Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.

Yeah, and it feels like choices you do are meaningless. Skills you select does not matter. You have 16 charisma and proficiency in persuasion or 8 charisma and no proficiency - it does not matter, you still have to roll and only the Roll is what matters.
Playing rogue with 14 wisdom and perception proficiency - does not matter, you failed your check and cannot see the trap. Yet your companion with 11 wisdom and no perception proficiency sees it. But again, you cannot disarm it with your 16 dex + sleight of hand proficiency. I hate that. It's not just too much of randomness, it's randomness, that elimintates everything else.
I'm totally fine with rolls in combat (all kinds of crap can happen in chaos of battle). But doing rolls on every step disregarding of your character build... not fun at all.

Joined: Oct 2020
W
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
W
Joined: Oct 2020
Have to agree. All my problems with the game are my problems with 5e. It is the worst of all the systems, including 4th edition. At least that was well adapted to being a video game, and has far more interesting classes.

I still like it though.

This game engine with the skill set and build diversity, of, say, 3.5e would have been amazing. Could have had jump-and-climb skill focused barbarians scaling walls and knocking folks off, among many many many other things.

Last edited by WarChiefZeke; 14/10/20 09:43 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by WarChiefZeke
Have to agree. All my problems with the game are my problems with 5e. It is the worst of all the systems, including 4th edition. At least that was well adapted to being a video game, and has far more interesting classes.

I still like it though.

This game engine with the skill set and build diversity, of, say, 3.5e would have been amazing. Could have had jump-and-climb skill focused barbarians scaling walls and knocking folks off, among many many many other things.

really simple solution to that would be, to auto succeed, when your passive value of the skill is higher than the dc and only roll, when it's lower.
then skills an proficiency would make a huge impact.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Hard disagree. Every one of my playthroughs has been massively different because of the random dice rolls on the skill checks and it is amazing. Much prefer this to the DOS II system where it was a hard pass fail.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
After 43 hours playing through the early access content I made an account here just to say I largely agree with this. As it stands the quantity of skill checks outside of combat is pretty frustrating. First it means I'm not really in control of the outcome because the choices are often the same thing. If all your choices result in dice rolls you really only have one choice. Secondly it seems that usually only the success roll leads to interesting new content. So it feels like I'm constantly missing out on things just because I'm failing dice rolls rather than seeing different content to what is behind the fail roll. But perhaps this will be tweaked going forwards and new content will be added to flesh things out.

My bigger concern is the combat as maybe Larian is more committed to following 5e more closely there. It really feels like it's one step forward two steps back from DOS2. I actually like decoupling movement from other actions, and I like the extra utility the bonus actions provide the player. But only having one action per turn makes the combat much less interesting as I have much less ability to chain things together in inventive ways. Again it also feels like I'm not really in control because the deciding factor in combat isn't my choices - it's the dice roll which is causing a huge proportion of actions to either be ineffective or fail entirely. I eventually got bored of trying to be clever only for chance to spoil it and just resorted to using whatever basic attacks I had at my disposal, which wasn't much fun either.

Last edited by Sampsy; 15/10/20 04:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SeaOfKittens
Hard disagree. Every one of my playthroughs has been massively different because of the random dice rolls on the skill checks and it is amazing. Much prefer this to the DOS II system where it was a hard pass fail.

The problem is that the differences are based on random rolls and not on character you're playing.
Although i see and understand your point. One cannot control everything and sometimes you just have to embrace the chaos. 2020 taught us well on that.
Yet i tend to use games to hide from reality to some degree, so i guess it'd be great to have separate game mode, in which game performs stat check instead of dice roll.

And to be clear:
D&D is a tabletop system. GM is essential for D&D. CRPG cannot achieve same freedom of actions and variability of outcomes as tabletop D&D session.
You can roll dice all you want, but this won't make the game an analogue of tabletop D&D session.

Last edited by Drake Duckson; 16/10/20 09:08 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Drake Duckson
Originally Posted by SeaOfKittens
Hard disagree. Every one of my playthroughs has been massively different because of the random dice rolls on the skill checks and it is amazing. Much prefer this to the DOS II system where it was a hard pass fail.

The problem is that the differences are based on random rolls and not on character you're playing.
Although i see and understand your point. One cannot control everything and sometimes you just have to embrace the chaos. 2020 taught us well on that.
Yet i tend to use games to hide from reality to some degree, so i guess it'd be great to have separate game mode, in which game performs stat check instead of dice roll.

Thats not DnD though and BG3 IS supposed to be a DND game.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Thats not DnD though and BG3 IS supposed to be a DND game.

That's why i want it as an option. Like homebrew rules you can use in your D&D session. So every one of us can enjoy the game.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!



Nope. Players who want to play DOS should play DOS not Baldurs Gate. The D&D mechanics define those types of RPG games, and they should be set apart from "Action Points" and "Jump Across Map" mechanics. DOS mechanics suck, and I'm sad to see they've found their way into Baldur's Gate 3.

Joined: Oct 2017
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!



Nope. Players who want to play DOS should play DOS not Baldurs Gate. The D&D mechanics define those types of RPG games, and they should be set apart from "Action Points" and "Jump Across Map" mechanics. DOS mechanics suck, and I'm sad to see they've found their way into Baldur's Gate 3.


Well I wouldn't say DOS system is suck, PF 2e has almost same idea of action economy with DOS2. (of course, there's normally 1 spell per turn unlike DOS) To some people 5e system, when level 1~4 is just boring without there's dynamic description of DM, only one attack for Martials is really boring. But since, this game is determined to take 5e system, I think there should be less modification on action system.(such as shove is not action(one of multi attack), it's bonus action)

If you skipped part that some actions should be on bonus action, and a lot of environment interaction thing, Larian implement 5e well.

Last edited by Bugginity; 16/10/20 04:47 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Revisting this discussion.. the AI seems like the biggest cause in variance of a D&D game ran by a DM. "Nudge the nice" was mentioned earlier, but ultimately what I see the computer do is what we call "metagaming" in D&D. Lets say I know the AC of a particular monster, so I know which monsters i am more likely to land a Great Weaponmaster strike against... I also know when to give up trying the GWM attacks if the AC is 19 or over because im likely to miss more oftren. The computer seems to focus target based on the easiest target to kill. Which is fair in a video games, it makes sense to put the monsters on equal grounds as the players, you dont want the game being stupid easy. However a lot of times in pencil and paper games, the DM is simply not telling you the HP of the baddies. So the playground is leveled in the opposite direction. The player has to lookup the statblocks themselves if they want to know the HP and AC(and then they take it a step further and know which spell saves are most likely to hit). So the players may even waste a high damage spell on a low HP target but at the same time, the DM doesnt break immersion by having the monsters attack somewhat randomly (changing targets and such) as often they are attacking the closes thing to them, or something that has pissed them off recently or some story driven character selection motivation.

I think a with a 5e ruleset its all or none. They can homebrew in some content but we really shouldnt see HP of baddies, just general health appearance (Fine, bruised, bloodied, Deaths door). Likewise, the AI should not target based on HP unless its by the same tiered standard (taht dudes on deaths door, maybe i can finish him). Rather than the current (that wizard is in perfect health but has the lowest HP, maybe I will kill him first)

Last edited by pill0ws; 18/10/20 04:28 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.


This is a larian decision not a problem with 5e. A standard rogue in 5e gets expertise in two skills at level 1, and 2 more at level six. That gives you 4 skills at six with double proficiency bonus. Also you proficiency bonus goes up at 5,9,13, and 17. To a max of +6. If the accompanied skill is maxed, and it can by level 8 with the right class choice. That is a plus +5 from skill, and +4 from proficiency a total of +9. That means you auto pass any 10 checks. If you also happen to be a rogue, and you have expertise in that skill. You now have +13 in that skill. If you are a level 11 rogue you get reliable talent, and now proficient skills can't roll bellow a 10. That means you get a +13, and cant roll bellow a 10 you minimum roll is 23 for expertise skills.

Larian didn't add those into the game, and only has proficiency plus skill bonus. Meaning their isn't the option to specialize into being a skill monkey like their is in 5e. Also there are multiple items in 5e that add to skill checks, but there don't seem to be any in BG3.

Joined: Jul 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
I wrote a post saying I'm disagreeing with the OP at the start of the this thread.
Few days later, after playing this EA even more, I have to DOUBLE DOWN on my disagreement and say that the exact opposite is true.

Most of the flaws of BG3 currently come precisely from its shared DNA with Original Sin.

The dreadful inventory management, the impractical and clumsy control system for your party, the excessive exuberance of surfaces and explosives, all the potential exploits tied to carrying around absurd weights, throwing barrels km afar, abusing pickpocketing to generate inane amounts of money, the party limitation to four slots for UI reasons, etc.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. You too can join the good fight HERE
Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Goleeb
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.


This is a larian decision not a problem with 5e. A standard rogue in 5e gets expertise in two skills at level 1, and 2 more at level six. That gives you 4 skills at six with double proficiency bonus. Also you proficiency bonus goes up at 5,9,13, and 17. To a max of +6. If the accompanied skill is maxed, and it can by level 8 with the right class choice. That is a plus +5 from skill, and +4 from proficiency a total of +9. That means you auto pass any 10 checks. If you also happen to be a rogue, and you have expertise in that skill. You now have +13 in that skill. If you are a level 11 rogue you get reliable talent, and now proficient skills can't roll bellow a 10. That means you get a +13, and cant roll bellow a 10 you minimum roll is 23 for expertise skills.

Larian didn't add those into the game, and only has proficiency plus skill bonus. Meaning their isn't the option to specialize into being a skill monkey like their is in 5e. Also there are multiple items in 5e that add to skill checks, but there don't seem to be any in BG3.


and before people come along saying, they don't want to play as a rogue, to be good in a skill.
bard also gets expertise. with sources outside of the PHB there is even a feat, that gives expertise in one skill.
there are many ways to build a character in 5e. but if you don't use the 5e system, then of course that isn't guaranteed.
why are people blaming the 5e system in this game, if the 5e system isn't even really implemented?
why blaming the skill check system of 5e, if 5e gives multiple ways to handle skill checks in other ways?

you could simply change the skill system in a crpg to passive only.
or you could auto succed a check, if the dc is under a certain threshold, compared to your skill value...
so many ways, to slightly change the 5e system... instead it is changed on multiple core balancing principles.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree. The more I play it the more the DOS-mechanics seam to break the balance. I don't find the game hard, but I'm forced to play their 'cheese' way focusing more on those additional bonus action than on the normal actions (pushing enemies of cliffs, disingaging through jumps, constantly jumping,....). On top of that most imbalances can be simply directed back to changing D&D rules and stats.

I really don't want a BG3 to be the next DOS game. I hated their fighting mechanics.

Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
Baldur's Gate is by its very definition a D&D game and I believe it should follow those rules, for better or worse.


With regard to skill checks:
I agree it feels very random, and it strongly encourages save-scumming. This is made worse since the roll is so visual. If this was done in the background (e.g. reaction rolls in BG1 and 2 were), it wouldn't stand out this much.

I don't think limiting the die to a D12 or something is a good solution. Rolling the D20 does make it feel very D&D.
One option could be to introduce a feature from 3e as a house rule. In 3e, you were allowed to pick 10 on the roll without rolling for things you were skilled at, assuming they weren't done during a high pressure situation.



5e was intentionally made very simple and this has been the right approach for tabletop, since the simplicity has allowed bringing many more people to the table. However, combat in 5e is very simple, borderline boring. This is more noticeable in some classes like the barbarian or warlock who will typically do the same action every round of combat.

For a computer game, I think the system is too simple. Ironically, 4e would be a better choice to adopt to a pc game but I don't think that would be received very well. In order to make combat still be interesting, Larian has decided to add lots of elevation and surface effects to the world. However, this unbalances the system and the surface effects don't feel very D&D. The same is true for the jump/disengage bonus action.

I am personally a big fan of turn based combat, since it allows for much deeper and strategic combat. Despite this, I think the solution to the simple combat problem might just be to introduce real time with pause. The action that you are doing with your characters every round can be set as automatic and you pause if you want to do something special, like casting spells or a disengage action. You're not confronted with how repetitive the combat is, and you can just sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Hi,

Originally Posted by Milkfred

I'll take a few moments to go on a bit of a tangent here. People are going to say, well, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had way more characters. Yes, they did. But Baldur's Gate 1's cast were basically blank slates with names and some flavor lines - the expectation was that they'd die and you'd cycle them out without fanfare. Baldur's Gate 2 had a smaller cast with more detail, but even then I think it's safe to say that most players used a lot of the same characters and that, outside of specific gimmick runs, the majority of the cast was not utilized. Without even going into the production side of things like detail, the evolution of expectations, and so on.


Before addressing your points, I'dd just like to say that the quote above is pretty much you talking out of your ass. It just looks like you've not actually played the original games or maybe just skipped through everything.

In regards to the actual title of BG3's problem being 5e I find this to be 100% false. The problem with BG3, and you can easily see this in your own points which do point out actual problems in the game, is due to a poor implementation of the system by Larian, not the ruleset itself. In regards to the skill checks, these can be done in a variety of ways. Larian just chose to do it in the worst way possible. Multiple skill checks of the same type in a row, little choice of actual skill to use, etc. The Nettie example you gave is a good one, and there are plenty others in the game.

Your first 4 points are all the same and all of them due to Larian's poor implementation of the system.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history? Again, this is something a DM may just throw in. Perhaps the Nettie scenario might not feel so unfair if, say, the player was able to nudge the scales based on things they had done. This is something that Disco Elysium did extremely well. Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history, and not just being decided because I didn't put enough numbers into certain stats when I made the character a few hours before.


I disagree. The modifiers are a good way to show your character development and/or choices while building him. I'm not saying that they couldn't add something along the lines of what you are suggesting, but it seems like it would be something like a Fame system (at least the examples you provided). If they do however, I think it should be extremely rare for those bonus to be given as overall I don't think they make a whole lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible. Some people are upset over the surfaces being so common, but I think without them the combat would be far less interesting than it is.

That's really about it. As it is, I think just about every issue people have with BG3 stems from these compounding issues arising from the strict tabletop gameplay. For example, people wanting an increased party size - because you practically need someone who can lockpick and a Wizard for spells and a Fighter to tank and a Cleric to heal and support and, well, suddenly you feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into. And if you made a Fighter and happen to like Lae'zel, well, good luck having two Fighters.


In regards to combat, you're right, combat as it is now is very very bad. Encounters are boring and uninteresting. The problem here, once more, is not because of 5e, it's poor implementation choices by Larian. Combat is boring and dull because you can't really do a lot in each turn. Not only that but you also have the problem compounded by having to wait for all the AI to each take their turns before you can play again. This is especially fun in those fighter turns of Move + attack *miss* pass turn... In Divinity it worked well because DOS system was very nicely built for a turn based video game. You had a lot of action points, loads of skills, cheap movement skills, action point gain skills, extra turn skills, etc etc which made for very action packed turns where you could get a lot done. The hit/miss system was also much better tuned for turn based video game gameplay. If BG3 had been rtwp this would be a non-issue, people keep foaming at the mouth that rtwp is the spawn of satan but then it's amusing when all of them start having this same issue with the combat lol. I have no illusions in regards to Larian actually implementing the option to toggle between rtwp and turn-based, they won't do it, but they have to refine the turn based combat in BG3 by A LOT. Turns are way too slow. You said you played Wasteland 3, and it's actually a nice example of a game which did something to improve turn based combat in that when enemy turns begin, they all move at once instead of one at a time, which already spares the player a lot of tedium. Not saying that would be the solution for BG3, but it does show that something can be done about this problem.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I think the problem is not 5e but the way Larian implement them and things they decide to change.

If every goblins in the goblins camp had the good stats the combats would be way faster and less boring. If the rules were properly implemented I think it would be way more fun.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred
OPs Original post


As someone who has played a lot of DnD 5e, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of 5e not working well for a computer game. Or rather. I think I have to phrase that differently.
I used to loath DnD for videogames, because it's not what you are used to. The "problem" isn't the DnD rules, but people not knowing the rules.

I know the DnD 5e rules very well, so I "read the language of the game" very well. To me BG3 is very fun, and my issues is with "the things that's different from 5e" not the things that are 5e. Sure it's a foregin system for many people, and I think it would be to the games benefit to explain the rules and mechanics more. (Some ingame "Players Handbook")

Skill checks seem to me to mostly be "potential of getting a different outcome from the default" and I love it. Failure usually gives you the outcome expected. Having "consecutive skill checks" is something i often use as a DM, but I use it when it create tension. Problem with Nettie is that it's just "pass or fail" each time, not "the stakes are increasing".
Most of the time though it just seems like a passed skill check gives you something "better" than the default. You want to pass, but failing isn't an issue.

With other skill checks. It does seem to me that in cases where it's something important you almost always find it? I have yet to not spot Talkative Skeleton, nor the prayer to Selune. But I'm not sure. I find it exciting honestly.

I don't really get your arguments about dialogue and stats? Larian has done a great job of making other skills work in dialogue, not just charisma. Besides charisma isn't "the role play stat" roleplaying means taking choices based on what you think your character would do, not "talking" or "acting". Me slaughtering the Goblins is roleplaying too.
And you CAN have casters cast spells during dialogue already. Just swap to another character, and cast Thaumaturgy or Guide. (Not 100% sure if it actually works as intended currently, but it should, as that's by the 5e rules)


You say modifiers are boring. I guess "only because I see it". More or less every game out there translate your stats to some form of modifer. You know in DOS2 when a weapon does 2-5 damage? yeah that's just 1d4+1 They just wrote it differently.

As I said, I think the problem is that it's not close enough to 5e. It seems to me you aren't very familiar with 5e OP. 5e and DOS2 aren't the same games, and the only reason you compare them is because they are made by Larian. But they follow different rulesets. Larian wanted to make "DnD 5e the game" this time, and they are on a path to make that game. (I still think calling it BG3 was a marketing stunt, as it makes all the BG fans all riled up).
I love DOS2, and I love BG3, but I love one for being a great original title, and the other for being the best DnD port to a CRPG to date. (in my opinion)

If Larian wanted to make DOS3 they would have made DOS3.

PS: I have clocked 90+ hours now, and still love this game as is, with improvements I think it can become even better.








Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Bunch of whining bastards as usual. Players want to experience everything in one playtrough? Learn to play an RPG, you get multiple playtroughs, that's the fun. Evil road is almost never used, gtfo I start out every time being as neutral evil as possible, which in this case lead to some massacres. Great fucking game, already got 75 hours. Needs work? no shit it's EA

Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5