Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General game mechanic ...

Judging from other thread where he commented, he seems to not wanting to discuss about the game mechanics, merely affirming what he already believe.

No game ever has really simulated armor well. Not only its too complicated, its also too binary for gameplay purposes.
D&D and D&D based game are just extra bad in that regard as they tend to overvalue dodge while only giving penalties to heavy armor but no advantage.

In the game of Dungeons and Dragons (which BG3 is loosely based on), you have Hit Points - this represents several things at once; it's both your physical health, but can also represent your stamina, your morale and willingness to fight, and several other things. Most commonly, however, it represents you Capability to fight, however that is envisioned by you and your DM.

When hostile creatures attack you, they are generally attempting to do you harm and reduce you capability of fighting or resisting; often they are outright trying to kill you.

When a creature attacks you, be it with a melee weapon, magical spell, ranged weapon or some other means, they are usually called to make an Attack Roll - this roll represents, in the abstract, their attempt to strike you and cause you harm; it represents both the the creature's ability to counter your defences, and also their own accuracy and capability to land the blow at all.

You defend against this attack with you Armour Class, which represents both your ability to avoid the attack, to whatever degree you can, and also to block, deflect or divert it, if possible, as well as any other way that you might avoid harm - such as having cover from a wall.

This is a binary check, yes! If the creature's attack roll with all modifiers meets or exceeds your AC with all modifiers, then the creature has succeeded in causing you Some degree of harm, in Some way. If they don't then it means that, for whatever reason, they have failed to cause you sufficient harm enough to count as even a single point of damage.

Okay... so now we know whether they've managed to hurt you at all; perhaps they rolled a 2, and perhaps their failure is quite literally that they misfired their bow and the arrow never even reached you. Perhaps they rolled well, but your AC was still higher, and their arrow ricocheted off your raised shield. What matters is that in a failure situation, they were unable to strike you sufficiently well to cause even a single point of damage. Doesn't mean they didn't hit you, necessarily - just that they didn't do it well enough to cause any harm.

Suppose they rolled well enough to hit you - this doesn't mean they necessarily scored an incredible blow that you mitigated none of the damage of whatsoever; it just means that they succeeded in hitting you well enough to cause Some degree of harm. How well did they hit you? How much damage did your armour protect you from, and how much energy of the strike did you divert or deflect, or did you partially managed to pull yourself out of the way of, or make less severe? Well, we work that out in the Damage step.

In the damage step, the attacker rolls to see how much damage they dealt. If they roll high, that usually means they scored a solid telling blow, and your defences, whether avoidant or blocking, weren't able to protect you very well in this instance - perhaps they found a gap in your plate, or perhaps the blow simply had enough impact, and landed cleanly enough to wind and harm you severely through it. Perhaps they rolled a 1 on their damage die... in this case, while the enemy did manage to hit you well enough to do harm, your armour absorbed most of it, or you moved enough with the attack and your armour deflected most of the rest; you still got hurt, a little, but in reality, you only suffered a graze, because your defences - whether armour or otherwise, helped protect you from the majority of the harm.

That's how it's rationalised in THIS system - that's how amrour is conceptualised as reducing damage and protecting you in THIS system. It makes sense within this system; no it's not 100% realistic - it's deliberately abstract to allow for a lot of flexibility and interpretation between players and DMs.

if you hit warrior for example they riposte and you deal 0 dmg but you hit the target

And so we're back to BG3's stylistic choice of animating everything as a dodge... And here, Dynia, we are specifically not talking about anything mechanical - we are talking very specifically about the visual aesthetic animation choice that the game designers made, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying mechanics of the system.

And yes, most people Agree here - it's a pretty silly choice, and something that games decades old handled better.

This thread has done this circle twice (three times?) now, and there's nothing more to be added or gained unless the OP wishes to actually engage.

Meaning no disrespect or offence to Dynia specifically, but your communication makes understanding you at anything more than an extremely basic level very difficult; if you're attempting to convey something with a nuance that we're missing, this is likely the reason. If English isn't your primary language, you may want to seek out a better machine translator than the one you're using.

If you want to say that the fact that BG3 animates all mises as dodges is a silly and unsatisfying thing, then you'll find most folks agree with you here.
If you want to say that 5e's game system counts everything as dodges, mechanically, you're incorrect, and it's been explained to you why and how you are mistaken about that.
If you're wanting to suggest that BG3's underlying game system should be changed to a system that deals in damage mitigation for attacks as its primary attack and damage system, you're welcome to that opinion, but the blunt fact is that there is no possibility of that happening, ever, and you'll just need to accept that.

For the record...


Actually, if we're talking about realism and things making sense, then a riposte is, quite specifically, what you do after you prevent a target from hitting you at all. You riposte, quite specifically, after you parry or dodge. If someone hits you, and then you hit them back in response, that's a counter, not a riposte.

D&D 3E still had the distinction between dodging and hitting, but only for special attacks, in the form of touch attacks that bypass armor (armor AC doesn't count) and flat-footed attacks that you could not dodge (Positive Dex did not count).
But I think no game ever changed the visuals based on that.

After reading the thread I absolutely want different visuals for different kinds of missing attacks. I guess it'd make fights feel much more vivid and misses less boring/annoying.

this dosent change fact AC = dodge chance if you get hit you get 100% damage and crit one shoot you cause there is no defence expect resistance that lower dmg you take

If that were true, you wouldn't need to roll for damage. The sword would always hit for 8 HP. That's the 100% damage. The 1 to 7 damage you can get is therefore an imperfect blow.

Sigh.


Reality = Dude attacks another dude in plate armor with sword. Sword attack glances off. Repeat. Same effect. Repeat. Same effect. Repeat ... you cannot deal any damage with a standard sword against plate armor. .

you hit and deal 0 damage, not dodge attack complitly

in this game you DODGE in plate armor, still dont get it ?

in this scenerio you tell how im telling all the time how plate armor should work, you have no fucking dodge in plate armor, you get hit by long sword and reduce damage to 0

Everybody understands your objection. But because it is a pointless objection and you have a bad attitude, nobody really cares.

its complitly nonsense that you get so much dodge in plate armor