Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Reducing MISSES in combat

I find frequent misses in combat annoying, and believe many non-DnD people would be alienated from BG3 because of that, as I already explained in my suggestion how to reduce them ( in this post ).

But I just read compilation by Maximuuus, and it have other interesting suggestions regarding misses. Since my main request was "reduce misses", any of those would help - but I still found some issues that made me redefine what my request really is. Issues I found with previous suggestions :

- An option that could add a +”x” bonus to every D20, in every situation whatever the check could be something that keep D&D’s balance safe while at the same time would increase our % to hit.
*** this would outright make combat easier - it would be very hard to keep "DnD balance safe" with that

- An option to reduce the ennemy's AC.
*** again , this would directly make combat easier , and may disbalance DnD concepts - it would reduce significance of proficiency with weapons and impact of STR/DEX for example

- An "auto advantages" after 3 miss.
*** this would make game "slightly" easier, especially since we often have advantages anyway. And reduction of misses would be minimal - they would still be annoying

- Something like "+5% to hit" each time a character miss.
*** this would also make game "slightly" easier, and misses slightly reduced - if current average is 75% to hit, it would take many misses before it helps. Misses would still be frequent.


Basically, those issues I mentioned above made me clarify what I think is wanted : REDUCED MISSES that do NOT MAKE GAME EASIER and KEEP IT BALANCED.
Game is easy as it is, and making it easier would make it less interesting to play - and harder for Larian to balance.


Out of above suggestions, one I like most ( apart from my own suggestion, of course ) would be modified "reduce enemy AC" in a way to prevent making game easier. And that would require "increase enemy HP" proportionally to reducing enemy AC. That way, enemy would remain roughly same challenge but with less misses. Other suggestions are hard to balance to keep challenge and still reduce misses.

But even modified "reduce AC, increase HP" would still leave other issue - DnD is currently balanced around AC. Reducing AC would reduce significance of proficiency with weapons, and even significance of your main attribute like STR/DEX since increasing them help with Ability Modifier used in Attack Roll against AC. In other words, currently increasing STR/DEX helps you twice with your damage: first, increasing chance to hit and, second, increasing weapon damage. If they reduce AC on enemies, increasing your STR/DEX would be less impactful.

To put it differently, lets say that you currently have GWM warrior, Archer hunter and rogue, and that their average damage is comparable: GWM warrior can do largest damage, but is more often missing, rogue is doing less damage than warrior when he hits but more damage than Archer, but Archer miss less than rogue due to +2 archery .... so they are "balanced". Now, if they reduce mob AC and increase mob HP, mob may remain similarly hard, but our character balance is broken : they will all hit most of the time now, and GWM warrior will end up doing more damage than rogue who will be doing more damage than archer.


Regarding my own suggestion, it avoids all those problems - it reduces misses but reduces averages hit damage to compensate, taking into consideration exactly same influence of AC as it is now. Therefore total amount of damage over entire fight remains the same, and it does not require rebalances of individual mobs, nor it break importance of AC ... while reducing misses significantly ( in fact, it leaves only 5% miss chance from critical misses).

One potential issue with it is that some people think that 5% misses is too low ( even if it is higher than average miss chance for DoS ). Which brings another question :

what exactly is "satisfactory reduced misses" ?

It is obviously subjective and may be different for everyone. In one of previous posts I defined my minimum as "turns where I miss with any characters to be in minority". That means chance for any of 4 characters to miss per turn should be under 1/2 ( once every 2 turns) - or average hit chance for single character to be over 85%. Less annoying goal would be one miss every 3 turns, meaning average character hit chance above 90% .. or miss every 4th turn, requiring average character hit chance over 93% etc

In my default proposal, hit chance of characters is 95% - only critical misses in 1/20 cases is left, since my proposal suggest that *critical* damage remains the same, both critical hit ( allowing same max damage as it is now ) and critical misses. But later in thread I mentioned that it would be possible to implement it as a "slider" where certain amount of misses is allowed, even above 5%. It would mean that more misses are allowed, and damage is less reduced, to keep exactly same total damage over time.

That "slider" option now looks to me as best fit for above requirement to reduce misses, not make game easier and keep it balanced.
Probably best name for that would be MINIMAL HIT CHANCE :
1) Allow "slider" option that has 1= default, misses as it is now ; 2= miss once every 2nd turn ; 3= miss once every 3rd turn ... etc ( where "once X turns" means one miss for all 4 characters together ) - this will determine minimal hit chance as mentioned above ( 1= as it is now, 2=85%, 3=90%, 4=93% ...)
2) on each attack, check if crit or miss UP TO THE CAP. If original chance to hit was 60% and option=1(original), we still miss in 40%. But if minimal hit chance is 85%, we do miss only in 15%.
3) compensate ( reduce) hit damage for amount we reduced miss chance ( so that new average hit damage * new hit chance from #2 equals original average hit damage * original hit chance )
4) [OPTION] compensated damage can still be in range ( eg if originally it was 1d12 with 1-12, reduced can be for example 1-8 ) OR reduced can still have all possible values (1-12) but with changed probabilities (see below)


This should be as easy to implement as my initial suggestion with 5% misses, and would not require any further game rebalance or chances to each individual mob AC/HP, while keeping effect of all DnD stats ( keeping importance of proficiencies and STR/DEX as they are now). It would probably require changes only in BG3 procedures that calculate AttackRoll and DamageRoll, and even those should not be large ( I gave example pseudo code in my suggestion post ), but important part is that those changses would be localized only to that part of code, without need to rebalance entire game, concepts like AC/HP or mobs.

Regarding to 4th (optional) part, in my original suggestion it was fixed to average since I assumed that some people are also annoyed by low hits ( eg you hit 1 with 1d12 ), and making compensated damage always average value fix that. But I noticed that other people are averse to "homogenous" damage, and so I pointed out here that it is an option for solving MISSES issue - even if damage remain in range, it is previous 3 points about reducing misses and compensating average damage that counts - damage itself can remain in range. There is, of course, middle ground even here: game can change probability of each value 1..12 in a way to keep desired average ( one we reduced in point #3 to compensate for reduced misses), while still having SOME probability for each value 1-12. So next step would be ( if we want to reduce number of minimal damage values like 1-2 that may annoy some people) for game to change probability of each value 1-12 in a way that both achieve average asked in #3, AND reduce probability of low numbers ( by symmetrically reducing probability of high numbers), while still keeping both of those possible. For DnD veterans, it would be similar to difference between 2d6 and 1d12 - first has less chance for both 1 and 12, with similar average.

I got something for you that's called D&D rules + reasonable cutom rules.

1) Remove the highground and backstab advantages and convert them into +2 to attack roll.
This way you can increase your basic %to hit by 10% (average) if you wish.
Of course it require a rework of jump/disengage to become a meaningfull choice.

2) Use the advantage mechanics of D&D.
This way the game is opened to MANY strategies, possibilities, synergies between characters.
You can have an average of +25% on your attack rolls.

3) Then you can also use bless, the usefull spells of clerics and paladins to add another +5-+20%.
(I know, a party of 4 is very limited and we don't have many choices to play with classes we enjoy a little bit less)

10+25+(5-20, let's say 10) = a possible average of +45%

Isn't that enough to you ?
I guess it is.

That's the only solution to increase our control on the %to hit and our tactical choices without creating even greater difficulty problems.

I get where you're coming from, frequent missing IS annoying. It's an especially prevalent feature in low level 5E D&D and pretty much nothing else and I think for good reason. But I don't think correcting it is in scope for an option in a menu.

Without the wide variability of outcomes as a result of missing easy battles become trivial. Not only do you not have to account for a string of bad luck meaning you take a bunch more damage but you also don't have to bother spending any resources on the off chance of a string of bad luck.

Spells like Magic Missile aren't damage efficient (sans broken magic items anyway) but they are extremely reliable. Why should I waste a 2nd level spell slot to almost guarantee finishing off a 10hp enemy if my warrior can just hit him with a sword instead?

Increasing my hit chance, increasing my damage and reducing my opponents hit chance are all very different when viewed in the lens of hit chance but when there is only damage they are reduced to buff soup.

There are hundreds of other considerations like this which makes adding options to effectively remove the randomness from D&D akin to trying to unbake an Apple and Cinnamon pie to get rid of the cinnamon. It might be possible as a mod but I think the venn diagram of people with the time, energy and enthusiasm to do something like this and people who would be interested in it are just two separate circles.

Ultimately I think the best response is to try and drain the randomness out of the game using tactics. Astarion has so many attacks he's unlikely to miss with all of them consistently. Gale can spam Magic Missile, especially with the broken Sapphire Spark. Your own character can be built a few ways to limit randomness so that just leaves one character who is difficult to predict. Once you get to level 5 the problem will be drastically reduced anyway as characters start to get their second attacks or big signature spells.

Unfortunately, that would be :
a) not 45% but only 10% improvement ( we all already use advantages, so those +25% are already present and would not additionally help with misses ; and we already can use Bless but it force our character choice )
b) even those 10% ( due to modified highground rules ) would make game easier by same amount, and may require rebalancing
c) would require significant rework of current BG3 mechanics


*EDIT* Another thing about this is that with your true-DnD advantage proposal, getting advantage would be much more rare than now since currently high ground is main source of advantage ( I know that it is exactly what is an issue for DnD crowd, but ...). So on every fight where I before had advantage due to high ground I will now miss 15% MORE ( gained +10% due to high ground, lost -25% due to no advantage )

I get that people who would like "true DnD rules" are prone to suggest removing non-DnD mechanics ( like "remove height advantage"), and while this is maybe only version of removing height advantage so far that would not make me strongly against, it does not address directly goal of "reduce misses without making game easier or disbalanced".

That is a good point, but that is specifically why I mentioned "without making game easier". And I think my suggestion address most if not all of those issues. You still can have string of bad luck ( only with lower probability ). Battle will not become trivial since your overall damage remains the same ( you miss less, but does proportionally lower damage). You still can spend resources on the off chance of a string of bad luck.
Regarding "you take a bunch more damage", I did not explain specifically in this thread because I explained it in linked thread with my initial suggestion, but damage that you take would not change at all. This "reduce miss but decrease damage" would be applied only to players, there is no need to apply it to enemies - they do not get annoyed with misses, so they will keep same miss rate and same larger damages. I mentioned that it also does not apply to our own crits, so even our maximal damages ( and critical misses ) remain same.

And this is exactly why my suggestion is good - it keeps overall effects of your increased chances or increased damages, so regardless if you invested in one or the other on your characters, effects remain same even when my suggested option is used. And, as mentioned above, reducing my opponents hit chance is not at all affected with my suggestion since we do not change attacks of enemies.

Obviously, as interested group are "many non-DnD gamers" and group to implement is "larian". But there is probably same or larger separation of circles when it come to implementing any "pro-DnD" suggestion, so I do not see how it matters here. Especially since actual implementation of my suggestion should be MUCH easier than most other suggestions I see on forum - both in programmer time (low) and especially in game designer time (almost none, no balance issues).

This is akin to saying "if you do not like some aspect of the game, play in VERY specific way to minimize that aspect". But that takes most of fun out of game, if you are forced to do or use those specific things for game to be enjoyable. It is similar to saying to pro-DnD crowd : if you do not like that high ground give advantage, do not stand on high ground.

[b][/b]10% more, which is... If you can play the game and use the advantage an opportunity to reach more than 75%-80%.

Don't blame the game if you can't use the mechanics or if GWM has consequences. If you don't like missing, don't use it.

I can't understand your point...

At the moment I'm trying a playthrough with a solo melee cleric with a dext of 16. I nearly always have MORE than 75% to hit without bless and without any other bonuses (only advantage).

So again, what do you want ? 80% ? 90% ? 100% ?.

You don't like missing but you use GWM or don't focus on advantage... And on the other hand you don't want more strategic choices to increase your %to hit.
(If going back an opponent to have a +2 bonus trigger an AOO, having this +10% is a real tactical choice).

And you want more synergies but you don't want to spend 1 turn to give advantages to your teammates...

You're inconsistent, and it looks like you just want another game.
You should try to think about the rules and how it could be possible to improve combats because Larian won't change the basics of D&D.

I edited my previous reply to your post to point out that your proposal would often increase miss chance by 15% instead of decreasing it.
Also I explicitly stated what would be acceptable hit probabilities for me. At a minimum 85%, more reasonable 90% ( that average includes both cases when you have and not have advantage/disadvantage ).
And I do not know where you see inconsistency in my post. On the other hand, it looks like you do not consider misses as an issue now in BG3, while your own compilation post mentioned it.

Yes, that is what I'm doing now. You are practically saying "use current game and adapt around what you do not like", and I'm doing that already. But, as I posted above, that is similar to saying to pro-DnD people who want high ground advantage removed ( like you mentioned ) : do not stand on high ground if you do not like it. It is doable, but not enjoyable option.

Obviously, I DO hope that Larian is open to suggestions, especially if they do NOT change the basics of their game. Since my proposal would not change any basics of current game nor make it any more or less DnD, unlike many "bring teua DnD rules" requests which would require significant changes of current BG3 rules.

If you reduce AC and increase HP (as Larian already did, because they thought that you miss to much with normal 5e rules, too), you will also have to deal with the effect of increased HP on spells, i.e. they also need to do more damage, or a fireball is just laughable, because an enemy just loses like 5% of its HP.

And there is also the same matter with saving throws. Why should I use a spell that does only a relatively small amount of damage (compared to full HP), and cost me a spell slot, and maybe does only half damage? The risk - reward system is not in balance anymore with melee, were I always hit, but do not much damage.
This proposal devalues Spell Slots too. Not just STR/DEX and Proficiency Modifier (for your to hit chance).


ANd regarding the sliders, even with a 95% hit chance, over the length of the game I will probably see it a couple times, that my fighter misses four times in a row. And rest assured, with higher levels, magic items, spells, it's actually quite easy to achieve 95% hit-chance, or even 99.75 hit chance (when you have advantage).

And in the end, it also comes down to personal taste. Maybe my barbarian misses sometimes, but then are these spectacular critical hits, that kill many monsters with 1 hit. And if I have a to-hit chance of more than 80% is really good in my department. But this may also be because I play PnP Table Top games since I am 12 years old.

No it wouldn't decrease your %to hit because D&D has MANY opportunities to grant advantages.
Here is a list made by another member of this community.


This list you can add an advantage when your ennemy is surprised or the optionnal flanking rules (if 2 allies are in melee against a creature = both have advantage against this creature).

You would be able to add those two bonuses instead of only having an easy and cheap advantages... Leading to more tactical thinking and synergies which is I guess, what you asked in all your thread.

Only those that don't want to think about how to have an advantages would have a lower %to hit, and those who don't want to think in a tactical turn based game usually choose an easier level of difficulty... Leading to the same or an increased %to hit depending what parameters larian choose to tweak.

Your suggestion completely change how damages roll works, so yes it changes the basics and the balance of the system.

At the moment playing without highground or backstab advantage doesn't work at all.
Not sure you notice it, but the difficulty is completely broken at the moment.

I think this is the time to talk about something Larian added to the game that is not in DnD 5e rules. This something actually increases your chance to miss. And if the game were truer to 5th edition, there would be less annoyance.


We really would like to not rely on higher ground with ranged abilities, but Larian created a status called "threatened" that will give ranged attacks disadvantage if an enemy is within a ~3m radius. So if we don't take our casters to the high ground, we will be punished with disadvantage. (DnD 5e has disadvantage at 5 feet, which is also currently in Baldur's Gate 3).

One quick fix to reduce misses in combat would simply be to remove "threatened" from Baldur's Gate 3 and have the game be more like DnD 5e.

Exactly - reducing AC has effects on game balance even with increasing HP, and I explained those that I saw as most direct (effects on proficiency and STR/DEX). Additional effects like devalued Spell Slots only confirm that reduced AC proposal changes game balance.

I understand very well that even with 95% hit chance we will still see misses, and I'm perfectly ok with that. In fact, those numbers I have shown ( like 85% hit chance) come from exact expectations of average misses - with 85% average hit chance across all characters, we will miss on average once every 2nd turn. Each individual character will miss on average once every 6th turn. And there is still chance that I will miss multiple times in a row ( chance for 4 times in a row in 85% case is 0.05%, but its still there )

And I fully understand that it is all about personal taste - after all, I still selected GWM warrior, even knowing that misses annoy me, because I happened to like 2H weapons more than dual wielding.

But there is one interesting part of your post where I do not have enough experience about :

If this frequent misses will go away before half the game, I could accept it. But I did not see what BG3 or DnD rule would help with higher levels ?

I understood that we will slowly increase proficiency, at 1 per 4 levels, and since I read that max level will be 10 it means proficiency will cap at ... 3? That is just one more point than now. Same with abilities, we get 2 more points at lvl 8, which translate to one more Ability Modifier point. That totals +2 to Attack Rolls.

On the other hand, I also understood that DnD rules call for increased AC with mob difficulty, it was from 13 to 19 AC IIRC, which is +6 AC ... and if that is across 20 lvl range and if I can assume +3 AC at lvl 10 compared to now, that totally annuls those +2 improvements and make missing even more often at lvl 10. Regarding spells, I looked at full list of spells on wiki, and unless those are only early access spells, only Bless affected directly attack without giving advantage.

In short, can I really expect less misses on higher levels?

I'm quite open to discussing specific examples where anyone think that my proposal changes balance of the system - so that I may either explain if it does not, or modify my proposal so that it reduce that unwanted effect.

Currently I do not see where my proposal change current balance in ANY significant way, unlike those other mentioned suggestions like "lower AC higher HP". And yes, my proposal achieves this "no balance change" by changing how damage roll "works" but specifically for the reason not to change balance of the system. And I modified my original previous proposal so that my proposal in this thread not only keep balance, but keeps even more of the current features unchanged:
- those who do not think misses are an issue do not need to use it ... this option is OPTIONAL and disabled by default
- it keeps total/average damage over any fight unchanged, so it keeps difficulty of all fights unchanged - no need to rebalance mobs or fights
- it keeps crits exactly same as they are now
- it keeps enemy damage exactly same as it is now
- it keeps our maximal possible damage ( since it does not change crits) ... so we can still get those big damage numbers, even if out average damage is slightly reduced
- it keeps out worst case - critical misses
- it still keep misses in game, if current average hit chance is 75%, with this it would ( at step 2) be 85% ... barely noticeable for those who are not bothered by misses now, but significant for us who are bothered
- it keep EXACTLY same effects of AC or HP, proficiencies and Ability Modifiers, and all investments in skills, abilities, spells or gears that improve some of those
- it can still produce same minimal and maximal damage values ... only average value of those is slightly lower to compensate for slightly less misses
- it should be easy to implement, only in AttackRoll/DamageRoll procedures, without need for game designer rebalances



But if you see some specific case where this proposal does change balance in noticeable way, please point out.

DnD actually has levers in place where a +x could be added without completely disrupting balance. It also shouldn't be seen as a bad thing if the game ends up being easier. If something truly is frustrating, then all options should be explored.

For example, below is a table of proficiency bonuses.

Proficiency Bonus By Level
1-4 ( +2 )
5-8 ( +3 )
9-12 ( +4 )
13-16 ( +5 )
17-20 ( +6 )

Larian could change this to be...
Proficiency Bonus By Level
1-4 ( +3 )
5-8 ( +3 )
9-12 ( +4 )
13-16 ( +5 )
17-20 ( +6 )

The player would have less misses for levels 1-4, levels 1-4 would be slightly easier, and most of the game would be completely unchanged.

We all expected some changes would need to be made to adapt a tabletop game to a 3d videogame. Personally, an adjusted proficiency bonus is something I excepted could happen. It's a nice quick adjustment that doesn't drastically change the game.

Probably, yes. Let's say we will be level 10. In DnD, this often means your DM will pit your party against enemies with a CR of 8 - 10, maybe 11 if he likes his/her players to feel excited and fear for the life of your characters.
Or your DM will throw several monsters with a far lower CR at you.

As a suggestion the rule of thumb goes: party of 4 heroes (with lvl X) = 1 monster of CR X.
You could also say, for a party of 4 level 8 heroes, if they are attacked by 4 CR 2 monsters, it's also quite a worthy challenge.

When I look at monsters with CR 10, there are exactly 50 monsters (I can find in DnDBeyond).
If I filter these monsters by AC, then I get the following:

AC 21: 0
AC 20: 1
AC 19: 5
AC 18: 11
AC 17: 19
AC 16: 4
AC 15: 5
AC 14: 2
AC 13 or lower: 3

Let's go with AC 17 here.

I assume a fighter with STR 20 wielding a Greatsword +1 (with a generous GM maybe a +2).
Her boni are: +4 (proficiency bonus) + 5 (STR ability bonus) + 1 (item bonus): +10

So she needs to roll a 7 or higher (7 + 10 = 17 --> hit): 70% chance
She gets buffed by Bless: 75 - 90% chance
She gets advantage (by a spell, or something else): 91% chance
She gets Bless + advantage: 93,8 - 97,8% chance

so I think at level 10, it's reasonable to assume to have a hit chance of around 85% or more, especially when you think about Bless being a Level 1 spell (and don't ignore the bonus to saving throws! it's such a great spell!)

What is "item bonus"? I understood that +1 on weapons increase their damage, not attack rolls vs AC ?

But if we will gain 3 bonus points ( +2 proficiency, +1 STR ) at level 10 compared to current lvl 4, it looks like we will lose -3 on AC , or even more. I do not know what is average AC for level 4 but , for example, Spider Queen has AC 14 so I assume average AC for lvl 4 is below that 14 ... and that means at least increase of 3 AC and maybe even more to match those AC 17.

In other words, it appears it will be exactly same miss chance at lvl 10. Advantages and Bless are available even now ( where I use first always when possible, and do not have cleric for 2nd ).

Unless that "item bonus" means that some better items have also +1 to attack rolls ?

A +1 weapon increases your attack roll and your damage roll by 1, as compared to a non-magical version of the same weapon.

As grysqrl already said, yes, a weapon +X gives you +X bonus to your hit roll.

I just looked it up, there are 167 monsters with a CR of 3, which should be the brunt of monsters we will be fighting with lvl 10.
Of these, there are ~120 which have an AC of 14 or lower.

So even without buffs and Larian's tweaks, the above mentioned fighter has - without any buffs - a to-hit chance of 85% against the majority of level appropiate monsters.

Please remember, when you fight against a CR 10 monster (while your party also being level 10), this is meant that your whole party fights against ONE monster in that encounter. Not several monsters. It is meant like a sort of dungeon boss or something, maybe go CR 11 for a big boss or so.

When you fight against multiple monsters, e.g. goblins (they have a CR of 1/4), then the rule of thumb is to use a CR of party level divided by number of monsters.

And I am aware that the Challenge Rating System of monsters is nota perfect system. But it gives you good examples, around what level of difficulty an encounter CAN be balanced.

EDIT:
There are already +2 weapons in the game. So, although I personally don't approve, we will probably get +3 weapons pretty soon in the game.

So let's try it with a level 3 character and CR 3 creatures.
There are 165 creatures with CR 3.

AC 8 : 1
AC 9 : 1
AC 10 : 1
AC 11 : 13
AC 12 : 23
AC 13 : 29
AC 14 : 26
AC 15 : 24
AC 16: 20
AC 17 : 22
AC 18 : 5
AC 19 : 0

The average AC is 14.
At level 3 your character usually have a +3 modifier, +2 proficiency and nothing more.

It means you have to roll a 9 or higher to hit : 60% chance
He gets buffed by bless : 65 - 80%
He gets advantage : 84%
He gets bless + advantage : 94.4 - 97.5%

Conclusion : advantage is a core mechanic to improve your %to hit.

I have only played the 1st edition AD&D rules on the table, a long time ago. But I think that there were few damage-inflicting spells that could totally miss. Normally the target gets a savethrow that halves the damage. Maybe this is different in 5e. For me a big frustration are the spell misses. Some battles go real fast, and the first rounds are decisive. So, if the first 3 of your powerful damage-inflicting spells all miss and do 0 damage (with 60% hit chance), while the opposition is pummeling you with something like 8 HP of fire and acid damage per attack, the fun quickly goes away.

Can happen of course, but I find it happens way too often.