bad faith arguments. You give characters something you wouldn't give if they had less levels total in preparation for what you want them to look like at Lv20. By that logic no Eldritch Knight or Dragon Disciple would exist, because why pick things at lv1-3 that you won't be using much at Lv20.

[Star Paladin]

I just found this out. My group is lvl 10 and 1/2; I have 5 quests (including more crown quest); and the level cap is 10?!?!?! So, there is really no reason for my group to continue except to play "story mode" for about 2 more levels worth without any rewards or advancement.

[wolfenring2009]

I just think it's too short too short
But if the game's manufacturers decide to bring a dlc, I am willing to pay 50-60 € for each dlc, and that's because it's simply worth it, and then I would be happy to receive a bigger card. new main campaign new side quest and maybe a new class and if it should be very good then level 20 but it has to be balanced with the opponents
I think the game is great and I like to play it again, I also hope that the dungeon maker gets better and that the fan games can replace campaigns

[Piggy]

I don't really see the problem as we were warned?

And isn't level 20 usually like godlike tier on dnd, like paladin becoming an angel.
I guess those who like being overpowered to the max likes that so guess that's fine.

And if we talking about ''no progression'' just cause cap is 10, isn't it the same with 20? Both of them you can't progress after but still do adventures, 20 compared to 10 is just that you're more likely to roll over your enemies without looking.

Not like every enemy can be as high combat rating as it wouldn't make them as special aswell as if enemies scaled with the party's levels you wouldn't feel the ''progression'' that people seem to want.

[zaldaria]

im ok with the level being 10 but i can understand people freaking out over it yes its made this way by D&d 5e standards and to put less stress on the devs all the monster encounters above 10 would be crazy to do for the game but only going to level 10 in a crpg i think dont really work when most xp is by a bar xp system while in pen and paper it all up to the dm which is why i think level 10 campaighs work and are very hard to do in crpg

[RJM]

Originally posted by Hex: Onii-Chan:

Originally posted by bbii:

W're not really saying that old school RPGs didn't go beyond level 10. Just that after level 10 (especially D&D) you got into much higher level adventures than video games deal with.
A level 9 fighter would have 20-100 Infantry under them.

It wasn't a cap. It was power levels and most adventures were around that level. That is why Tomb of Horrors was made, for high level adventures.

What are those mythical "video games"? Icewind Dale 2 had 30 as its max lv. Planescape Torment had no level cap at all. PoE1 goes up to 12, but luckily they've learned from their mistakes and PoE2 has a cap of 20. Baldur's Gate 2 goes up to 40.

And the reason why there are only so many adventures made for high level is twofold. First off - your goal is to sell as many of those as possible. People tend to buy pre-made stuff when they start out or just want to have a chill ride. Secondly you can't make an out-of-the-box adventure that fits every high-level party. They are way too specialized for that.

You are clearly poorly informed about D&D. He is referring to the pen and paper game. Published content for higher level adventurers has always been very rare and has not sold as well as lower level content. Relatively few players get characters up to that level from level 1. The characters die, the groups split up, the DM brings their cmpaign to a conclusion earlier, runs out of ideas or wants a break etc and indeed the answer you provide: you can't make an out-of-the-box adventure that fits every high-level party. They are way too specialized for that.

You are clearly deaf to your own argument for a higher level game.

PoE1 attracted millions of dollars in kickstarter to build a smooth engine and take players to mid-level. DLC raised more money and took it a bit further. They then used the same engine and a lot more pre-sale cash to extend the engine to higher level. They didn't have the finances to jump straight to 20.

Baldur's Gate? Again, it took years of ongoing development and additional funds for an established company to develop their RPG engine to be able to cope with all the different features D&D bring into the game at higher levels (and flatly left out/changed stuff they couldn't handle) BG1 (6/7) + DLC (8) -> BG2 (18-20) + DLC (21+)

Tactical Adventures are a small company writing their own D&D engine from scratch on a tiny budget. They can only dream of having the freedom a budget like PoE1 would give them, let alone the one Larian has to make BG3. They even have to write their own spells, feats and abilitied because they can't use the licenced material. Yet you expect their FIRST game to have more levels in it than Bioware could manage or Larian will manage.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker was hugely ambitious in their effort to make a game going to very high level at first attempt. The history of bugs, patches, changes and dissatisfaction with the last couple of game stages shows that they didn't get it right. I expect Pathfinder 2 will do it better and just maybe it'll come to be seen as a classic. Studios and game engines need that time to iron out the kinks.

[Bramhar]

There will be tons of campaigns. I am very very sure of it because of menu design.

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Piggy:

I don't really see the problem as we were warned?

And isn't level 20 usually like godlike tier on dnd, like paladin becoming an angel.
I guess those who like being overpowered to the max likes that so guess that's fine.

And if we talking about ''no progression'' just cause cap is 10, isn't it the same with 20? Both of them you can't progress after but still do adventures, 20 compared to 10 is just that you're more likely to roll over your enemies without looking.

Not like every enemy can be as high combat rating as it wouldn't make them as special aswell as if enemies scaled with the party's levels you wouldn't feel the ''progression'' that people seem to want.

Yeah, because we all live and breathe kickstarter and obviously this game wasn't released on Steam - it was released on kickstarter. Only for kickstarter backers. Nobody else.

No, we were not warned. The game doesn't tell you and neither does the Steam description.

The second part is bs as well - progression means growing your character in this case. What, do you just reach Lv10-12 during a campaign and tell your GM - "You know what? Think we reached peak excitement! Let us go back to rusty swords and wooden sticks to bonk goblins!!!"

[Digihuman]

For a campaign on its own, level 10 is a fine end point (Curse of Strahd does the same).

What I dislike is they didn't even program in the higher levels, meaning you can't have user-made higher level campaigns at present, and if you do all the optional material and every random encounter, you'll probably reach max level before you even reach the final dungeon.
And they didn't even implement 10th level correctly, with rogues missing their ASI.

Plus, combined with a lack of multiclassing and several missing classes, you really don't have much replayability.

[Deathjester]

Baldur's gate had a level cap of about 7, and that game was good.

[Klauth]

Originally posted by Zzyl_tsw:

Reading is a disappearing skill

This made my day. Comment of the year, really :) Particularly in a D&D game forum.
Have a badge for this, please.

[Redvenge]

Originally posted by RJM:

You are clearly poorly informed about D&D.

How informed he is about tabletop is irrelevant. No video game is an accurate, 1 to 1 representation of the tabletop experience.

5e was "streamlined" to have an anemic advancement system to make it more accessible and speed up combat. In this game, you don't have 3 people waiting on person 4 because he/she is fumbling through the rulebook to lookup what their spell does. If anything, video game adaptations just reveal how stripped down 5e is when someone says "wait, that's it?" at level 10.

Did you post why they don't develop modules past level 12? Let me clue you in: because, it's lame. Earlier editions allowed casters to get silly powerful. Now, they are painfully unfun. You get 1, ONE, spell of 7th, 8th and 9th level per day. More and more "challenge appropriate" uber bads have "legendary saves" which really narrows the options of your one a day "epic spells". You end up spamming level 5 (or lower) spells, totally metagaming the combat so Lord Poopy will expend his/her/it's "legendary saves" and then you can drop world shattering magic. In fact, it's mathmatically better to level your full caster to 17, then take 3 levels of Fighter, because the last 3 levels are trash, including "capstone" abilities.

Wizards has admitted they did very little playtesting at "high level" play. It isn't balanced or fun. Any feeling of "progression" dies at level 16-17. It basically exists for theory crafters to "finally" let their 5 class build semi-function at level 18.

With a computer game, you could theoretically ACTUALLY TEST gameplay after level 10. You could craft encounters and challenges that would be engaging for a single player game. It's not unreasonable to wonder why the developers did not take the opportunity to improve where the table top experience fails, miserably.

However, this has already been answered. The scope of THIS single player experience is level 10. Rather than rage quitting, just open a dialogue with the developers and ask them to make the level cap more visible. Again, I understand why someone would want the devs to take an opportunity to enhance higher level play (where the tabletop utterly failed to do so), but you should probably express your feedback in a more respectful and constructive way.

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Deathjester:

Baldur's gate had a level cap of about 7, and that game was good.

Yeah, it also didn't have as many polygons on characters! Amazing! Bravo! Solasta came out in 2021, I'm judging it by 2021 standards.

Originally posted by RJM:

You are clearly poorly informed about D&D. He is referring to the pen and paper game. Published content for higher level adventurers has always been very rare and has not sold as well as lower level content. Relatively few players get characters up to that level from level 1. The characters die, the groups split up, the DM brings their cmpaign to a conclusion earlier, runs out of ideas or wants a break etc and indeed the answer you provide: you can't make an out-of-the-box adventure that fits every high-level party. They are way too specialized for that.

You are clearly deaf to your own argument for a higher level game.

PoE1 attracted millions of dollars in kickstarter to build a smooth engine and take players to mid-level. DLC raised more money and took it a bit further. They then used the same engine and a lot more pre-sale cash to extend the engine to higher level. They didn't have the finances to jump straight to 20.

Baldur's Gate? Again, it took years of ongoing development and additional funds for an established company to develop their RPG engine to be able to cope with all the different features D&D bring into the game at higher levels (and flatly left out/changed stuff they couldn't handle) BG1 (6/7) + DLC (8) -> BG2 (18-20) + DLC (21+)

Tactical Adventures are a small company writing their own D&D engine from scratch on a tiny budget. They can only dream of having the freedom a budget like PoE1 would give them, let alone the one Larian has to make BG3. They even have to write their own spells, feats and abilitied because they can't use the licenced material. Yet you expect their FIRST game to have more levels in it than Bioware could manage or Larian will manage.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker was hugely ambitious in their effort to make a game going to very high level at first attempt. The history of bugs, patches, changes and dissatisfaction with the last couple of game stages shows that they didn't get it right. I expect Pathfinder 2 will do it better and just maybe it'll come to be seen as a classic. Studios and game engines need that time to iron out the kinks.

I don't see how I am contradicting myself there. A computer game works differently to a tabletop group. A tabletop group will branch and specialize far more than any computer game could allow without hundreds of millions in budget. In a computer game it is controlled environment. If it gives you poison resistance rings at Lv5, it can control if you meet poison enemies at Lv15.

Compared to that players can always declare that they have poison resistance rings now, so they wanna go explore the nearest area with poisonous and venomous creatures. At which point the GM will either have to create one or admit that he gave them something that won't be useful to them but could be sold for some neat cash, or exists for some random, fringe cases in random encounters.

I also don't see how low budget is an excuse. What if they had half the budget? Would the game only go up to Lv5 and cost 20$? PoE 1 & BG1 are the exceptions here, just like Solasta. Every other crpg aims to provide a full experience. Those who don't have the DnD license do that by... not using the DnD system. Tyranny, Numenera, D:OS - those are great games and their leveling system works just fine, even if broken down it might have about as much content as Solasta's.

Why? Because there is no expectation set. Which it is, intrinsically, for a DnD game. Pretty much every modern gamer knows how it works and where it goes and when the progression is supposed to end. So yes, it is disappointing for everybody who wasn't a backer from the get-go.

As for P:K - even with every single bug included that the game had, it was still miles above Solasta. Nobody forced Tactical Adventures to write their own engine. Or use the more exclusive DnD license. They put their priorities on the wrong aspects and have a half-finished game as a result. P:K created a gargantuan campaign with amazing characters, countless classes, subclasses, multi-classing and prestige classes, actual choices with actual consequences, kingdom management "minigame", endless magic items, dialogue trees and like a dozen companions / close NPCs with stories and then kept providing expansions and improvements, like the turn-based mode.

You can argue budget, team size, time constraint, whatever, but five Solastas wouldn't amount for the same amount of content, depth and actual RPG elements that half of P:K does.

[bbii]

Originally posted by Hex: Onii-Chan:

I also don't see how low budget is an excuse.

You can argue budget, team size, time constraint, whatever, but five Solastas wouldn't amount for the same amount of content, depth and actual RPG elements that half of P:K does.

You just proven you have never had to work within a budget or time constraints.
Just remember when you finally do you can never say no.

[v0!d158]

Originally posted by Deathjester:

Baldur's gate had a level cap of about 7, and that game was good.

"... was good."

You are talking about Baldurs Gate , man !

It isn`t just "good" - it is an epic and fantastic adventure .
in the old times it comes out and still today ...

it´s one of the best games ever made ....