I'm disappointed. This game is too easy, when you reach lvl 4 there's no challenge, no strategy, despite the fact that all my characters have only 6 points that opponents endurance, and so have a smaller amount of life than either my character ... Is there a way to balance the difficulty of the game? I finished the basic game, it makes sense to play verbobonc?
Well if you beat the game, meaning killing the Fungus Queen and also the Balor demon along the way, then nothing except the Deities and Demigods quest in Verbabonc will give you any more challenge.
I have played through 50+ times during the years and still find it challenging. You can play without wizard and cleric, or just a smaller party, dont reroll ,save or farm experience. If you play NC you can take on the reactive temples early on.
Did you end up playing 1 sorcerer + 7 rangers? I can only imagine the damage 7 ranger archers do with crafted bows and favored enemy bonuses, manyshot, improved crit, spike growth, entangle, barkskin, and resist energy. Not to mention the spell support from the sorcerer. No wonder you found the Temple lacking challenge. For more challenge, maybe reduce the size of your party and definitely reduce the number of rangers in the group. The most competent single-class solo-adventurer is the ranger, hands down. In first edition rules (on which the Temple was originally based), no more than 3 rangers were allowed to operate together ... probably because of the potential imbalance (lack of challenge) it would otherwise cause. Also remember, the original game (the Temple/Nodes/Zuggtmoy) was capped at level 10.
Hi Corwyn, I can see why the things you list would make a solo Ranger very 'doable', but I'm puzzled as to why you think she would be 'hands down' better than other solo options (notably druids and clerics). Do you also consider a bunch of rangers to be superior to a more balanced party (again, I'm thinking full divine caster types mainly, but a high level rogue with a magic bow and someone to cast improved invisibility has been a recent favourite of mine)? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious. From what I remember, 1st Ed Ranger was a beast (I believe that the 2nd Ed designers described him as a walking tank that could track), though the xp requirements to level and the requisite ability scores made it a hard class to enter. The real killer regarding difficulty in this game vs the 1st Ed original is the power of Fragarrach. Always hits, retaliating against any who have hit you is decent enough. Always hits in a world where the feats Power Attack & Great Cleave exist, and where attacks per round are easily boosted by Haste stackings, and strength and power attack bonuses double for two-handers is another thing altogether.
HI Nightcanon, I appreciate the non-confrontational question. Immediately after posting the last comments, I smacked myself in the head and thought, Someone on this forum is going to call me out for that gaffe for sure. I was referring to a party composition described by Ifrook about two weeks ago in a different thread. I'm curious as to whether that party of 1 sorcerer+7 rangers is the reason for the disappointment noted in the current thread, particularly "no challenge, no strategy" after reaching 4th level -- because after dozens of play throughs and party variations, that has never been my experience. I'm still curious if that kind of seemingly 'unbalanced' party composition actually works better (in terms of beating up all the enemies) in toee than the classic "balanced" party. I can easily see how satisfying it is to role-play an odd/imbalanced character or party -- but some of the 'coolest' builds are not always very effective in terms of successful gaming. (Try playing a solo CN Fighter/Sorcerer and you'll see what I mean.) And, Yes, you accurately picked up my 1st ed bias (it's the only version I ever played, and even that was a loooong time ago) in favor of the ranger class. I will happily admit that 3.5 has done a very good job of leveling the playing field with all the character classes. Every pure class now seems to have a unique strength that can be honed far beyond what any other class possesses -- noting your example of the archery expertise of a high level rogue --which is just one among many successes made possible. And the 3.5 rules allowing for cross-class skills and ease of multi-classing is a very nice option that allows a player to 'build' or create to personal taste, which I really like. So, you are likely correct that in 3.5 a cleric or druid soloist can be just as effective as any other class. It's just that I have never seen a soloist priest-based class or rogue class survive the back-to-back Moathouse Lareth+ambush encounters. They simply lack the consistent offensive ferocity needed. [And in Baldur's Gate, the rogue/thief was the only solo class that couldn't consistently win at the Coronation ceremony ambush without 10+ reloads.] Just sayin' those classes --along with nearly all others-- are very effective within 'balanced' parties where inherent weaknesses are minimized (and strengths created or enhanced--as with your example of a mage casting Greater Inviso on the rogue) by the presence of other classes in the party-- but not as solo characters. Until/Unless they reach 'high level'. But a High-Level Solo Anything isn't the appropriate comparison, because you first have to survive solo at the low levels. Warrior class types survive many low level situations where other classes do not. But pure Warriors, when solo, are severely hampered at high levels by the obvious lack of magic attack and magic defense. The Ranger class (which is effectively a Fighter-Druid hybrid already) has the best balance at both low level and high level, all things considered. No, the Ranger soloist isn't the strongest Fighter at any level, nor the most powerful Nature priest at any level, nor a great Crafter by any stretch of imagination, but the unique combination of ranger abilities makes it -- in my experience-- the solo class most likely to survive a random encounter at any level. The same simply cannot be said of the Druid, Cleric, or Rogue, no matter how effective those classes eventually become at higher levels or within a party situation. To be honest, I've never been successful with party builds of any balance. But I have done well with solo characters. (Freud would have a field day with that confession.) So, I don't feel I can offer competent evaluation of an effective party balance or strategy. But I have lots of gaffe-filled opinions of solo characters ... In terms of ToEE (or any CRPG for that matter), I have a very strong bias against min/maxing or 'meta' gaming (the old table-top gamer in me has never fully embraced COMPUTER RPG). In that respect, I've imposed lots of restrictions on myself that --otherwise allowable by the game engine and even some of the 3.5 rules-- I believe enhance the challenge and strategy of the game. For examples, I don't Craft with wild abandon, and never before 9th level. I never exceed 10th level in any type of class. I don't use Scather (except as an off-hand wpn that also causes me to react dead last --I force myself to lose all initiative). I never 'pre-buff' in anticipation of an encounter. I never extort wealth from the merchants; instead I only 'trade' for what they have in inventory. In short, I enjoy the challenge of evading defeat much more than the concept of dealing utter destruction and massive annihilation to everyone in the realm. Hence my biased comment in favor of Ranger class. But then my personality is such that even when I play city league softball, I enjoy close games that are decided on the last pitch/last at-bat (no matter which team wins), instead of total blow outs and lopsided home-run slugfests.
Play with four or less characters. The game was balanced for five so if you played with eight that would explain why it was so easy.
Hi Corwyn, thanks for the reply. I'd seen the 7 ranger/ 1 sorc party comp elsewhere so I could see where that had come from. I have to say that I haven't played a 'true' solo game before, partly because of the low-level vulnerability you describe (I do know that a party of 3 can get to 5th level by the time they take on Lareth, at which point fireballs make the fight with his guards somewhat easier..). I tend to prefer balanced parties because the tactics are more variable and more interesting- much as I like archers a party full of the is a bit dull (I did a run through with all wizards once and 6 fireballs a round got boring very quickly). I do agree though that metagaming spoils things a bit- I try to keep going beyond the point at wuich I should go and rest up, and buff only in combat or 'carry over' from previous fights. The best fights from me are the tower brigands, revenge Nulb ambush etc because they are sprung on you unprepared.
Nightcannon, So true, the ambushes are fun challenges, especially the Nulb revenge. That was a kick in the pants the first time, and the randomness keeps it a fresh challenge usually. And unless I arrive at Imeryds Run in sneak mode, I never survive that one. (Sometimes I wish the game engine could be less predictable-- sorta like the old "percentage in lair" from the Monster Manual-- and make all, or most of, the Temple inhabitants into roving, random encounters.) My confession with ToEE is that in order to survive low levels with a solo character, it's necessary to do all (or nearly all) the Homlet quests, totaling almost 6000xp. So, I rarely (other than the opening CN or NG scenarios) engage in any combat until 3rd or 4th level -- which translates into a Fighter2/Sorcerer2 -- in my most recent adventure to survive. Even Welkwood is satisfyingly difficult --and nearly impossible at any level less than that --when solo. One of these days I'm going to have to give it a shot with a party of 3-5.
If you stick to the classic archetypes of Warrior, Wizard, Elf and Amazon, you could run the entire Gauntlet of TOEE with little problem- and great challenges...
