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

No thanks.

I always find this kind of remark interesting - not only because of their eloquence, but because they leave a lot to guess above true meaning. Is this:
a) "No thanks" - I do not like this proposal and I would not use that option if available, or
b) "No thanks" - I do not like this proposal and NO ONE ELSE should have an option to use it either ?

In other words, if there was voting on this suggestion it is clear that above would not be YES vote, but it is not clear if it would be NO vote or DO NOT CARE/abstaining from vote.

What I find remarkable here is that suggestion itself would not change a thing to those who like current way, and yet many DnD veterans would clearly vote NO for this, even if it does nothing to their own gameplay ( not assuming if you are DnD veteran, just general observation ). I guess this boils down to who Larian is catering more - diehard vocal DnD players, or non-DnD gamers.

Personally, I'm certain that implementing of this suggestion would NOT cause DnD players to stop playing BG3 ( after all, by default it would be OFF ), while I'm reasonably sure that not implementing will cause number of normal gamers to avoid BG3. And I'm also sure that number of potential non-DnD gamers is far larger than number of veteran DnD gamers, even if on these forums most vocal are DnD veterans, so it should not be in Larian's interest to ignore non-DnD gamers. But it is hard to estimate what fraction of normal gamers would find this issue bad enough to prevent them from buying BG3 so, as always, its up to Larian's priorities.

You want the AI enemy to miss you while you never miss them. So, you want an easier difficulty. I'm sure Larian already has one in their roadmap.

Brevity is the soul of wit, after all

It's cool that you are so passionate about that topic.

But many people bought the game/EA because Larian advertised it with "true DnD" adaptation.

That's what I would like to have, when playing a game called Baldur's Gate 3.

When they add an option: +10 or +20 to hit rolls in the difficulty settings, then you will hit all the time (except when rolling a 1).
They can then add a second option: if dice_roll = 1 then reroll

And viola, you always hit.

For damage they can do the same.
If damage_dice roll <4 (or whatever you don't want to have) then reroll

Or whatever, I can't code 😅

My point is:
Many people want Larian to keep their promise and make a faithful DnD game.

If this does not work for some people (obviously, you being a good example), they should find an easy to implement solution, like Maximuuus, and many other people, including myself, suggested in the forums. And that being something optional.

I understand your ideas for more hits with same average damage should be something you can toggle on/off?

Then yeah, sure, go ahead and promote that idea.

Let's ignore for a moment that it is not true that you never miss with my option ( you still have critical misses, as I showed in previous post ) .

Why is it "easier difficulty" if you miss less, but also do less damage so that your total/average damage over fight is EXACTLY the same ?

But I guess it is already clear from my previous explanations that my option does not change difficulty, so you simply do not want to accept it.

True, but that would make game easier.
I do not want it easier, it is already easy as it is. I just want it less annoying ( with less misses ). I would even approve change that would reduce misses but make our overall damage lower and game harder - although I know some people would disagree about making game harder, so my suggestion leaves difficulty exactly as it was.


Exactly, and in OP I mentioned that it should even be OFF by default - so only those who are annoyed with too frequent misses would use it.

If Larian implements something like this as you suggested, gmnenad, I surely would not mind.

But we will have to wait and see what Larian cooks up next.

They don't talk much about their current plans for the game.

Keep in mind, I'm not doing this to be mean but just realistic. It's okay if you think true-random can be problematic in a video-game setting. But there are other options besides your proposal, such as pseudo-random. There is also the option of looking at the rules and abilities in Dungeons and Dragons and you will find at level 5 and up things change. I don't think it's good to look at BG3's current combat meta (with a level cap at 4, and some tweaks by Larian) and think that is Dungeons and Dragons.

Here's why the difficulty would be changed:
It sounds like you want an easier difficulty because you keep adjusting your proposal as you go. Also, because you want to ignore spells and mechanics in the game that already help you hit more. There are a lot of spells and mechanics in Baldur's Gate 3 (some from Dungeons and Dragons, and some Larian added themselves). That require you to do more than just attack, attack, attack. You don't want to use those and would rather use homogenized damage to whittle at your opponents.

DnD is built around the Dungeon Master and the players being subject to the same rules. By saying that you want only the opponent be subject to true random, you're asking for this balance to be disrupted. That's also why it sounds like you're asking for an easier difficulty setting. One where you don't have to worry about doing anything but chip, chip away.

All that being said, homogenized damage still seems tepid (as discussed before). I don't see randomness as a combat issue at all, there really are other things that need to be addressed to make combat fun.
If Larian goes the route of a homogenized damage setting, they're developing the game and have a right to make that choice.

Granted, I do not have significant experience with DnD type of games ( aside of Pillars of Eternity Dreadfire, which I played in turn based mode ) , so I sure hope higher level will be better regarding misses.

I did not change anything from my original post, only explained in more details. Please point out what you think I changed from OP or where I countered my OP.

As I said before, I do not want easier difficulty, as it is easy even now. As an example, I was able to kill The Hag (Auntie) in her hut in first turn, before she had chance to escape thru fake fireplace to her cellar. Furthermore, I would be quite willing to accept "low misses" solution that would raise difficulty - but I know that some other gamers might not, and that's why my suggestion leaves exactly same difficulty.

This is assumption on your part. I do use available mechanics to increase my hit chance, and I *still* have way more misses than I like.

This is conclusion based on wrong assumption. You assume that my suggestion would lower difficulty, and assume that it would "disrupt the balance". Then you use your assumption to prove that same assumption. Kinda circular logic. If you accept than my suggestion does NOT give you advantage, then you must accept that it does not give disadvantage to your opponents.

Also, it is another assumption that I just want to "chip, chip away", and in fact that is one of my more serious objection to DnD combat. It is even mentioned in my OP. I find combat in games like DoS far more interesting exactly because I can do far more meaningful things than just swing the sword.

Obviously, this is subjective. But what is not subjective is that there are many more great RPG games that have LOW randomness range than games that have this high randomness range. Starting with Larian's own DoS games. And there is nothing "tepid" in those games - fight in DoS is by FAR more interesting, engaging and open to tactical decision and synergies than DnD fight ... not only BG3 DnD fight, but Dreadfire DnD fight too. Granted, I did not play "true" DnD, but even if it i smore interesting than this it would not make DoS combat "tepid" by any mean.

That "Larian goes the route of a homogenized damage setting" misses main point explicitly stated in my OP - this option I suggest would be exactly that : an option, that is disabled by default. So saying that if they implement this Larian would be "going the route" is missing the fact that game would remain unchanged to everyone who do not want to use this option.

In fact, most "going the route" requests on this forum come from DnD crowd, where requests are to change BG3 in such a way that it would be changed to all players - mostly closer to "true" DnD. I'm not going into debate if those requests are good or bad ( and believe that at least some are good ), just pointing that my suggestion is not one of those - it would NOT change anything to those who do not want to use it. And it should not require large resources to do it.

Can you explain us how you play the game ?

It looks like missing is a huge problem to you... But except with GWM, it's very (too) easy to have more than 75% to hit.

The tutorial is pretty bad at the moment so it could be hard to know how to create a character but what you ask won't happen because this would mean to a game even less D&D than it is now. If it happen, this game would be a lie.

As I said in the other thread I'm not a player of D&D and I agree with you that combats are annoying, not enough strategic, too slow,... And the lack of synergies between characters is an issue to me too.

I don't know what's your level of knowledge of D&D but the rules include many more things that aren't (properly) implemented that would lead to more interresting combats. I'm nearly sure you would agree.

I'm open to any suggestion on how to improve hit chances - I already said I'm not a veteran DnD player, and still new to BG3, so it is not impossible that I missed something.

But that said, I *do* have large experience in RPG games and I *did* read about choices when creating characters, so I doubt my characters are significantly sub-par.

My own character is a wood elf ranger, with 19 DEX and archery. I also use Astarion as a rogue (19 DEX, fast hands), Gale (18INT), and Laezel (17 STR, GWF and GWM). Out of those only at Laezel I knowingly reduced chance to hit with GWM.

In combat, I always ensure to have advantage when possible (high ground, backstabs etc), and I never attack with disadvantage ( I use Dancing Lights to remove shadows, reposition if under or close etc ). I even tried using Guidance spell to improve hits, but even if it has effect on hit chances (does it?) it is not always possible nor is it valid answer to "interesting fight" if you need actions of two characters to be able to play as normal one.

Is there anything else that influence hit chance? I could not find any spell in BG3 that can reduce enemy armor class for example, and while there are number of useful debuffs ( like Hunters Mark), they tend toincrease damage IF hit, not to increase chance to hit. And while I found few spells that improve attack roll, they are either cumbersome or my characters do not have them.

Bless for example increases your to hit chance.

Good point. It does not exactly reduce enemy armor class, but effect is same for hit chance.
Unfortunately, I do not have Bless nor Faerie Fire on my characters but I did try using True Strike - it helps a bit, but is cumbersome since it works only on person who used it.

Faerie Fire would be better than True Strike, since like Bless it may be cast by one character and help all others who attack that enemy. And those 3 are only spells I found that directly improve attack roll. I found no spell that reduce enemy AC ( although Faerie Fire has similar effect ).

Practically all good options that I found on spell list ( Bless and Faerie Fire) would require me to use Cleric, which is not a class I like to play. I even have Xyanyde, but again only character suitable for that weapon would be cleric. In the end, maybe I will have to reconsider it and replace one of characters that I like to play with cleric ... but it is questionable if it would be enough to reduce misses, and game design that forces you to use one class to make other classes viable is not exactly the best.

I wonder if wizard can learn Bless or Faerie Fire? In other words, if scrolls of those spells exist somewhere in BG3 ?

The scroll for Bless exists, and can be learned by every caster.

But I hope Larian doesn't keep that strange innuendo that a wizard can learn divine spells through a scroll.

Well, I am on my third playthrough - even on the first one, things get very samey very quickly. In a big part because there are only two types of abilities - one doing physical and magical damage. There isn't much beyond that. I am doing my first BG3 playthrough right now (as well as my first coop playthrough of D:OS2) and so far, BG3 is straight up improvement. That said, I didn't get deep into the game enough to experience misses. So far, most of the hits had 80-100% chances to hit, with some occasional 50-60%. Hopefully, it will get more interesting soon.

Faerie fire is a spell some races have right at the beginning. Bless will be available for paladins and yes, there are scrolls.

I don't know D&D's spells enough so I don't know if there are others that increase attack roll or reduce ennemy's AC... But I can't really understand your problem with miss because even without bless, just having an advantage often leads to more than 75% to hit.
(Of course not with GWM but don't choose it if you don't want to miss)

Your abilities are good, but remember that the only thing that matter is your modifier. 18 or 19 in dext is the same. 16 or 17 in str is the same. That's just about optimisation.

Keep in mind that you can only have one advantage. Faerie fire and True strike are useless in Larian's setting because there are too expensive (1 action + 1 spell slot)
In BG3 everyone can have a free or cheaper advantage through highground and backstab.
Advantages is THE thing to improve your %to hit but it's deeper and synergies between characters exists. Not in BG3.

Not sure but it looks like you just want to reach 100% to hit...

About light yes in D&D characters that can't see in the darkness aren't as proficient in the darkness in combats. Weren't you talking about synergies and strategy ?

Heh, no - I do not need 100% to hit, even DoS2 was not 100%. But hit chance of 75% still would mean I will *miss once on each turn* on average with my 4 characters.
So what I would like, I guess, is that turns where I miss are in minority. That would mean I miss once every 2nd turn or less - otherwise its still 'always miss' annoyance. For that to happen, average chance to hit for each character should be over 91%.

And I like having to use lights, that is about only meaningful synergy so far in BG3, as I mentioned in some of my posts before.

The 75% was an average. If you always attack with advantages you shouldn't have so much misses.
Not more than in a regular XCOM, Wasteland, DoS or any other tactical TB game.
(Creatures AC is also something Larian can tweak a bit)

With more characters in your party those few misses would be less meaningfull. That's one of the reasons I ask for more characters (variety in party composition - see your point about cleric - is another one, faster combats and more AP/round are the last one).

About synergies you're right, that's nearly the only one. In BG3, not in D&D.

This is also going to be my last post in this thread, I'm open to discourse about improving the game. Not having to read someone defend an incomplete proposal by changing stances and then say they didn't do that. You want a setting that would require more work than you think it does, and you change stances each time a flaw is pointed out. Your comparison to DoS and BG3's action economy isn't even accurate.

There are plenty of turn-based rpgs out there where a player controls a party of characters who truly only get one action per turn. A lot of them have fanbases across the world and have existed for decades. These are games a lot of gamers play: Dragon Quest, Pokemon, Persona etc. The idea that one action per turn = bad, is short-sighted and flawed. Pokemon has a turn-based system where players control one character at a time, get one action per turn, and a lot of people love it.

If you're really asking to always hit the expected amount each time, guess what? The more time you spend in the game the more often you will meet that. Some fights are longer and some are shorter with RNG but it will meet the expected outcome. And, you're asking Larian to invest resources to homogenize outcomes. You're asking for an alternative game mode where you will see fewer misses but no actually change to gameplay. Literally asking them to do work for no real change to the gameplay.

Metaphorically, you're asking to have a car painted the same color it already is, because rainy weather and dust happen and you're tired of washing the car. I think time should be spent with Larian either improving their homebrew ideas or making the game more true to DnD.

Lastly, it's okay to talk about alternatives to true RNG. But your proposal just doesn't seem like a good alternative.