Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Option to reduce RANDOM combat (suggestion)

Option to reduce RANDOM combat (suggestion)

As someone who played a lot of DoS games, there are two major 'issues' that both me and my coop friends have with BG3:

1) Random misses - high chance of misses. Game use 20 sided (1d20) dice roll to decide if you hit, then dice roll to decide how hard you hit ( for example 1d12 ). Miss chances of 40% are not uncommon, and that can be *very* frustrating. Also, your damage averages in above example 6.5, with +/- 100% (can be 1, can be 12). And low hits ( say 1 with 1d12 ) could be also source of annoyance.
2) Single action per turn - you can do in most cases just one attack per turn. Also, those are mostly simple actions (sword/bow hit, attack spell), with very few opportunities for tactical decisions or synergy between different actions both for single and multiple characters

I do not think second issue ( single action, no synergy ) would be easy for Larian to address as it is inherent in DnD 5e rules and action set. For comparison, in DoS you can do 3-4 actions per turn ( 2-3 ap per action, 6-11 APs per turn ), with numerous chances for tactical decisions or synergy ( eg. use Enrage to improve damage in next few turns at a price of no casting, use Haste to increase attack points in 2 next turns at a cost of points in this turn, use Teleport to reposition enemies for better advantage, some choice of area effects even for rangers/melee... ). Currently only "synergy" I use in BG3 is one character casting light spell so other characters do not have "target in shadows" disadvantage.

But first issue ( annoying randomness in combat ) can be solved fairly easy, despite also being inherent in DnD rules. To be clear, some people like it that way, so I do not suggest it should be changed by default. For other people it is either source of frustration or incentive to do excessive save scrumming. So what I suggest is :

** Reduced randomness in combat ** (gameplay option, disabled by default)

When enabled, main effect would be to replace random miss chances and damage ranges in combat with their average representation, while still keeping exactly same effect of AC and weapon damage, in two main ways:
a) instead of base 1d12 weapon damage being random value between 1 and 12, it will be AVERAGE value ( for 1d12 average is 6.5, for 2d6 it is 7, for 1d8 it is 4.5 etc ). Of course, features like GWF ( reroll on 1-2 ) would effect averages ( so 1d12 become 7.33 instead of 6.5, 2d6 become 8.33 instead of 7 etc), and enchants, STR/DEX or GWM +10 would increase that average.
b) instead of enemy AC class determining chance to hit/miss ( vs 1d20 plus your modifiers), it will directly reduce damage by that chance to miss. So if now your hit chance is 70%, instead of having 30% chance to miss, your base damage will be reduced by 30%. So 1d12 from above will have 6.5*70%= 4.55 damage
c) final damage can be either rounded, or it can keep small randomness factor and decide to randomly round up or down based on fractional part. So above 4.55 dmg will have 55% chance to round up ( so 5 damage) and 45% chance to round down ( so 4 damage). If damage was 4.15 instead , it would have only 15% chance to round up to 5.
d) tooltip when hovering over target should now display that expected damage instead of chance to hit, so "4" or "4-5"


Important advantages of this approach would be :
- solve #1 issue from above : remove misses or low hits as reason for many people to be annoyed or to be forced to do save scrumming
- should be easy to implement, only change damage calculation code slightly
- all effects/benefits of armor class or proficiencies would remain and have exactly same effect. If you have +3 on weapon damage due to strength, it is added to those average 6.5 to be 9.5 ; your +2 proficiency will improve your hit chance eg from 70% to 75% ; so your average damage will now be 9.5*75%= 7.125 , so rounded 7 instead of 5 ( or 7-8 with just 12.5% chance for 8 , instead of 4-5 with 55% chance for 5 )
- it is optional and can be switched on/off as desired, without balance issues.

So not only people who like randomness can keep it always OFF, but also people who do not like randomness but would occasionally like using save scrumming to their advantage can still do so. For example, you have GWF and GWM and 1d12+1 weapon with +3 from STR, so your expected damage is 21.33 reduced by hit%, and your hit chances are usually around 50% ( due to GWM -5 reduction), so your usual damage is 11 - and you are mostly ok with that. But if someone is in a situation where they really-really need that max 1d12+1+3str+10gwm=26 hit instead of 11 hit even on enemy with high AC : they can turn off option, do save scrumming reloads until they get that big hit, then turn option back ON . Point is, even save scrummers would not need this option disabled except in rare cases. And rest of the time everyone has less annoyances with misses.

This is almost homogeneously awful.

So do not use it if you think it is awful. Many people in this forum ( and elsewhere ) posted dislike and annoyances about randomness and misses in BG3 - this solves it. If you do not like things to be "homogeneous" and you like randomness, you can by all means leave this option at default OFF.

Note that it is possible to make this option into slider instead of ON/OFF choice - so at 0% it would not reduce randomness at all and will be like it is now, at 100% it would do as I described, and in between it will still allow some misses and damage range, depending on selected percentage. So at 50%, you will miss half the time compared current BG3, but you would still miss. And your 1d12 damage range would be for example 4-9 instead of 1-12 in current game or fixed 6.5 in my description. But I do not think such "slider" option is needed just for people who do not like homogenous solution - those can keep original OFF choice.

I have played many turn based games that do not have this level of randomness ( or no randomness at all ) and I find them much less annoying.

I have to disagree, I think that randomness is what defines this game, particularly because it is a DnD game.

Each play through may yield a different result, even when the same actions are taken, specifically because this is a game of chance. This makes the game more exciting, because you don't know how things will play out. Missing at an inopportune time may force you to come up with creative strategies to rectify the situation, while getting a critical hit might save you in a fight that you would have otherwise lost. The variability of each round makes each fight unique, even after several play throughs. The game would be far too simple and repetitive if it just became a game of addition and subtraction.

And while bigger chances to miss are particularly noticeable at lower levels, this often is reduced as the character gains levels and more powerful magic items, because of the "bounded accuracy" philosophy of the game.

I don't think this game should emulate DoS combat, because this isn't DoS3, its is BG3, based on DnD 5e. I think developing this "system of averages" would not be a wise use of Larion's resources, and would actively detract from what is a defining feature of the combat system.

You imply that in DoS each play through may NOT yield a different result, and that is simply not true - I played DoS games (1&2) for over 1000h, and replayed combats were different and interesting each time. And randomness in DoS is so small that it can be ignored.

Also, my suggestion would require very limited "use of resources", and if that would prevent alienating significant fraction of user base ( those like me who are annoyed at frequent misses/low hits ), then any manager would tell you that it IS wise to do it, especially if it would be non-default option. Key question here is if there is really "significant fraction" of potential users that are annoyed by randomness/misses - and admittedly I have subjective opinion on that question.

This suggestion would reduce randomness, true, but would probably make combats incredibly boring. Doing a constant small amount of damage as your whole turn just sounds tedious, especially against enemies with high HP. You can't compare 5e fights to DOS fights, because in DOS each characters gets multiple actions per turn and there is such a greater ability for combos (surfaces, stunning, etc) in DOS. These things just aren't that prevalent in 5e.

The "use average damage rolls" alone (as an option) is fine. That's a commonly used option for monsters in PnP 5e.

Reducing damage by the %-chance to miss is meh. It will make all characters feel less powerful and also will have cascading effects on concentration, attack effects like "poisoned if hit by an attack", etc. If you want to reduce the chances of missing, better options are probably:
-weighted d20 (either making higher numbers more likely, or "storing" past rolls so you can't roll a # again until you make 10ish more rolls)
-a flat enemy AC (and ST) nerf in lower difficulties.

This is the easiest part : just increase the party size so you have 1 more action and 1 more bonus action per round and per character.

About the low %to hit, just try to have advantages and you probably won't ever have 40% anymore.
Larian gave us 2 cheats to have an average of +25% to hit. D&D have many more possibilities but there are useless atm or not implemented yet.

A better implementation of the rules and D&D's actions would lead to more possibilities to have this advantages, and more synergies between characters

About damages, don't forget we're lvl 1-4.
You'll find +1/+2 weapons, we'll be able to attack twice/action, we'll find magical +1dx weapons (or maybe not because of this shitty dipping), we'll have special features to increase our damages,...
Larian already give us cheats to increase our damages : dipping and so many (coating/surface) potions.

What you're asking is a complete rework of the game. This is not reasonable, especially because the solutions to your problems are already in D&D (but not in BG3)

I think you misunderstood me gmnenad, I was implying that your "system of averages" suggestion would create a game with far less variability, but that wasn't necessarily a reflection on the DoS franchise. As other people have since stated, DoS has a very different combat system than 5e, which is why I brought up the fact that trying to turn the 5e combat system into a DoS style combat system would likely yield a result unfavorable to both fandoms.

And the resources to create this system would be more significant than you might think, as they would need to code for to all the unique spell effects, attack types, class abilities, monster abilities, etc. They would need to decide how each variable translates into the equation in different circumstances, and then test the application of this new system across all the many ways that it would need to be applied. All of that energy could instead be used to create more content for the game, improve the story, add popular class options from DnD books outside the PHB, etc.

I think sometimes when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one, and even if this theoretically could be toggled off, it would impact that final product for all players, whether by detracting from what Larion could have otherwise developed, or by hurting people's impression of the game when they see this version and think it representative of how Larion implemented 5e. The long term health of a game is often better sustained by prioritizing its core aspects, and even if it means the game won't appeal to every person. It would be better for the franchise in the long-term if only 50% of the audience considered the game a 10/10 while the other 50% considered it a 5/10, rather than 100% of the audience giving it 6/10.

A couple thoughts:

-I think the random misses will be a little less painful if they can speed the AI up and improve the user interface. Less time between turns will take away some of the sting of having a bad turn.

-I would actually like to have more variety of styles of characters in terms of their damage-dealing. Give me a ranger that can hit reliably, but doesn't necessarily do all that much damage on each hit. Give me a barbarian that swings for the fences every time and has lots of big hits and big misses. Give me a rogue that doesn't necessarily attack every round, but uses their stealth to make an unexpected attack at just the right moment for loads of damage. Give me a sorcerer that rarely deals damage, but imposes all sorts of disabling status effects on enemies. Make the characters feel like what they are doing. Consistent hits for consistent damage on every character is going to get really boring fast.

idk - respectfully op, but my interpretation of the feedback in these community spaces largely has been calling for more DND'ness and less DOS'ness in the current hybrid combat system that bg3 presents. and frankly, the limited number of actions and lower dmg/chance to hit rolls are inherently a part of low-lvl dnd (altho i agree it can be frustrating and feel constraining at times lol) and larian has already made adjustments here to favor the player so idk how much further they really should be going. i agree with what max said above - increase the party size to give the players more tools to solve all encounters (combat, social, exploratory, skill-based, etc) would go a long way in compensating for some of the limitations of low-lvl dnd, but given larians lack of communication on this topic (or in general lately, tbh) idk what or when to expect adjustments in this area.

i do think that toggles/sliders for some game features youve cited here and for other adjustable options could be a feasible 'fix' that would address and solve a variety of player concerns, but we'll have to see if this feedback garners the studios attention and if they consider it to be worth the resources/investment

There are a lot of things to consider before going the route of abandoning randomness. I hope this post will give a better understanding of how combat works. Currently in-game it's barely shown how modifiers impact the game and it is important to know that modifiers impact everything.

1) Most importantly the game does not just use a d20 to decide outcomes. Most cases you need to roll to beat an opponents AC (armor class) and you get the benefit of proficiency and modifiers "If (1d20 + Proficiency + Modifier) >= AC, the attack hits". Right now Baldur's Gate 3 is balanced in a way that expects you to min/max (invest in the stats the benefit the class the most). I've tested this a few times and it matters a lot, I've had a lot more success with a +3 modifier instead of a +2.

It's also important to know when you're rolling advantage "If (Max(2d20) + Proficiency + Modifier) >= AC, the attack hits" and when you're rolling at disadvantage "If (Min(2d20) + Proficiency + Modifier) >= AC, the attack hits".

Baldur's Gate 3 currently has arbitrary moments where your character can gain advantage or disadvantage. It's easy to abuse these mechanics and a lot of folks on the forums want them removed so that combat can become more engaging.
---> NOT IN DND 5e [Advantage (backstab, higher ground) Disadvantage (threatened)]

Also...
> Some attacks will hit unless the opponent makes a saving throw, it's important to know which abilities use this (Sacred Flame, for example) and what stat they use for the saving throw.
> Some spells such as Bless and Bane affect the chance to land an attack.
> Larian does have the option to lower AC on NPCs so that attacks can hit more often.

2) Divinity 2's action points also included character movement whereas in Baldur's Gate 3 that is a separate resource. In BG3, there is a lot more to do than one action: In one turn usually you can move, take an action, and a bonus action. The game will be more challenging if players only use their main action on a character's turn. Divinity 2 does have an easy to understand action point system (you get six points to spend each turn without Lone Wolf). BG3 has a tool tip at the start that can be skipped, I'm not too sure how well it explains combat to new players. (Players not familiar with Dungeons and Dragons). The most important takeaway is that they are both very different games.

Personally I think it would be more important that Larian makes changes to the Baldur's Gate 3 so players know how impactful modifiers are. And it would be simple to adjust AC for an easier difficulty for more assured hits, instead of setting every outcome to the average. (There are threads asking for modifiers to be shown more often and I am in full support of that).

Here's an example of how pre-determined rolls could backfire. late-game an attack set to roll the average every time would never hit a high AC opponent.
So asking for pre-determined rolls would probably be more work for Larian than adding a difficulty where enemies only have lowered AC. Both options Larian would have to lower AC on NPCs in a new difficulty.

That is correct, and I'm aware of those - that is why in my post I said that calculating your hit chance ( attack roll ) does not change at all . All it changes is that after you calculate that player has 70% chance to hit, you do not random for hit/miss but you instead reduce damage by multiplying it with 70%.

To be more clear, game already change your hit chance ( shown when you hover over target ) as you change conditions like gain advantage by height or counter disadvantage by casting light on shadowed enemy etc. What will change in my suggestion ( when that option is ON ) is that game will change your expected damage, so it will show for example "3-4" damage without advantage and will change to for example "6-7" damage if you gain advantage - instead of showing hit chance percentage on hover, it will show this expected damage, while still showing reasons for advantage/disadvantage in lower left corner.

I'm sure that all of us have different things that we consider as issue. Personally I'm new on this forums, but in other forum threads about BG I got opposite impression - that most people are comparing BG3 *unfavorable* to DoS2, meaning they consider DoS2 combat as superior to BG3 combat. That would be "calling for more DOS'ness rather than DND'ness" I guess but , again, it is subjective.

Important point of my suggestion is that it would be OPTIONAL : those more used to DnD rules would not have to use it , while those more used to DoS or other games would have it as an option .

Another important point is that, despite some comments above, it does NOT change fundamental DnD rules - all modifiers, advantages, proficiencies, armor class etc has same importance and effect. It is just the randomness of that effect that is reduced, but all the reasons for you to get more AC or more STR or advantage in combat still remain in exactly the same way as it is now.

That may be partially true, but I would expect that Larian already know exactly what are average effects of any "unique" effect, since that is important for balancing reasons. Also, only effects that directly rely on the outcome of dice roll are an issue here ( like GWF "if you roll 1 or 2" ), and those are in minority. All effect that add or reduce some amount of damage but do not directly rely on specific roll result would remain exactly the same ( like GWM adding +10 damage , or weapon enchants etc ).

So I still believe that required change would be comparatively small, and that "all that energy" would be well spent in making game approachable to people who are not DnD veterans - and I believe than gamers without heavy DnD background are majority among gamers worldwide. Granted, there will be even some of those who do not care about randomness - after all, XCOM has it also. But then, there is a reason why "refresh random on load" savescrum mod on XCOM was one of most popular - gamers generally get annoyed by misses.

There is probably some philosophical reason behind it : people tend not to notice when they get lucky and hit mob with max damage, but they sure as hell notice when they miss. In other words, minor good luck is not noticed, while minor bad luck result in annoyances. I'm aware that people used to DnD are also used ( or at least resolved ) to that - but , as noted, most potential gamers are not DnD veterans.

I mainly bringing this up because it would be a big time investment for Larian and there are other options to abandoning dice rolls. To reduce randomness Larian could buff base proficiency for player characters or give a +1 modifier to all rolls. That's a lot quicker than rebalancing spells and so many other factors that come up with your proposal.

Scaling damage by chance to hit is still more work than you're making it out to be. You're asking to have all hits succeed (fixed dice), no critical hits, and no zero damage hits. With your proposal you're saying that you would prefer the game if you could never finish combat in one round and you would always take the average turns to win. Variety keeps games fresh and exciting, it's the whole reason people still play card games. The opportunity that you are unsure about what will happen is exciting.

The Importance of Zero Damage and Critical hits
Never underestimate the power of zero in terms of your party's survivability in the game. It's the whole reason the concentration mechanic works in DnD. Adding assured damage will make concentration spells useless. Also taking 5 damage instead of 0 drastically changes decision making.

You will have turns where your party is just chugging potions. Whereas before they would not have been. Never getting a critical hit will also drag out fights longer than they should be and the game will need a rebalance to compensate for all the factors listed above and more.

Now let's talk about the impact of critical hits, for example rolling 1d12 versus an enemy with 24 health and 12 AC. (DnD 5e always rounds down)
<Assured Damage>
Damage range (1-12)
> (no modifiers): 9/20 opportunities to hit, 2 damage per turn, (12 attacks).
> (+2 proficiency, +3 modifiers): 14/20 opportunities to hit, 4 damage per turn (6 attacks).
>now 99% chance to hit, 5 damage per turn (5 attacks).

<Critical Hits, the natural 20>
Damage range (2-24)
> (no modifiers): 9/20 opportunities to hit, 5 damage per turn, (5 attacks).
> (+2 proficiency, +3 modifiers): 14/20 opportunities to hit, 9 damage per turn (3 attacks).
>now 99% chance to hit, 12 damage (2 attacks).
> 1/240 times you could kill the enemy in one hit.

So, having no chance to crit will make combat longer.

Do you really want the trade-offs?
To always take down that enemy in 5-12 attacks while always having to chug potions in combat? When there could have been a chance that you took the enemy down in 1 hit? When there could have been a chance your cleric took no damage and gets to keep concentrating?

As I mentioned before, it should not be a big time investment - since that particular part about miss/hit chance calculation should be practically unchanged. Only result of that calculation would be used differently.

Regarding crits, I intentionally did not include them in my proposal since players are not annoyed if they get crit. So crits could go as usual, either in variant of dealing 2* average damage, or even remaining exactly as original and doing 2* random 1-12 plus mods damage just as they do now ... in other words, when crit happen, it could deal double max damage just as it does now. Leaving crits as they are now is one of the reasons I called this suggestion "reducing" randomness, instead of "eliminating" randomness - but I guess I could have explained that better in OP.

There should be never situation where "having no chance to crit will make combat longer" - even if someone want crits included in average, then those averages would need to be multiplied by (1+ pHit%*critMult) so that each average hit is slightly increased by average crits. But , as I said, there is no reason to change crits - they can keep working as they do now, and still average damage over entire fight will be exactly same for my suggestion. So fight would not be longer, with any valid 'average' implementation, either one with no crits and crits included in average , or one I'm suggesting where crits remain outside of averages.

Regarding "keep concentrating", I also did not propose change in how enemies fight - their damage should still keep being exactly same as now, with full random range and possibility to miss - after all, NPC enemies do not get annoyed by misses.



To recap, all these points have "remains same as it is now" in common :
- attack roll (miss calculation) remains practically identical, only its result is used differently
- crits remain unchanged even with my suggested option enabled ( they are not included in average attack values, so when player crit it does same random double range damage as now )
- enemy damage remains completely same as now - even with my suggested option enabled - since enemies are not annoyed by misses
- fight duration ( average number of rounds ) remains same as it is now
- possibility to end fight in one lucky round due to big crit remains

To better illustrate what I meant in above posts, I wrote some pseudo code below. But keyword there is "pseudo" since I'm not an expert on DnD 5e rules or BG3 homebrew variant, so this is just simplified example that should still show how there could be little change in existing code.

Lets assume that current simplified version of BG3 attack code looks like this:


Above example uses common practice with two roll games, where first roll determine hit/miss/crit chance and second roll determine damage value. Function "attackRoll" has dual usage here, since BG3 uses something like that both to calculate and display hit chance when hovering over enemy target ( in which case BG3 would use 'hitProb' return value), and when player actually attack ( when BG3 uses isCrit and isHit value ).

Now, only change needed to implement my suggested "reducedRandomOption" is in "damageRoll" function, and other two functions can remain EXACTLY same in my example ( obviously, in real BG3 code they may still need small changes, but this is just an example):


Even here, majority of code lines remains the same ( keep in mind that "chunk of code to determine" part is largest part there, with dozens of lines of code not shown here needed to determine specific player attributes or game situation , and that part also remains unchanged ). Old random range damage calculation is still same and used if reducedRandomOption is disabled (default) or even if enabled but player got critical hit (or if same code is used for NPC damage calculation).

Actual change is new average damage calculation, represented by last 5 lines of code. It returns rounded value, where that round function can either do simple round or that probabilistic round I explained before. Keep in mind that I wrote this in notepad, without full knowledge about BG3 DnD 5e rules and with great deal of guessing and simplification about what current BG3 code looks like, so this is "pseudo" code both as in "no specific programming language used" and as in "not actual current BG3 code used". It should still illustrate several points that I made before, like:
- actual code change could/should be relatively small
- critical damage and enemy/NPC damage remains unchanged

So finally what's the goal of all this ...?
Sometimes less miss and sometimes more damages ?

Your suggestion would be boring as hell and in the end you would often deal less damages...

Well, I repeated several times in above posts that my suggestion would keep EXACTLY SAME average damage as current situation, so I presume your "more damages" comment either come from not reading any of those posts or you simply do not like my proposal. So there is no point in replying to "permanent +5 to your attack roll..."

As for "Less miss" - YES, that is exactly goal of all this

Have less misses while keeping exactly same total/average damage and exactly same effects of DnD attributes. That "less miss" contribute to "less annoyance" and "more non-DnD players".

I noticed you changed your post, so to reply to this one also. Regarding first sentence:

ALWAYS less miss, and SAME average or maximal damages.

Damage should be same both on average and in potential maximal value ( eg 24 in in crit case with max 12 roll for example ). You would have exactly same amount of big crits. What would change would be no misses/low hits and also no big no-crit hits ( so no 1dmg or 11dmg for example ). So "sometimes more damage" is true along with unsaid "sometimes less damage" - not to mention that you could say even for current situation that you sometimes have more or less damage .

Regarding second part of second sentence, saying "you would often deal less damages" ignores that you would often deal more damage, so it is incorrect statement since in THE END you would deal same total damage on average.

As for first part where you state that "Your suggestion would be boring as hell" - I guess that is subjective, and mildly insulting. Not only to me, but also to Larian and DoS games, that have exactly same "low miss chances, low damage variability" - so you state that games like those are "boring as hell" and I guess that is your DnD background. But again, majority of potential gamers are NOT DnD veterans.