Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I wouldn't say. You can do the best possible animations but in the end you will most likely end up flustration when you die because you can't hit the enemy for several rounds in a row.
The vast majority of people who will buy the game probably have only contact with D&D systems in previous games (or even not).
Even if you know the rules (more or less), the need to load due to bad rng can be annoying.
In RTwP games this is not a problem but it is a turn based game.
You can complain about the changes but it cannot be said that the reason for their introduction is unfounded.

But isn't this the reason for difficulty levels? If people get frustrated at missing a lot, then they could decrease a difficulty level (where, say, all monsters have -2 or -5 AC/Saves for easy or story difficulty, respectively). Isn't this option easier, and would have less cascading effects, than adding all these ways to get advantage and hit?

Larian has a reason for making all these changes, sure. But there are still good arguments that:
1.) their reasoning is wrong (who are they to assert that "missing isn't fun"?)
2.) their implementation is poor


You can argue whether the implementation is good or not.
However, considering how much experience they have in creating games, I would be inclined to assume that they know how to design games to make them enjoyable for players.
Otherwise, they would never get a license (Obsidian failed to get it).
Even Obsidian in PoE introduced a graze mechanic to minimize the number of misses.

In the spoiler I put a piece of an interview with Josh Sawyer from the time of PoE production.

Q: Wait...so neither the enemy nor your party members can ever miss? As in causing 0 damage/duration? Also what about critical misses?

Not currently, no. There is no special effect for a "critical miss".

Q: What made you decide that there shouldn't be a 0 damage miss. That is to say, what problem did you see with prior implementations of this that made you decide to try a new approach?

All-or-nothing results tend to produce large spikes in conflict resolution. On the extreme end, you have traditional AD&D spells like Disintegrate that either annihilate the target completely or... do nothing. More typically you have the standard to-hit roll that either results in normal damage or absolutely nothing. Because the gulf between success and failure results is so large, random chance has a very large impact how the conflict works out. This system normalizes the results. Our goal is to make your choice of tactic ultimately more important than the results of the die roll (though the die rolls still matter). If we're only implementing mechanics that are proven to be fun in RPGs, I'm not sure why we're talking about D&D's THAC0/BAB system. Players generally dislike the all-or-nothing results of those mechanics, which is why you saw a move away from it in 4E.

Q: Do you have any sort of source material on which you're basing this system? I'd assumed you're only implementing mechanics that have been proven to be fun in RPGs, ideally CRPGs.

As for source inspiration, 4E's dailies' miss results are a pretty good start. Also a lot of RTSs and MOBAs have moved to much more deterministic systems.

Q: That doesn't mean you should preclude 0 damage misses completely, especially in something as resource cheap as melee damage. Disintegrate was a resource heavy spell and I can understand that. Why not weigh your probability distributions and still have a 0 damage for those unable to pass a threshold like you are intending with lockpick and other events. Afterall, even a failed lockpick doesn't allow half of the party members through a locked door.

Locked doors are a traditionally problematic conflict resolution in games (as are most all-or-nothing checks) and, I think, highlight the problem rather than absolve it. My question is: how do "full" misses make gameplay better than mitigated results?

Q: It becomes a problem of victory through attrition. It can also limit the number of enemies attacking a party at one time. If you have 100 goblins and each always gets 1 point of damage even when they miss, that's a problem. Have you considered how this scales with lower-level and high-level party members? I can't simulate this, but does this adversely affect certain stages of the game more than others?

We're not planning on hundred enemy combats, but even at normal IE stages, I don't think it's a large problem. As for how it scales, we already know how standard THAC0/BAB scales (poorly), but it is one area we will continue to test.

Q: I'd wager that you're underestimating the fun of dodging and missing. It doesn't need to be as prominent as it was in Baldur's Gate-era missfests, but people like making characters that dodge all incoming damage. Also, the risk of doing no damage is fun.

I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing. I don't think most players find it particularly enjoyable, and it's exacerbated/amplified in games like the new XCOM where players are constantly in stunned disbelief at the RNG.



Last edited by Rhobar121; 07/11/20 07:22 PM.