Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Technical & Gameplay Problems Great Weapon Fighting

(I tryed searching, but didnt find anything ...)

Feel free to corect me, but:
- Lae'zel allways have Great Weapon Fighting style ... there is no way to pick any other for her.
(Feel free to see this as first isue i would like to adress about her)

- When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack with a Two-Handed meele weapon, that die is rerolled once.
(Litteral transcription from ingame tooltip)

That means Fighter with this Fighting style should be unable to "Critical miss" with first roll, while using 2H Sword ... corect?

Well:


//Edit:

So the damage die is when you actually roll damage - rolling to hit is a separate thing. what it means is that after you've rolled to hit, and hit successfully, when the damage is rolled, any 1s or 2s you roll on that damage roll (ie. either of the 2 d6s you roll for damage with a great sword) get re-rolled; if you missed with the attack anyway, this doesn't come into play.

That Aside: Currently, natural 1s in Larian's code trump everything, and currently even negate other abilities that could or should prevent them, and that's a problem in and of itself. So, even if you had an ability that let you re-roll an attack roll, a natural 1 would preclude your ability to use it, because the attack would automatically process a miss, before getting to the trigger point. This is a flaw in their design right now.

I know what damage die is ...
But the tooltip litteraly say "for an attack" ... wich seems like attack roll to me. :-/

Seems like i was wrong.

---

Honestly im even kinda struggling with wording: "on a damage die for an attack" ...
I mean come on is that written purposely to confuse non-native english speakers? -_-

Why cant the tooltip simply say "when you roll for attack" or "when you roll for damage" why both words needs to be used? :-/
I mean its obvious that we are attacking with the weapon when we are rolling damage, isnt it?
There are certain words that should not be used when it isnt necesary, since they allready have some meaning in this setting ... like saying that by following some kind of tactic "you get an Advantage". :-/

Look at this Rag:



It looks like you're asking whether this fighting style was deliberately written by someone, which seems like a silly and obvious thing to ask; of course it was deliberately written. It wasn't thrown together by cosmic space dust, after all.

But... that isn't what you asked or said there, is it? I just ignored the context of the words that came after what you said, and misconstrued your meaning. Was that your fault for not speaking clearly, or mine for ignoring the rest of what you said and not taking in the context? It was the latter, clearly. The same is true of your complaint:

The phrase in question is not: "for an attack that you make"
The phrase is: "The damage die for an attack that you make with a two-handed weapon"

Read in full without omitting part of the phrase, it's very clear that we're talking about the damage die here, and not the attack roll - they're separate things, and it's very obvious, painfully so, that it is the damage die that we are talking about. The context of that damage die, then is the damage die that we roll when we attack with a two-handed weapon.

The original text read like this:

"When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit."

Beyond that, "making an attack" is a thing that has a specific meaning - and that must be what you have done to reach the damage rolling step. If, for example, you dropped your sword off a balcony to spike someone in the skull when they walked underneath, you might roll damage die, and you might even roll the damage die for the weapon, but you have not "made an attack", and so GWF would not apply.

So... theoretical question: how would you do this, Rag?

How would you word this fighting style, so that it does everything it's supposed to, and doesn't end up doing or allowing things it's not meant to, without using the word 'attack'?

Personally, I would like to see all the numbers. I would like to see the output for all rolls somewhere (debug data, pretty much).

Although I can understand the frustration for Ragna the language is precise (a little weird but precise). A full, technical output of what is happening, accessible from somewhere in the interface, might be useful here, no? There would be output lines like:
[character] Attack Roll: ...
[character] Damage Roll: ...
[character] Dex Save Roll: ...

Do we have this already? I see the screenshots where we can hover over the game's event log but I'm really talking about just the numbers part; rather than stuff like "character missed enemy". I keep forgetting to check for this.

When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die with a Two-Handed meele weapon, that die is rerolled once.

//Edit:
Im not omitting anything ... this is just they way my native language works. -_-

I can learn words in english, i can (theoreticaly, since i never learned english in school) phrasing and rules for compile sentences ...
But no matter what, my brain will still work in czech. -_-

When you say "roll your damage die for an attack" ...
You determined wich die you are suppose to use, and what outcome it should give you.
And that is exactly what i have seen here ... that im using this type of die (damage one) to determine this outcome (attack > therefore hit chance).

So, you probably can see by now, that this isnt problem of "omitting parts" ... whattever that means.
As i multiple times said to you i AM reading full sentences, i AM even reading full posts ... but im still processing them the way my language works.

In other words: Yes, im aware that i was wrong ... now. (As i also said earlier)
Even tho your responce seem to be a little too harsh for my taste. :-/

And, as I already mentioned and gave example for, that is NOT sufficient to communicate what the feature is meant to do without opening it up to abuse or a lack of clarity.

Worded like that, it could easily be taken to mean ANY damage die you roll while you have a two-handed melee weapon, regardless of that damage's source or cause. That's not good enough.

Here's another example: You're one of the classes that can use your weapon as their spellcasting focus - and you cast fireball. Worded as you've written it there, I'd get to reroll all the 1s and 2s of my fireball. I don't.


Hueron is right though - as many of us have requested, and I'm pretty sure you and I both agree on, Rag, having a more robust combat log that actually gave all the relevant information clearly, all the time, would be beneficial in cases like this, especially to see exactly how something was working out in game, compar4d to our expectations.

Here's one that I still haven't tested yet to confirm the exact effect but, while playing again recently, I was reminded of how the wording in this game can be confusing. Since it reminded me of this thread I thought I'd post it just for fun.


Where it states "...and casts a spell that deals damage..." it never specifies whether the target must successfully be hit. If I miss, and I'm standing in fire, does the target still get burned? Must the spell actually deal damage or does it only need to be described as being capable of dealing damage?

The statement "...the target also suffers the surface's effects" is ambiguous, right? Does the target suffer "also" because the caster is standing in fire and is focusing on the target (two people suffer together regardless of damage dealt) or does the target suffer "also" because the target takes damage from the spell (both attacks actually caused damage)?

In summation, this is my issue with Natural Language Processing...just kidding (but also not kidding).