Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Game Balance : Melee is terrible

thx, interesting tidbit..I knew both were important in ranged combat but was not all too sure how perception fit in

@dirigible
YOU are [...] lie about things and try to put others DOWN he or she also has no [...] clue that CHANCE TO HIT and perception HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER AT ALL. CHANCE TO HIT IS ALL THAT MATTERS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HIT A TARGET...NOT accuracy..not perception...CHANCE TO HIT ONLY.

Not sure why you keep on trying to say or even think that a 49% chance to hit can be turned into something higher by boosting accuracy because it doesn't and never will.

I'm also not sure why you cannot grasp that If you only have a 49% chance to hit, you can have 500000000000 points in accuracy and you will never go above a 49% chance to hit and you will still almost always miss. The only way to get that 500000000000 accuracy to do any good is by making your chance to hit % higher which can only be done by putting more points into Dexterity.

The [users] in here don't get that if you have a shitty % chance to hit you won't ever hit the target no matter how accurate you are because they don't grasp a simple concept, accuracy isn't what allows you to HIT a target...THE CHANCE TO HIT IS WHAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT.

How well you aim has absolutely nothing to do with nor does it affect whether or not you can hit the target.

And to end any further debate on this, go ahead try and hit a target behind a wall. Yeah you have great accuracy but 0% chance to hit which just proves me right.

Reposting in this thread because I like proving tx3k wrong.
My ranger has 11 Dex and 10 Per. Not amazing, but not bad.

My ranger's chance to hit at point blank against an opponent of the same level.
As you can see, my chance to hit is 79%. Not bad. I'll hit about 4 out of 5 times.

My ranger's chance to hit far away from the same opponent.
Due to range, my chance to hit has gone down to 69%. Not as good.

My ranger's chance to hit far away from the same opponent with 1 more point in Perception.
Increasing my perception increases my chance to hit at long range from 69% to 71%. Not a lot, but every little bit helps.


The most obnoxious thing about tx3000 is that all the things he whines about are so easy to disprove, he just doesn't bother to check. Or he's trolling. Or hell maybe he's got some mental impairment.

I know, but its fun to watch him rage. Now back to my game where the Ranger and rogue are carrying the damages.

Dirigible you're saying DEXTERITY DOES NOT INCREASE chance to hit and the interface information when you hover the mouse cursor over dexterity and it says right on it, increases Chance to hit is false and the developers are lying?

I mean that is exactly what you're saying.

You're only making yourself look retarded because all someone has to do is open the game and hover their mouse over Dexterity and Accuracy and see that you're lying and wrong.

Really? Is that what I said? I thought I said

Hey, I did say that! I guess you just can't read...

Where are you seeing that your chance to hit is only 49%? Can you please post a screenshot?

No you didn't say that..

First of don't try and weasel out of this and change the subject, this is about Dexterity based weapons and chance to hit nothing else...so nice try...on that...Didn't work though..

And you should try learning to read before telling others they need to read, Dexterity actually says increases the chance to hit with Dexterity BASED WEAPONS...NOT Chance to hit with BOWS as you have claimed.

And you keep on wedging in ACCURACY into archery when it doesn't belong. When it come archery Accuracy does not change your chance to hit so stop trying to say it does because your wrong!

Go to page 9 of this thread. Scroll down to the very last post.
Now try reading it.

I've already posted concrete evidence that I'm right, you're just being obtuse at this point.

Except what you're saying isn't correct


I want you to go take a screenshot of you're great accurate archer with the stat screen open aiming at an enemy behind a wall slightly sticking out where it will say a very low % CHANCE TO HIT. You will see that your accuracy remains exactly the same and doesn't matter one bit because you have a 1% chance to hit. YOUR ACCURACY IS OBSOLETE AND HAS NO IMPACT ON CHANCE TO HIT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

And don't bother try to deflect what I'm saying and make this make this about the enemy being behind a wall because this is about and has to do with do with the % chance to hit and not where the enemy is.

Which proves what you're saying is incorrect you somehow got it into your head that because you have good aim, it somehow affects your chance to hit a target and it doesn't. You still fail to accept that having a high accuracy means NOTHING if you have ZERO % or low chance to hit the target.

My wall explanation above cannot be argued with because it proves everything.

*tr駸 mignon* the way he thinks that because he says his explanation cannot be argued with, it actually is true.. They grow up so fast

ON-topic now:



but..but..pumpkiiin

It IS about that, because your chance to hit doesn't diminish, it is in fact at that moment applied to the wall in question ergo you have 100% chance to hit the wall

Except your wall isn't the target so quit being a smartass.. and because of dirigible, people are being fed incorrect information because he's saying accuracy helps you hit the target which is false. There is a very clear distinction between Dexterity and accuracy and what they do and the roles they play.

This is how the game works:
DEXTERITY determines your chance to hit with Dexterity based weapons which means being able to hit the target.

ACCURACY determines how well you can AIM at a target. Accuracy only comes into effect once it's determined if you can even hit the target and does not play any roll in determining whether or not you can hit your target in the first place...The game is very clear in these differences

People somehow think that because you're accurate you're able to hit your target...and that is 100% wrong. Being able to hit your target comes from Dexterity and nothing else.

In old school D&D the wizards ability to do damage and lockdown enemies was rather constrained due to the huge saves (for the smart player magic was still a win button, but not through straightforward effects which act directly on the opponents).

When you put a ranged AoE caster on even damage footing with a melee, give him a large hp pool (compared to AD&D) and allow him to lockdown enemies with ease balance goes out the window.

I'd say the game as it stands is more like 3e D&D than old school

I'll ask again tx3000, where does it tell you the 49% Chance to hit? Will you please post a screenshot.

Others have posted a screenshot where the % shown for the target is adjusted based on both Dex & Perception. You gave thus far shown nothing.

Fair enough, pen and paper rpg's in general then. I didn't mean to imply its balanced around a specific version of DnD.

Well I think his point is that 3e D&D (at least 3.5) was notorious for having brokenly overpowered mages. Most notably, you could make a level 6 Kobold wizard who was essentially a god (google pun-pun).

Prior and later editions of D&D were more balanced, and most other pen and paper rpgs have more of a balance as well.

If you took the original classes in first and second editions of AD&D, and applied them to the rules now they'd be outrageously overpowered.

40 hours into the game and I disagree with the topic's title. Warriors not only have excellent crowd control (being able to knock enemies down) but can increase their damage with the rage skill. My warrior can do around 500 damage in total with an ordinary strike, meanwhile his buffing skills and knock down abilities actually makes him the guy who is essential to my group's success. Magic is all well and fine but the fireball does less damage than a whirlwind attack I find.

People forget this is a party based game though. The wizard is more versatile (thanks to being able to have a crap load of spells and elemental magic) but has less health and defense than the warrior who can tank and withstand attacks. The idea is that classes are meant to complement one another and most often in RPG's, the wizard by late game, has so many spells to use as opposed to the abilities of the other classes.

Optionally, just mix and match skills instead of going for a pure mage or warrior. I've given my warrior some magic spells which can stun the enemy or weaken them. My ranger has the charm skill, an archer skill which is OP if you ask me (as it can turn powerful foes against their allies or just allow your group to wail against them - if they're the last guy standing - without them doing anything for three rounds and when it runs out, I've got two warriors who can perform the knock down fist attack). I find myself without a magic companion because these other abilities can just as well incapacitate a whole group.

I think warriors are finely balanced and I play on hard. The ONLY thing I would maybe change is reduce the movement penalty for armor as if you cant do charge it takes a lot to move. My rogue is my damage (excluding summons)

I think melee is terrific...;) I especially love the "ram" move for my warrior (still using Madora)--it's one of my favorite combat plays. Then there's learning how to use the most effective weaponry--crushing weapons are devastating against skeletons, etc. I enjoy using two melee fighters (fighter and a ranger) and two spell casters--what's really cool is the "ram" capability is exactly like giving a melee fighter a "ranged" capability. He (Madora) can close with combatants in an eye-blink over healthy distances to deal a powerful blow--and from then on he's right where he needs to be to melee fight!

I think it's very sad, but some people simply don't want to learn how to play a game--instead, they keep trying to change the game to be congruent with the rules in some other game...that's really kind of pitiful, as they lose so much enjoyment that way.