Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback skill check dice rolls, a really shit idea (turned savescumming into a core game mechanic)

This is the beauty of what larian are attempting to bring to this game - choice & consequences - luck - both good & bad - all down to the roll of the dice. I don't have any particular problem with save scumming if that's how you personally enjoy the game.
Me - I roll with the numbers ..trying to be a bit smarter now with my guidance cantrip too.

Yes LARIAN we DEMAND you do as this rude guy says RIGHT NOW!

XD

BG3 = save-scum simulator


Larian knows this from data. This is why they posted a message urging players to please not savescum.
They can't help it, this is the design they chose, that of a save-scum simulator, given human nature.

Divinity's system is much more appropriate for a single-player PC game

Just wow, kind of wonder if this is a troll post. Not only is it another remove said feature post, but remove dice rolls in a d&d game post. ROFL keep em coming, can't wait for the next one.

In fact, this is a reasonable proposal.

Dnd dice roll mechanic simply isn't suitable for a dialogue system in CRPG where there is no GM to smooth out corners. Content in CRPG is served as is, there is no point to imitating random events in dialogues with NPCs, it looks unsuit and only provokes S/L abuse.

I think the best option is threshold requirements for skills/previously made choices/information received, or all this in combination, so that a new option in the dialogue appears at all. That is, no prompts for the skill/class requirements and visual display of dices, player see only text. In this case, player simply will not know whether he has failed a check somewhere or not, he will not feel that he has lost and will not receive a big red inscription "You Fail", in most cases he will simply move on, accepting the event as given.

And after finish the game and replaying with a completely different character, player will receive a lot of new options, otherwise solving problems where he did not even suspect such a possibility, and this is cool, it is to perceive the CRPG system as more complex and deep.

Ability checks with a d20 is a bad concept in almost all cases. Even worse than skill checks. A character with 8 in an ability score can succeed while someone with 20 in the same stat can fail. That's only a 30% shift in success rate between the absolute worst and best.

I can think of a certain burning building in EA where you need to pass a DC10 Strength check to bash the front door in.

It's entirely possible Lae'zel with 18 Strength fails and Gale with 8 Strength succeeds. How do you even begin to explain something like that in the context of BG3? In PnP the DM could just make up a shaky explanation that the fighter slips and the frail wizard finds a weak spot near the hinges and just sort of leans against the door to bring it down. A video game can't even do that. It just makes no sense. A physically weak 8 Str character should never succeed in a strength feat if a character as strong as an ogre, a freaking giant, with 18 Str can fail. This is not a question of probability. It's a question of something you can or can't do.

So why not use thresholds for this kind of stuff? Like Pillars of Eternity does, proabably for this very reason.

Skill checks are almost just as bad as plain ability checks, because an additional +2 isn't going to make a big difference either.

These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.

There is nothing in the D&D rules that say you cannot require a flat "14 strength" for example to push a wall down without rolling a dice. Same with other checks like perception, you can actively search an area and have many perception checks against the same trap or switch if you stay and look longer.

You are correct about some dice rolls making no sense. You are either strong enough to pick up "object" or not. You are dexterous enough to jump over "gap" or not. I think some options require this type of limitation rather than dice a roll.

Actually it would be more like d&d as a whole is the biggest flaw, ability checks and skill checks have been in the game for each version as far as I can recall. But I've only played 3.5 & 4. Maybe you can surprise me and prove me wrong...Ability checks and skill checks lead to one thing people don't like, Failing. That's why the guy before you was so supportive to say the game leads to save scumming being a requirement. When you play a game and you don't get your way, what do you do? People need that perfect play, probably goes well with the perfect barbie doll they dressed up as there character.

I've failed perception checks, bluff checks, diplomacy, and so on. What happens next? you move on, lady luck wasn't with you that day. There's no dm to make you feel better or cave when he/she feels sorry for you.

Rolling isn't perfect, it is a game after all, but rolls for ability checks and skills has always been in d&d.

There was a rule in 3.5 that let you take 10 if you had all the time in the world to redo the skill, time also effected the dc if I remember correctly. Say you had a golem rushing twords you and you need that door unlocked asap, pretty sure the dc goes up for trying to do something in a hurry...don't quote me on that last one not sure.

The fix as far as I see it is to hide positives inside failure.

So for example, you save the girl, but her survival in that moment causes a different or may men larger negative down the road that you couldn’t foresee.

So you save scum to save the Tiefling child only to find out it was all for naught later on (or if not for naught, for a different complex outcome).

I think it’s been mentioned before but Witcher 3 did this very well and it just means you accept more what happens, because frig knows if your decision was good or not. It might feel good at the time, but later on, urgh...

It’s instant reward or effect that causes save scumming, especially if it is directly affecting you and your loot, do, etc...

I quite like the idea of using thresholds instead of dice rolls for skill checks. I've written in other posts about how I dislike the "tyranny of the d20", especially as applied to non-combat tasks.

I've said this before but the d20 rolls for skill checks are one of the best parts of the game. The d20 checks, the lighting, the empty containers are the things that make this feel like D&D.

If you get rid of the d20 my build -- very squishy diplomat -- becomes less relevant. I'm walking around with 17 charisma and 9 constitution so I can make those checks. If anyone can make those checks with any build then I just wasted some points I should have put into battle stats.

I don't have to save scum I just use my inspiration points, cantrips and guesses about what sort appeals are likely to persuade. Inspiration points are given out like candy in this game.

PoE1 had crap combat. While playing I kept thinking "such great art, such a great story but this combat ruleset is the suck. I wish they had made a DnD game" Battle was a tiresome chore to complete so I find out more story details.

And even J.E. Sawyer has said the d20 is too iconic to go away.

Now save scumming for battle? Constantly. That's where the rules need to be fixed.

Isn't this the opposite of what would happen?
Without the d20, your 17cha 9con squishy diplomat will succeed all those persuasion checks.
With the d20, your 17cha character is only better than a 10cha character 15% of the time.
Without the d20, a 10cha character will not be able to make the persuasion checks that your diplomat can make.

You make good points but I don't want to make all the skill checks. Then I lose the thrill of the dice. The prayers to Tymora, the dopamine rush when I get a 20, the groan when I get a 1. Also changes replay value.

Better to fail some and ask myself "is this so important that I need to spend an inspiration point"? I've been lucky with Khaga but that necromancy tome and the Koa Toa almost took all my points.

Now I do agree with more "fun fails". I was lucky that my first run of bad dice was with Gut and that had a great "fail well" story.

I am in favor of keeping the d20 for skill checks; it is what makes d&d d&d.
The implementation in BG3 does need work though
-Failure needs to be much more 'fun.' Or, as others have suggested on the forum, the consequences should be made less immediately apparent.
-Dialogue checks could lead to additional dialogue options, not results
---e.g., Kagha
-There are definitely places where you should be able to use a passive score instead of rolling.
-BG3 could allow more advantage on skill checks
---e.g., Breaking down the door. Instead of just having Lae'zel do it, you tell her to lead and Help her, giving her Advantage
---e.g., The party works together to persuade Kagha to [see spoiler]

Edit: @KillerRabbit I agree. I definitely want the thrill of the d20 to remain in the game.
The Gut fail end result is a good example of fun failing

I agree with the OP; pitch active dialogue checks. They LOOK like D&D, they don't actually reflect the way skill checks work at the table and they're bad video game design.

At the table, the players are generally the ones planning what they're going to attempt and then how they deal with the results of skill checks made to impliment their plans. Checks aren't pass/fail at the table, they're opportunities to add twists to the story, they're storytelling tools, but to work the story has to be fluid and the details made up on the spot.

In a video game, everything is already written and players are only selecting options off a menu. The only agency a player has navigating a conversation tree is which of the presented paths they take. Active skill checks in BG3 take that agency away from players by arbitrarily saying, "No, you can't have the option you picked, now this is what's happening." If the results for failure are more interesting than the results for success, then that's how the conversation should go, with no checks. Don't remove the player's agency in conversations.

There's rolling and then there's rolling.

The point is, using a swingy d20 with only minor modifiers even for "skilled" characters completely undermines character building.

It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.

2d10 or 3d6 would create bell curve results which is the cool thing dice CAN do over flat percentages. But D&D is stuck on using the "iconic" d20.

If they insist on using 1d20, the skill modifiers need to be twice as significant as they are now.

I think the real problem is to have 3 roll for one sucess. In table it would be one. If DM is nice, it could offer a second oportunity if you fail, but not make you do 3 roll to be successful. So many rolls in the same conversation should be reserved for the most importants. Otherwise, it becomes a nuisance that detracts from the actual chosing conversation options.

I don't feel like a swingy d20 does that.* For me it's about feel and my question is "does this feel like a tabletop session". I have tried a number of alternatives to DnD (and I would count PoE in that group) and those systems just to don't feel as fun despite their putative improvements on DnD. Now I could make a case for why 2nd ed does this better . . . but 2nd is dead and buried.

Now I do agree with *mrfuji completely -- make failing fun, let the 'help' action be used for certain checks like breaking down doors, etc. And @EMC_V is also spot on. Three checks in row is too much, that's 'jerk DM' territory. It's hard to avoid killing Nettie without metagaming.

Long live the d20! Gygax will come again. All hail the once and future DM!


*

That's an extreme overreaction to what is basically an accident. Your bizarre interpretation of the events is your own issue.

I do think the DC's in general should be lower. 10 should be the usual target, but it seems that the game throws WAY more 15's and 20's so that a trained expert barely has a chance of passing your typical challenge. There should also be a low DC persuasion check to tell the kid to go with the guard and sit in time out.