Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Whats up with the double Nat 1's all the time?

I understand Honour mode is supposed to be more difficult. However, please fix the amount of times I get caught when Astarion is NOT encumbered, has the Gloves of Thievery equipped and using self guidance from the Silver Pendant, Level 5, totaling +10-13 total Slight of Hands with advantage on a skill check that is 1 or below (e.g. -1 skill check challenge) I should NOT get caught 1 out of 15 times. #Frustrated at stupid coding. its supposed to be 1 out of 400 to get a double Nat 1, not 1/15. If it's an Honour thing, then change the damn check to be higher, don't increase the number of times someone gets a double Nat 1. Just like having a 98% chance to hit with advantage, and missing three times in a row. I know from experience that bad rolls in a row do happen, but the amount of crap rolls I get based on the implied statistics of the checks is unfathomable. Fix it PLEASE! My statistics ADD is killing me with this game.

Thanks,

~TTRPGer

Are you using the Karmic Dice option?

From what I can gather, it seems that the setting ironically makes rolls worse and will actually increase the odds of rolling nat 1's.

As far as I'm aware, Honour Mode doesn't affect dice rolls, it only locks you out of reloading so you can't save scum to bypass skill checks. So any undue low rolls would be the fault of other factors such as the aforementioned Karmic Dice option.

Nope, karmic dice are off. Bedides, most people say it doesn't actually matter because they see no difference. For me, the number of nat 1's out weighs any other number I have ever rolled. Is it because of the difficulty level that the dice are skewed so badly? I mean, it's completely horrible.

example:

Number of Nat 1's rolled: 57
Number of 2's rolled: 7
Number of 3's rolled: 6
Number of 4's rolled: 8
Number of 5's rolled: 6
Number of 6's rolled: 7
Number of 7's rolled: 8
Number of 8's rolled: 8
~
Number of 20's rolled: 36

I notice this too. Nat 1s and Nat 20s are grossly over represented in all rolls. It could be simple confirmation bias, but these supposed extremes are far too prevalent to be truly rolled randomly.

Is this a real dataset? If so, why call it an example?
In my opinion, opinions on the randomness of dice are worthless without some good and honest data to back up claims. Something like doing a full playthrough and logging each and every die roll. Seeing how frequently complaints about the dice come up, there should be plenty of demand for a mod that logs die rolls to a CSV file, for example.

So let's do some statistical analysis here, assuming that these are actual values you recorded during a PT and not a hyperbolic number.

Let's frame this as a Bernoulli trial, where a "success" is defined as getting a nat 20 in one instance, and a nat 1 in the other. Given that N=107, we would assume that each outcome should happen five or six times (for simplicity's sake), thus, for a nat 20 or for a nat 1, there should be k = 5 or k = 6 successes, to equal the expected odds of 1/20 ([1/20] * 107 = roughly 5.3).

Instead, for the nat 1, we have 57/107= 0.53; the ratio between expected and observed is 10.6(!!!). For the nat 20, we have 8/107- for a ratio of 1.14.

We can safely conclude that this game is likely not using a fair die in that case, if these are actual values from an actual PT.

This is a serious issue I encountered after patch 5. I even started asking friends who play and they all said their dice roles were terrible after the patch. I tried with and without karmic dice, and I didn�t see a difference. There were times I exited and restarted the entire game because I would literally miss five times in a row with an 85-95 chance to hit with advantage. Other times I�ll roll critical misses over and over. It really seems like there�s something about the dice role coding that changed after patch 5.