Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Build Discussion my perfect party that kill everything

Advantage is not 1 from 20 though. You roll 2 dice and take the higher of the 2. The probability of something happening is the same as 1 minus the probability of it not happening. So the probability of rolling a 20, with advantage, is equal to 1- the chance you don't roll a 20.

On 2 dice, the chance the 1st one isn't a 20 is 19/20. The chance the 2nd die isn't a 20 is 19/20. The chance of both happening at the same time is thus 19/20 * 19/20, or 361/400, which is it say .9025, or 90.25%. Thus the chance you *do* roll a 20 is 1-.9025, or .0975, or 9.75%.

The chance of getting an 18/20 or higher on two dice, and thus getting a crit with a crit range of 18-20 when you have advantage, is (1 - (17/20 * 17/20) ) = (1 - (289/400)) = (1 - .7225) = .2775, or 27.75%.

That was done by hand and took all of a minute, it's simple math anyone should be able to do. You don't need a dice probability calculator, but if you do, anydice.com can help you out. I know exactly how good Savage Attacker is, because I can do the math to calculate the effects. I also know not to over invest in how something *feels* and to accept how it actually is instead. I don't need a 95%+ accuracy, I want to minimize the amount of total actions needed to take out the targets in question. Sometimes that means prioritizing accuracy over damage, and sometimes it means the opposite. Either way, I assure you, I'm in no danger of losing due to bad luck.

that why is so OP cause you almost never do minimal damage, its anti rng shit when 2h weapons have big minimal damage

i guess you never played game like this and dont know how OP is rolling 2 dices insted of one and getting higher resultat

antything that work anti rng is s tier here more accuary is wroth much much more than raw damage cause rng sucks balls, the less rng there is the better this game become, there is ni fucking point miss all the time or do minimal damage

if you dont have anti rng tolls game always tell you miss or do shity dmg like fire bolt 2-20 always do 1-4 dmg cause rng is shit in this game

The amount of benefit you gain from a reroll though is directly proportional to the amount of variance you expect in the first place. A reroll on a D4 moves the expected average from 2.5 to 3.13, a gain of .63. A reroll on a d8 moves the expected average from 4.5 to 5.81, a gain of 1.31. A reroll on a D20 moves it from 10.5 to 13.82, a gain of 3.32. It's actually better than that though - since your d20 determines what the *outcome* is - as you've said, a miss = 0 damage. Consistently hitting rather than missing has a *huge* impact. It also determines when you crit - critting 27% of the time instead of 15% of the time, just by leveraging the mechanics of the game and using advantage, is a large benefit.

Meanwhile though the damage reroll only determines the outcome if the additional damage kills them while otherwise they would not have died. Otherwise they take damage either way, it's just a matter of how much, so the benefits are far more incremental. Furthermore the benefits decrease as the size of the die pool increases, so your proportional benefit dies off as you increase the total damage figures, whether adding additional static modifiers or more dice.

The point being that you can have more damage *and* more accuracy, by combining advantage (for accuracy) with ways to leverage that more favorable probability curve into small decreases in some of the gained accuracy for a large damage bonus. If you need a 5 to hit, 80%, and you switch to having advantage, 96% to hit, you can take a -5 to hit *and still be at the 80% you started with*.

As far as RNG being "shit" or providing results other than the expected outcomes based on large sample sizes, I have not observed any evidence of this. Do me a favor, cast firebolt 100x at targets where it should do 2-20. Look in the combat log, and record each damage amount. Toss the results back, and we'll see what the average is. If it's 2.5 instead of 10.5 as expected, I'll do the same. If there's a legitimate issue with RNG let's find it and prove it so Larian can fix it. I've gotten results consistent with expectations though - if attacking at 65%, I'll hit twice for every time I miss. When using Firebolt I'll get an 8 on the die as often as I get a 2. But hey why take my word for it? Test it yourself, let us know how it goes.

That's exactly why all of his posts are against your vision here (your and other's) : all of his points are based on the idea that having 80% chance to hit is utterly bad because that means you'll miss most of the time because the RNG of this game is skewed. He may have had a bad string of miss one or two times (as we all do) and concluded that. He is purely playing with affect instead of maths.

Anyway, you should stop arguing, his posts are just full on toxic (especially on the bard post) and you are taking to much time to provide maths and full explanations to someone who doesn't want to hear it and won't change his mind whatsoever.

this is simple math that accuary always is better than raw damage,
you think why everyone stacted accuary in final fantasy ARR on begin insted damage materia ? even healers used accuary materia insted anything

wow ? same every one stacked accuary in 1st place

many others mmos showes that accuary is most needed stat for dps and 2nd are crits than raw damage

and yes 95% is better with less raw damage than 70% cause miss is 0 dmg and 0 crit

same story in aion 3.0 i stacked magic def and if some not stacked accuary could never ever CC and missed all the time with magic, my magic res summoner just rekt evey1 cause i was basicly immune to CC expect dps tree sorc with accuary buff

Yep so if you had 90% accuracy and were doing 30 damage, with the choice of wearing one of two rings:
+1 to hit, so now you’re at 95% accuracy
+100 damage, so now you’re at 130 damage

It’s your opinion that based on simple math everyone should pick that +1 to hit, since accuracy is always better?

you rolled 2, 0x130 = 0

and with 95% if you roll 2 its 120 dmg, 10 less from gwm that mean your dps is higher with better accuary

No, with 95% it would be 30 damage. Can you not even follow the scenario setup?

Average damage would be 30*.95 or 28.5, and over the course of 20 attacks you would deal 570 damage.

With the +100 damage ring, your average damage would be .9*130 or 117 damage. Across 20 attacks you would deal 2340 damage.

The fact that you think a +1 to hit ring is better there over +100 damage, *and* can’t even keep track of only 4 facts in play (your initial damage, initial accuracy, and what each of the rings do) means that frankly you’re not worth talking to.

I have trouble believing such a response is genuine, and whether it is it is not I consider a rudimentary understanding of math and logic a prerequisite for meaningful discourse. So someone who fundamentally lacks them or someone who pretends to, either way that isn’t someone In interested in conversing with. I’ll be ignoring your posts in the future, best of luck, you’ll need it.

no you just cant understood that accuary protect you from doing 0 damage

again you do more damage with 95% than 70 acc with +10 attack

with 60-70% you basicly miss all the time, on lower levels my fighter, monk , paladin have 60% acc and they are useless cause miss all the time, that why barb is much more powerfull with reckless atack on lower levels and fighter or paladin is better than barb on higher levels when you get item like risky ring

60% acc ? miss miss miss misss fuiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

from tatical point of view its fucking annoying if you miss, you cant take down fast primary targets like rangers and mages that will rekt your ass or enemies paladins who rekt your ass with smites where blade ward not works

also hard cap for accuary should be 100% insted 95% if i miss on 95% i want throw away my pc through window, missing in that scenerio is not my fault but game fault in tatican perseptive i did nothing fucking wrong the game say fuck you in that scenerio

I can't really tell if Dynia is a troll, but he's got a point prioritising accuracy over damage (up to a point), due to the limited health of the mobs. An extreme example to illustrate, 100% hitroll for 10 damage would be better in BG3 than 1% hitroll for 2,000 damage even if the latter has a higher expected damage over time. This is even more important since damage affects concentration, so misses may leave your party incapacitated for longer.

Yeah, that point has never been denied. It's just that up to a certain hit chance, enhancing raw damage by using GWM or sharpshooter is a real bonus, that's what has been argued and opposed from him without any maths to back it up.

What you're referring to there is the effect of overkill, and to some extent you're not wrong, it's not 'average damage' you want to maximize, it's not 'accuracy' you want to maximize, it's 'average number of actions to kill' which you want to minimize. But that's actually a feature of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter as well, due to how they toggle.

Simplistically, let's look at the ring options presented. Indeed for targets of 30 HP or less the +5% accuracy, moving from 90% to 95% is better, since it's (number of attacks to kill divided by accuracy) 1.05 average attacks to kill them instead of 1.11. But for targets greater than 30 health, let's say something at 50 health, it's 2.10 average attacks to kill with the +1 accuracy ring (since you need to hit twice at 95% accuracy) vs 1.11 average attacks to kill with the +100 damage ring. Put another way, you need 16 enemies with 30 or less health for every enemy with 40+ health for the better accuracy to be 'worth it' on average. If you have an enemy with 110 health, that's still just 1.11 average attacks with the huge damage ring, or alternately 4.21 attacks with the + accuracy ring.

So yes, depending on the enemy distribution, it *can* be better to focus on accuracy, since overkill is a thing, and dealing more damage than they have health isn't helpful. That has its limits of course, and certainly does not make improved accuracy *universally* better, especially when the disparity is as large as it is. But as referenced before, you can toggle it. So looking at a more common example from the early game - A level 4 Thief Rogue has Sharpshooter, and has 16 Dex, +1 hand crossbows, the bracers of Archery, and has Bless and Advantage since they have good party support. They have a mix of targets, such as hyenas and Gnolls. The hyenas have 7 HP each, meaning guaranteed they would be taken out in 1 hit without Sharpshooter. The Gnolls have 18 HP, and need a 7 to hit without Sharpshooter (91%), or a 12 to hit with Sharpshooter (70%).

The Gnolls you use Sharpshooter, since you go from 2.19 average attacks needed, with a guarantee it'll take 2 attacks to get it done, to 1.42 average attacks needed. Meaning you go from taking out at most 1 per turn with your 3 attacks, to on average taking out 2 of them and missing 1, with bad luck most often meaning you miss twice (only happens a bit over 10% of the time), and taking out one anyway, which is again an equal for the *best case* otherwise. Good luck meaning you hit all 3, taking out 3 targets (happens roughly 1/3 of the time), doing the work of at minimum 2 turns otherwise.

When targeting the Hyenas or other targets where the additional damage is overkill, or if say you were attacking a Harpy maintaining concentration where breaking it was the most important objective, you just turn off Sharpshooter! This means you have the flexibility to focus on what's important to you. As important as the consideration of concentration if not more, damage does nothing in BG3 on its own unless it results in a kill. Whole targets being taken out is what matters most, and being able to adjust your damage and accuracy to achieve that, in the way that best fits the situation at hand, is a tremendous boon baked into GWM and Sharpshooter.

Outside of the context of those particular feats, yes, consistent damage matters, but the most important impact it has is in minimizing the amount of whiffs you have and thus how quickly targets get taken down. Getting to damage breakpoints where you reduce the number of hits needed is just as important, and balancing those considerations is how you can make your characters as effective as possible, and make the most of the actions they have available to them. It will never be better overall to take a +1 to hit ring over a +100 damage ring in the context of BG2, I can promise that with utter confidence.

i never consider myself a troll, i consider myself as manipulator and dark psychology master or new word used is psychology now "dark emphath" if you will