Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Several dicerolls for one outcome is bad

Just want to add my support to this.

This is a very good suggestion.




You can play how you want. You don't have the right to tell other players they can't do the same.




I agree with this, but...



Not with this. Tying XP to RNG will create difficulty balancing the game. You'll have players who take what the dice give them and they'll get some XP, and others who will save-scum to pass most or all checks and will get a lot of extra XP. And if you hand out XP for passing skill checks, that incentivizes save-scumming.

The way to handle it is XP not for each individual skill check, but for completing the encounter. The method you use for completing the encounter should not particularly matter, although the reward can vary somewhat based on difficulty.

Yes they are quite aware : there combat system uses percentages.
Which is why most social/dialogue rolls have a base DC of 10 or lower ! If it is higher, it is because they feel that NPC does not want to move on that point.

nb : I see your point though, related to the topic here. But most DC are 10 - your skill bonuses.

There is no better answer to this topic, if as a DM you want the player to fail something then why prolong the frustration? Just make it a 19 or 20 DC, or remove it entirely.

Considering they're not aware how to handle skill checks in a 5e setting, we can't assume they understand how conditional probability works either. Also, it's not their combat system, they're using an evolution of a system created by Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax over 45 years ago, and Larian just has the licensing rights to use them for BG3. Considering how incompetently they've incorporated other aspects of D&D into this game, I am not so sure they actually do understand how to calculate DC checks accurately for difficulty and character skill levels.

This is the correct answer. If Nettie is very, very hard to persuade, make it a DC 25 check.

There is another one in the game, I think with the zhentarim lookout, that is DC 25 - AND IT SHOULD BE, you don't have the password! Sometimes people are very very hard to convince

What would be BETTER is to make it a skill challenge!

This would be the *PERFECT* time to bring your companions in! A skill challenge with you and two companions of your choice getting a check suited to their character. You need to get more successes than failures. That's how to do multiple rolls

Main Character [Persuasion]: Please don't do this, you don't know I'm going to become an Illithid. I deserve a chance to find a cure.

Shadowheart: [Religion]: Sylvanus wouldn't approve of you murdering me because I MIGHT become dangerous, that's the kind of "What if" thinking that human civilization uses to justify any atrocity

Gale [Arcana]: I would have symptoms already if this was a normal tadpole, and I don't, clearly you're lashing out at a thing you don't understand

Lae'zel [Strength* Intimidation]: Try it. I will gut you like a wounded neogi, plantspeaker.

Bingo, this.

You WOULD need to account for a party of entirely custom characters, and multiplayer, but that could be done if the game checks your party for high proficiencies in areas.

They already said that party integration on dialogue is planned, as well as social spells.

Unpopular opinion (it seems), but I actually love the multiple dicerolls in dialogue.

1) It stops me from simply reloading a save to try again. Maybe other players have more willpower to resist savescumming (I salute you), but willpower is my dump stat in real life. If I realize that with one more point, I could've have passed that persuasion roll, and I quicksaved two minutes ago . . . I reload and try again. But if it's several rolls that are tricky, and I only fail at the third, then I'll live with the consequences instead of risking wasting time. Lettingstay dead was the first time I didn't time travel to save a semi-sympathetic NPC.

2) Multiple rolls emphasize that an NPC is extremely unwilling to change their mind--it gives the conversation a different tone, and makes the back and forth feel more like an actual discussion than a simple stat-check. It's more interesting!

3) It makes me feel like a badass when I do succeed at several tricky rolls (like with opening ).

It does the opposite now. I succeeded 3 times in my check to persuade Nettie but bc I failed the last one it meant Jack shit. I was punished and my first 3 checks meant nothing in the end bc I failed one. This isn't a "you failed but you can try again with another check" situation. This is a "you pass but it doesn't count so do another check and if you fail sucks to be you".

2 different things.

That's not a problem everyone has, and the developers should not annoy their players with fake checks for your low willpower's sake.



A high DC would do the same thing. A back-and-forth discussion is not "Intimidation: Success!" ..but not really, do it again, "Intimidation: Success!" ...but not really, do it again, "Intimidation: Success!" ...but not really, do it again,"Intimidation: Success!" ...okay, FINE.

A back-and-forth discussion could have multiple different skill checks which affect the ultimate DC of the final check. That would be even more interesting than "do the same thing again three more times".




Great, but the chance for success is 1% for some of these difficult checks because they're stacked, so few people will see them.

Aren't I a player as well?

I thought it was common knowledge that gamers didn't posses a hive mind . . . but maybe I lost my invite to join the collective. Damnit, this is Chantelle's fifth grade sleepover party all over again. Why am I always excluded??

I also disagree about a single high DC being better, since (for me, personally) it would kill the sense of suspense that the multiple rolls build, which is something I enjoy. Makes my choices have heft. I do feel that multiple convo rolls could be retweaked, however, to encourage player consistency in conversation. For example, if you pass a deception roll--proceeding along that same tangent should make subsequent rolls easier to pass.

I also think this will be less an issue once companions are incorporated better into dialogue, and you're not forced to roll a high-charisma character to pass checks.

Mate I think you're ignoring to math here, a 1% chance to succeed might as well be a guaranteed failure. There are other ways to bring tension in a scene besides rolling dice in a rigged encounter.

Not really (ignoring the math, that is), which is why I suggested that the roll thresholds be tweaked! It is ridiculously hard to pass some multi checks as dialogue currently stands (arguably too hard), especially if not specced a certain way. (I've played the druid grove several times and not once managed to convince Nettie not to attack me.) I'm not disputing the percentages.

I'm simply saying that I like the multiple rolls in conversation. It creates a narrative push and pull between my character and the other person, putting me on the edge of my seat after each choice.

Although it is tricky for any of us to speak definitively on what is better or worse, since to my understanding the dialogue mechanics are still in progress. Checks may be a lot easier if I can eventually switch characters to let different ones chime in depending on the required check. For now, all we can do is share what we like and dislike, and make recommendations.

For example, I personally would love to see each die roll get progressively easier when talking with a person--a mechanical mimic of "wearing them down," so to speak. But again, it's just my preference!

There are 3 main types of play in any DnD game. Social, Combat, and Exploration.

If you are only playtesting the combat than you are only going to have 1/3 of the game complete. So today I wanted to help playtest SOCIAL ENCOUNTERS!

A social encounter much like a combat encounter, should have several different parts and strategies to win. THAT IS NOT THE CASE at this time. Right now you have usually 3 rolls of some sort and a severe consequence. It either results in combat to the death, or a passive group who lets you pass. With only one of these resulting in Xp, and treasure thus punishing a group twice for a passive and or skillful victory.
The character creation you implemented shows me you do take classes, backgrounds, races seriously and want them to be a part of the game in some form. Well you are missing the best way to represent them outside of just what attack they can do. This is the heart of tabletop gaming and the heart of DnD. Playing with your friends.

Every social encounter so far Puts all 4 members as one unit. As a SOLO pawn. The one speaking decides the fate of not only the present party... but the fate of all at the camp. Interesting that they all share the after effect but yet ONLY ONE PLAYER gets to take part in the Social Encounter. This would be bad game mastering at a tabletop. It also feels bad by design... like something is off or missing. Having friends on the headset asking what is going on and how did the roll turn out.

IF you are going to punish the wizard for the rogues bad arcana check. You should consider allowing the Wizard to step forward and make the check himself. Much like in combat when you position players on the field according to their strength and weaknesses… the position in Social Initiative is crucial to success. Especially if your goal is to have a RPG (ROLE PLAYING game)

My suggestion for this fix is to allow character swapping on the fly during social engagement. This should be limited to players who are close enough to hear the engagement. Also we must add a more robust voting feature.

Allow voting to push a player aside with a majority vote. IF 3 players make a choice there should be an animation of the pc stepping back for another pc to choose the popular choice. This could really throw a playful wrench of tug and war amongst roleplaying parties.

Right now every NPC is on the same trust level. There needs to be A formula that helps decide the checks dc. THIS IN TABLETOP IS CALLED ATTITUDE.

Social ATTITUDES. (a system of influence)

Friendly: these creatures will join you on a mission and or offer the best possible bartering. You have advantage ON ALL CHECKS
Helpful: you have an added 1d4 on all check when conversing
Indifferent: Your rolls are normal and this is the most common NPC
Unfriendly: your checks minus 1d4 from all checks during conversation.
Hostile: they attack you immediately when they reach this point (some are ok with knockout)

To do this you need to implement a simple system that allows a feeling of more complex reactive behavior in regards to making a first impression. I believe the simplest way to do that would be tie a background to every NPC in the game. If you are of this background then you should be bumped up one step on the chart. So when usually people are hostile they would be indifferent.

Hobgoblins would likely prefer the soldier background of others. Or their own Race... They would see you will some respect as apposed to an entertainer. This would be a quick way to have an influence system that is not complex. You just add the preferred background to the npc and it should apply automatically in conversation. This would eliminate the need for a fully voiced role of backgrounds since they are affecting every choice. With die rolls and actual mechanics instead of fluff.

Mechanics are what separate dnd from an adult TEA PARTY!

You could then set a background that the npc cannot stand. So a bard with an entertainer background is worse off than a bard with a criminal background when talking with fellow criminals. They would automatically be unfriendly to the bard making his checks harder.

YOU COULD DO THIS WITH, BACKGROUNDS, CLASSES, and RACES. Having preferred depending on the npc. This would allow a Dwarf to seemingly feel more comfortable with dwarves not only in writing and fluff but there would be a mechanic in place to show it.

This would allow character switching during the encounter to shine. The barbarian would know when it is his time to speak. The Bard would now get the majority of conversations but not ALL conversations.

The problem with social encounters is they are deigned for single player and SOLO. While the rest of the game is better in multiplayer or as a Team. IF you want to capture DnD then you have to get social encounters to engage the entire team at play.

Consider allowing social spells to be cast mid conversation as well. With charm affecting their attitude.

To figure out what class they prefer you would need to make the examination feature improved. Right now you examine a creature and instantly know everything about them. I would instead have the examination in combat be tied to creature type like in tabletop. I mean we have those skills for a reason right? Have the examination in social to be Perception. With a perception check in conversation you could learn what class/Background they prefer to speak to.

This would allow strategies to start developing for conversations. You could use these systems to do mass conversations battles. Where both sides are trying to gain influence over the crowd. The one who get them to Helpful first is the victor.

Consider the possibility of making conversations their own game! Otherwise when you finally implement the Bard for us social guys… we are going to have nothing to do but lose xp and gameplay time.

Combat is great... but there is a reason lots of RPG's don't even need it. Allow all 3 types of encounters to stand on their own as strong as COMBAT!

Thank You for your time and I am so happy you are doing BG3!!! I am also glad you asked the community for feedback. I see a lot of people offering great alternatives and suggestions. Who knows what is possible and affordable. Either way The game will be better a year from now that I believe.

Just reading a forum like this how many skill rolls do you think we do? Let's consider the situation here, yoou both have your positions, each of you has tehir own arguments, both of you share the same goal "convince" the counter part of the consistence of your position.

How this play if modeled? First poster makes the statement, second one makes a roll on persuation, lets make it a slightly succesful one (just because there is a response that is not irate or annoyed, signs of a natural 1 on persuasion :P ), you made an objection your "antagonist" try another argument thus making another persuasion roll.

The tadpole situation was done in the right way because it showed how the ones in the characters are attached to life, in that scene I was controlling Arastos, a man who is decided to get rid at any cost of the parasite in his head, still it was difficult (aside from my luck, in my tabletop rpg sessions I was famed for being a nightmare of consecutive natural ones, in Vampires The Masquerade I was able to queue six on a row, my narrator was desperated because he had planned some critical failures but not so much )for him to kill the vermin not because Larian wanted him to fail but because they wanted to show something.

Furthermore they use the consecutive rolls only when the other part is determined as the main toons are. Nettie and the tadpole are exemplar, in other cases (when the characters are more determined or the rolls are on actions and not words), furthermore they sometimes gave you more possibilities based on your skills and profiencies, because just like in real life in a conversation we can shift strategies from persuation to deception or mix them, if a strategy you're using fails you can try to change it.

This is a great idea

If Larian would change only one major aspect of their game's design, this should be it. I read most of the comments here and it boils down to this - you can't fake succeed in a game. It is cheep and lame.

Maybe think from a different perspective at the whole situation. What if its just a illusion of control and they want to force you in a story direction. Like hey nice try kid you almost made it but we wont give you control over your story you do what we want.

Forced railroading.

I was saying how it should be (x success before y failure). Multiple rolls are fine. One roll and done social encounters are ridiculous. "Well, I rolled a 20, guess I'm king of the grove!"