-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
@Lyraele
For my builds, I use Epic Point Buy, which is like standard point buy except you have a pool of 35 points to spend and the maximum allowed point buy for any given attribute is 17 rather than 15. I prefer this to standard point buy, which I think just feels bad in the sense of basically forcing you to take ASIs instead of feats for most builds, and feats are simply more fun, in general. I do not care for standard or epic array, as the number of odd-numbered attributes you end up with just sets my nerves on edge at all the wasted attribute allocation points sitting there doing nothing for the character. I also dislike rolled attributes, because that tends to result in very weak attributes or strong attributes above what even epic point buy will get you. For most characters, I strive to have them hit the cap of 20 in a primary attribute by level 8, and generally hope to do so via a half-feat rather than ASI because for the most part, feats are more fun and with the 12 level cap, the most feats you could get are 3 (possibly 4 with really heavy investment in fighter or rogue class levels) and with any multiclassing (hold that thought for a moment) it’ll probably be more like 2 (and occasionally even 1) so you’ll never have as many feats as you’d like, in general. A different approach to getting to have more feats is "feat at 1st". This is arguably more powerful than epic point buy, so if you go the feat at 1st route, I suggest sticking with standard point buy (this is what @Esker uses) as Epic Point Buy plus feat at 1st is pretty strong stuff and may give you a bit of a dull experience as you gleefully smash all opposition without consequence.
The UB mod has options for unlocking the level cap so you could build all the way to 20, and it also has options that let you choose to get ASIs anytime you get a feat, as well as a further option to get additional feats and ASIs at level 2/6/etc. I do not recommend using any of these options unless you are really looking to embrace your inner Munchkin (which is totally cool if that’s what you are into).
Finally, I also use UB mod’s settings for flexible lineage (aka racial) attributes and flexible backgrounds. I like these as they are consistent with the Tasha-era changes to 5e tabletop, and allow one to pick the appearance one prefers without forfeiting too many mechanical advantages (that said, most builds have a mechanical edge by being either a Sylvan Elf or a Half-elf). Flexible backgrounds I like for much the same reasons, and let’s face it the Spy background is cooler than the Lowlife background so why should I be stuck with taking Lowlife in order to use Thieve’s Tools proficiently when a Spy ought to be able to use those, too?
For game settings, I prefer to use "authentic" difficulty along with "deadlier" and "merciless" AI options. I find that does a reasonable job of letting the AI be a not-completely-hapless strategist without turning combat into a chore. I do not recommend Scavenger or especially Cataclysm difficulty as I feel those "enhanced difficulty" settings are really just artificial difficulty and not really tactically interesting. At Scavenger level, the HP bloat makes fights take longer than I would like, and the increased damage taken forces more resting than I would prefer in order to recover (those splash screens for short and especially long rests are super time consuming). At Cataclysm level, this becomes even worse, with the added caveat that the damage scaling is such that you really don’t have much choice but to avoid melee and focus the party on heavy control/disables with a splash of ranged damage to whittle away at the locked down opposition. So, in my opinion (and experience), "authentic" difficulty with "deadlier AI" does the best job at providing a reasonably effective opposition in combat, without making it feel like a slog, or forcing a very limited set of builds. The use of "merciless AI" adds a little bit of extra risk, as it forces you to expend resources to make sure no one stays on the floor too long, or risk the "game over" screen (the "merciless" AI prioritizes trying to kill any unconscious player characters).
One of the great things about Solasta, in my opinion, is the fact that you (the player) aren’t just a singular character, you are the entire party (at least in single player, with multiplayer this changes a bit, more on that later). So every member of the party is of your design and will perfectly coordinate as you desire during the adventure without any debate from other pesky humans who may have conflicting ideas of what to do and how to do it. This makes it much simpler to build the party in ways that individual characters can synergize with other characters, or be able to more niche/specialized builds because the other party members can be built to fill in gaps, and every character doesn’t have to be a generalist.
I generally favor a "balanced" party. And there are few dimensions to this. First, there’s kind of an idea of party roles, which is to say what functions a given character is trying to provide to the party. And one of the tenets of a balanced party is to cover as many of those roles as possible in order to have more options for dealing with whatever happens during the adventure. A specialized party, by contrast, will tend to choose a particular strategy and their focus is on being able to reliably and efficiently execute that strategy. Both approaches can work, it’s mostly a matter of preference (though Cataclysm will limit the number of strategies that are effective thus mostly forcing a less balanced and more specialized playstyle). Second, there’s the whole "how do we hand out loot?" aspect of a party. Because who doesn’t like weapons, armor, and cool magical toys? So if your entire party needs heavy armor and shields and no one needs robes… well, you may have a problem keeping everyone in their preferred gear. So having some diversity of armor (clothes vs light vs medium vs heavy), weapons, spell focii, casting attributes, attack attributes, etc it is far more likely you’ll be able to effectively spread the loot around. And lastly, even though Solasta doesn’t particularly emphasize them (it’s first an foremost focused on the combat), exploration and social/dialogue scenarios are a thing, so having characters that are competent at those non-combat tasks is useful (at least in most adventures). So coming up with parties composed of characters that can effectively utilize whatever loot we find (that armor was just lying there in the ground when we got here, I swear) and has multiple options for approaching a given in or out of combat situation, is something I personally find interesting to do.
In multiplayer, this all still applies, except you need be courteous to your fellow players and don’t try to push your preconceived notions of what the party should be on the other players. And strive hard not to fall into "main character syndrome", everyone is there to have fun and have moments in the spotlight, so do what you can to insure everyone (including but not exclusively yourself) is having a good time (this is very much like actual tabletop etiquette).
For individual characters, my main goal is generally to have a concept for a character and decide what party roles said character will fulfill. And then I try and work out how to build an optimized (not necessarily optimal, but optimized within the bounds of the character concept) character that fits the concept while performing those roles. And sometimes the concept is one favored by the rules and mechanics and you are just making an objectively strong character, and sometimes the concept is not well supported by the rules and mechanics and you are making the best build you can that is true to the concept. What I dislike is making an intentionally weak (sabotaged?) character by picking bad starting attributes (casters that take 8 in their casting attribute "for fun"), or weak feats (lockbreaker?!?), or based on a disruptive gimmick (mostly a multiplayer concern, but something like the (in)famous Devil’s Sight plus Darkness combo).
So what do I see as the main party roles? There’s several, in no particular order:
- face/negotiator - the party member(s) with conversational skills for when those come up
- striker or blaster - single target elimination (aka "single target DPS"), can come in ranged weaponry, melee weaponry, or magical variants
- AoE - "area of effect" meaning damage to multiple enemies at once (note that focused fire and control are generally stronger than AoE, but it still has a place!)
- controller/debuffs - locking down or disabling enemies allowing the rest of the party to focus fire enemies one at a time while the rest are controlled (not that many classes can simultaneously be controller and AoE and even blasters)
- buffs - support by making allies stronger/tougher/faster/invisible/etc
- heals - this is mostly about getting downed allies off the floor so they can get their attacks in before hitting the floor again, but also preventing needing the services of the rezzer
- rezzer - this is who prevents a party loss from being game over
- scout - the (usually stealthy and perceptive) party member that can run ahead and map out the location (prevents the more clumsy/clunky members from causing the party to get ambushed) as well as find and/or disable traps along the way
- lockpicker - gotta have someone that can open doors and chests reliably
So in any given party, I generally will try and have at least single coverage for every role. And for some roles, preferably double coverage. Which isn’t always possible, but can be done with some regularity because many character builds can cover multiple roles (for example, one of the best striker builds is also a fantastic scout and lockpicker). Note that I didn’t include a "tank" role. Because, practically speaking, MMO-style tanking hasn’t ever really been a thing in D&D ever and really isn’t a thing in 5e. But it’s a commonly used term, that generally implies a sturdy character that can heal and/or buff and/or rezz with a side of striker.
For example, the "classic" D&D party is a balanced party. It features:
- Fighter (melee striker)
- Cleric (buffs, debuffs, heals, rezz, melee striker)
- Rogue (melee or ranged striker, scout, lockpicker)
- Wizard (controller, blaster, AoE)
Other balanced party compositions are possible, and even often more effective than the classic party, but the classic is a classic for a reason, it pretty handily covers every role with 4 characters. Specialized parties will tend to pick a narrower range of roles, but have more characters covering that role, and often in ways where the overlaps amplify one another in effect. So it’s a thing, and it can be quite effective, I just rarely do it. It is an exercise for the reader to decide what their individual tastes in character and party building are, do what is fun for you, we’re here for the fun.