Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I swear....Larian must have implemented a loaded dice

It can't be a coincidence that I get low single digits MUCH more often than rolls above 10. I'm also more than certain that all of you can claim to have gotten 1 many more times than a 20.

A DC10 attack roll...which mathematically works out to be a 50-50 chance, ends up missing 5 times in a row, sometimes more. Can't say i feel bad about scum loading.

Try turning off Karmic Dice in the options and see if that helps. There have reportedly been some issues with the setting, and it's on by default.

Playing a gloom stalker and having 3 90% attacks in a single turn fail feels..well, bad. Alas, RNG is RNG. I still wish "misses" weren't a thing, and instead just had extremely reduced damage like in other rpgs. Seeing a "miss" when a fighter with a battle axe is standing beside a giant dragon or something is stupid.

No karmic dice here. Enemies seem to hit a lot even my ac19 character when they have like a meaisly +5 to hit. Good times.

As a Seldarine Drow Ranger Hunter that dual-wields hand crossbows, I feel your pain

Concerning. I got perfectly normal rolls at the end of early access. I'll have to watch closely from now on

I'm not paying attention too much to the roll since in checks that I have a lot proficiency at I almost never fail unless I roll a nat1.

Start paying attention when rolling checks that my char doesn't have proficiency for.

They definitely have and theres a lot of hidden mechanics that are not displayed.

I save scummed on a firebolt showing 50% chance to land and failed 20+ times in a row before giving up.

Same luck at 55%.

80% fails 4 or 5 times in a row.

75% can fail 10 times in a row.

91% ???? More like the real 50%.

For people that are still convinced this isnt the case, then let Larian prove it by adding options to display combat dice rolls.

I can't complain about the non-combat rolls. If anything, I'd say there are situations where they're loaded in our favor.

Combat is different though. Again I can't complain about the overall outcome, but there seem to be much more extreme rolls than there should be. Two critical misses in a row should be rare, but I've seen a couple of them already. I also had a surprising number of critical hits and one-shots.

I've looked into the combat log to find out about the actual rolls, but while I could find the damage rolls, I couldn't find the to-hit rolls. Aren't they shown somewhere?

Fighting gnolls with karmic dice on, they use that ability that allows them to fire their bow three times and its crit, crit, hit.

It is ok to miss 20 times in a row with unweighted dices. Because each throw of the dice is a 50:50 and bad rows happen. It would be suspicious to have other than about 50:50 rolls after 10.000 trials or so. Playing without Karmic Dice, like I do, increases your chances to miss or hit in rows considerably. Of course I have the feeling that I miss much more often than I hit and that I critically miss too often. It's a feeling till there are proofs by big numbers of throws that something is wrong.

The current roll is entirely independent from the previous roll. Thus it doesn't matter what you previously rolled for the purpose of knowing what you're going to roll. That you have rolled 1 ten times in a row doesn't mean you're due for a roll that is not 1. Having rolled 1 ten times in a row, it is no more or less probable to roll 1 an eleventh time than it is to roll 7 or 15 or 19. Any series of 11 specific values in a specific order is exactly as probable as rolling eleven 1's in a row.

In order to test if a d20 is actually unbiased, we need to record thousands of rolls and check that the trend over time is for all results to come up equally. Testing whether a d20 is truly random... Now that's not fun at all, because what does "random" actually mean? But as it happens, we know that Larian's implementation is not actually truly random, it's merely pseudo-random to a degree that immitates random well enough.

I understand that outliers exist, but the rolls do feel strange. Seeing so many critical misses in a row, for example, or just plain misses compared to hits when considering the percentage chances... it feels questionable.

I'm speaking specifically about tactician mode without karmic dice. If I had to guess, I'd say something is rigged in the background somewhere.

I'm a big believer in stats and human biases, but for me the rolls in BG3 definitely feel bad. There have been countless times where I've rolled multiple rolls in a row under 4, often with advantage. Of course, this is likely just be confirmation/negativity bias, where I'm only noticing the negative events and not the times I've rolled multiple >16s in a row. However, it could also be a real problem with Larian's rng.

In order to test the actual randomness of a d20, you need >500 rolls. >1000 is preferable. If someone(s) wants to sit down and record their rolls, I'll happily perform statistical analysis on them. If a few people each do 200 rolls then those data sets can be combined. The most useful dataset is a continuous string of rolls (don't reload the game) where each roll is recorded in order of appearance, ideally all against the same or similar target DCs/ACs. And of course, note whether you're using Karmic Dice or not.

I am playing without karmic dice, and there are no issues. Just normal chance and probability. And I am a dungeon master. I roll lots of dice. I know how crazy normal probability can be (I’ve rolled 3 20s in a row more times than I can remember). But still, BG3 has been quite conventional with its probability distribution. Can’t speak to how the karmic dice are, but without, dice rolls are definitely fine.

Ok, have any of you had any contact with Indian Burial grounds or Romani people?

Yeah the dice feel wonky. Not sure what is up. I will check with ex-girlfriends to see if any put a voodoo curse on me.

I can't say I've noticed anything weird about the dice rolls. I do miss a lot, but that makes sense, since I often only have like a 55% or 65% chance to hit. If anything, it feels like I'm hitting a lot of DC10 ability checks - but that could just be a biased feeling because you then add all your bonuses to the roll, and therefore pass far more than 50% of DC10 rolls.

Hitting 9 or less 5 times in a row is a 1 in 54 chance my dude. It will happen.

I was playing Magic the Gathering the other night (neeeerd) and my buddy was using a coin flip deck. He won 22 coin flips in a row calling heads or tails. 22. With a real American 50 cent JFK coin. Probability evens out on a big picture scale, but sometimes looks crazy in the moment.

It’s also worth remembering that there is a particular type of selection bias in games like this. If you have a less than 50% chance to complete a roll, you probably won’t even bother. You would almost certainly succeed on as many 10% chances as you fail on 90% chances, but you never attempt a 10% chance success action, so you only see failures on the 90% successes.

Not saying that the RNG definitely isn’t broken, but I see this exact same topic in every game that uses RNG, and it is never the game. It is just that some people getting unlucky is a statistical inevitability.

most devs are known for cheating. they don't play fair. they even probably has an internal hidden enemy advantage which they don't tell us.