|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I do play PnP, have done so for over twenty years. That's more or less where my argument comes from. And, for the same reason.
Having a 95% succes chance at something is, what I consider powerful. Having a 100% succes chance is, what I consider, boring. I consider it boring when a DM asks for DC 10 roll and my character's total bonus is +10. Like, "You're having me roll for my character to tie his shoes, essentially." I don't play RPGs to roll dice, I play them to role play. If i want to play a roughly D&D-like game game where all I do is roll dice, I will play Gloomhaven (sure, it's flipping cards, not rolling dice, but, same concept). Or as the saying goes, role play versus roll play. Now, admittedly, this concept doesn't mean as much in a computer game as it does in PnP. But one thing it does mean is that the one situation in which i will always reload in BG3 is when a roll that can fail only due to a nat 1 auto fail gets a nat 1. So I do have a workaround. I thought in PNP some DMs would prepare multiple layers of DC for some rolls. For example a DC 10 Perception check on a locked door. Roll less than 10, fail to spot anything. A roll of 10 could let you notice a weakness on the door where you could perhaps force your way with an axe. A roll of 15 or higher would let you notice that the key is hidden under the rug. etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I thought in PNP some DMs would prepare multiple layers of DC for some rolls.
For example a DC 10 Perception check on a locked door.
Roll less than 10, fail to spot anything.
A roll of 10 could let you notice a weakness on the door where you could perhaps force your way with an axe.
A roll of 15 or higher would let you notice that the key is hidden under the rug.
etc... That is what I do, but not for every single skill check. I use the "pathfinder crit" rule for skill checks: 10+ over the DC means the character did it really well. I also call for a lot of "roll for effect" rolls. The character is going to succeed no matter what, but let's roll and see what the result is. It creates RP opportunities, which, again, is not an issue in a computer game. The game can respond only in the ways it's been programmed to. Dm: Okay, Rogue - It looks like you got this, but you still need a 2 for this to work. The other thing I dislike about it is this. Let's use the fairly ubiquitous DC 10 that BG3 uses a lot. Let's say I have a rogue who is total of +8 at Sleight of Hand. He needs to roll a 2 to pick that DC 10 lock. Several levels later, he's +12. He's 50% more skilled, but he still needs to roll a 2. And riddle me this. Are you seriously saying that you are OK in a PnP game with the DM putting in skill checks that can fail only if you roll a 1? How many are OK? Clearly not every single skill check because you advocate for taking 10. I saw a reddit post once in which a guy recounted how his Goliath barbarian tried to pick up an injured old man on a mountain road. The DM asked him to make a roll to pick him up, he rolled a 1 and the DM said he dropped the man to his death. Something like that might cause me to leave the game instantly, because that's just plain stupid. Now if instead of an injured old man it had been an eel covered in olive oil, sure, make a roll.
Last edited by branmakmuffin; 31/07/23 09:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I thought in PNP some DMs would prepare multiple layers of DC for some rolls.
For example a DC 10 Perception check on a locked door.
Roll less than 10, fail to spot anything.
A roll of 10 could let you notice a weakness on the door where you could perhaps force your way with an axe.
A roll of 15 or higher would let you notice that the key is hidden under the rug.
etc... That is what I do, but not for every single skill check. I use the "pathfinder crit" rule for skill checks: 10+ over the DC means the character did it really well. I also call for a lot of "roll for effect" rolls. The character is going to succeed no matter what, but let's roll and see what the result is. It creates RP opportunities, which, again, is not an issue in a computer game. The game can respond only in the ways it's been programmed to. Dm: Okay, Rogue - It looks like you got this, but you still need a 2 for this to work. The other thing I dislike about it is this. Let's use the fairly ubiquitous DC 10 that BG3 uses a lot. Let's say I have a rogue who is total of +8 at Sleight of Hand. He needs to roll a 2 to pick that DC 10 lock. Several levels later, he's +12. He's 50% more skilled, but he still needs to roll a 2. And riddle me this. Are you seriously saying that you are OK in a PnP game with the DM putting in skill checks that can fail only if you roll a 1? How many are OK? Clearly not every single skill check because you advocate for taking 10. I saw a reddit post once in which a guy recounted how his Goliath barbarian tried to pick up an injured old man on a mountain road. The DM asked him to make a roll to pick him up, he rolled a 1 and the DM said he dropped the man to his death. Something like that might cause me to leave the game instantly, because that's just plain stupid. Now if instead of an injured old man it had been an eel covered in olive oil, sure, make a roll. I think thats great to have nat 1 failures. The winner mindset is a disease when it comes to party games. I am glad that Larian wanted to learn us the acceptance of failure with their permutations system.
The dire need to always win games falls not far from the obsessive compulsive disorder, imo. I come from my own experience, I remember planning my character in advance in order to pass specific checks and then failing them. The feeling of disgusts and anxiety made me rethink the approach and admit that there could be reasons for that failure despite my obsessive preemptive efforts to focus on the task. This post doesn't just "read between the lines," it creates the lines, then reads between them. Where do you get "dire need to win?" Is it your position that RAW D&D is plagued with a "dire need to win?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Dm: Okay, Rogue - It looks like you got this, but you still need a 2 for this to work. The other thing I dislike about it is this. Let's use the fairly ubiquitous DC 10 that BG3 uses a lot. Let's say I have a rogue who is total of +8 at Sleight of Hand. He needs to roll a 2 to pick that DC 10 lock. Several levels later, he's +12. He's 50% more skilled, but he still needs to roll a 2. This. Imo it's a result of the fact that 5e's Bounded Accuracy isn't actually bounded in both directions (for skill checks). It's fairly easy to get enough bonuses to automatically beat moderately easy rolls through Expertise, Guidance, and/or Bardic Inspiration. Conversely, it's more rare to be in a situation where a natural 20 wouldn't already be a success (partially because of the aforementioned buffing). Thus, in a system where Nat 1s/20s result in auto fails/successes on skill checks, characters are punished more often than they are rewarded. Particularly because a Nat 20 on a skill check (in BG3, afaik?) doesn't get you a *better* result than a normal success. Edit: However, I like the Crit Success/Failure mechanic for STs, at least largely because I disagree with ST scaling in 5e. High level monsters can have ST DCs of >20, and yet level 20 PCs can easily have a -1 to a +1 in one of the Big 3 Saves?!?!?? Wack.
Last edited by mrfuji3; 31/07/23 09:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2023
|
Imo it's a result of the fact that 5e's Bounded Accuracy isn't actually bounded in both directions (for skill checks). It's fairly easy to get enough bonuses to automatically beat moderately easy rolls through Expertise, Guidance, and/or Bardic Inspiration. Conversely, it's more rare to be in a situation where a natural 20 wouldn't already be a success (partially because of the aforementioned buffing). Thus, in a system where Nat 1s/20s result in auto fails/successes on skill checks, characters are punished more often than they are rewarded. Particularly because a Nat 20 on a skill check (in BG3, afaik?) doesn't get you a *better* result than a normal success. I run a lot of PnP games. One of the games I run uses the d20 Modern rules (which are based on D&D 3e). One on the PCs has a total intimidation bonus of +14. If he walks into a bar and wants to intimidate an NPC, unless the NPC is Count Dracula, the PC is going to intimidate everyone he chooses, no rolls required. What this leads to is a lot of role playing. Again, that's not a consideration in a computer game. The whole notion of "no matter how good your character is, there is always a 5% chance to fail" irks me. Some GMs react to this by bumping up DCs, which is cheap because it negates the PC's improved abilities
Last edited by branmakmuffin; 31/07/23 09:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2022
|
Yes and no... i agree with you, in mundane non threatening situations where there is no stress... and tieing your shoelaces in camp with no enemies in sight, ofcourse you should just take ten and have it done, no roll should be needed...
But... now imagine putting on those shoes and tieing those shoes, while that 7 feet smelly orc is trying to mash you to pulp with that huge two handed maul... now that roll and actually fumbling with a one, isnt such a strange thing !...
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2023
|
Yes and no... i agree with you, in mundane non threatening situations where there is no stress... and tieing your shoelaces in camp with no enemies in sight, ofcourse you should just take ten and have it done, no roll should be needed...
But... now imagine putting on those shoes and tieing those shoes, while that 7 feet smelly orc is trying to mash you to pulp with that huge two handed maul... now that roll and actually fumbling with a one, isnt such a strange thing !... If you like that sort of thing, great. If in some magical dimension you ever find yourself in one of my PnP games, rest assured it will be a very rare thing for me to call for a skill check where nat 1 is an auto fail. As I mentioned in my OP, it makes sense when using the tadpole power because that's a weird alien thing. ''GMs who call for too many rolls" in general is one of my pet peeves in RPGs. Not surprisingly, I play in games run by GMs who share that philosophy. I can't do anything to change the number of skill checks in BG3 or the "auto fail on a nat 1.'All I can do is shrug and continue on. EDIT: One issue plaguing this whole thing in PnP is that many DMs and players think this is not a house rule.
Last edited by branmakmuffin; 31/07/23 10:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
