Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Josh Sawyer about the DICE in a low level D&D + HP bloat is no solution

If it 'feels bad' for you, to only be a *Little* better than everyone else at your chosen specialisation at *Level 1*, that's not the fault of the game, or the d20... that problem lies between chair and character sheet.

If you are repeatedly and consistently failing checks that you have a high bonus for, and regularly succeeding in checks that you don't think you ought to have been able to succeed at... that's a DM problem, not a problem of the system or the d20 (maybe the d20, if it's the same one and providing such a predictable result - maybe float it and check).

How often has the 8 Int barb come up with super specific arcana knowledge while the wizard is left scratching her head? Well, for my games... Never. Here's why:

I have strong criticism over how Sawyer destroyed casters on nwn2,

I’m glad you like NWN2, but honestly I had very little to do with it. I designed the Illefarn ruins in Act 2 and worked with George Ziets to develop the background of the King of Shadows. Later, I helped Constant Gaw and Ben Ma develop the King of Shadows boss fight to incorporate all of the ritual powers / silver sword, which was kind of a nightmare. I’m co-credited as the lead designer, but in reality I was acting more like the game’s custodian in the final months of development and release. In reality, I contributed little to it.

Sawyer has a different one if you follow the link. You could even respond to him because he's tweeting about this right now.

The mega bosses in PoE2 is the worst boss encounter design ever....

As it is something your bring up again and again I just wanted to share something I stumbled on recently. Unless I misunderstood his post, JE has little influence over NWN2, as he joined the project deep into the development.


Source

Quick side note:


Expertise exists in the core rules and there are numerous ways to get it on a variety of things, not exclusive to rogue. If Larian would actually use the 5e rules as published, we'd have a fair amount of that.



The Help action as a bonus action (granting advantage) also exists in the rules and is available to a few different archetypes of different classes. If Larian would actually use the 5e rules as published, we would eventually have several methods of that available.



Seems like there's already plenty of these kicking about for a 1-4 group of adventurers so far?



Larian's high-ground darling really needs to go away and never come back. Implementing proper cover rules would simulate bonuses for high ground where having said high ground would actually provide a benefit, and it would also do more and add more to the game as a whole, in many situations, while being a relatively simple and mechanically straightforward concept to understand and identify.

That aside,

I'm finding myself wondering what sorts of DMs you other folks have had in the past, to leave you with view points like this...

- A level one character who is proficient, or even expert, in a particular skill is better, on the whole, in that area than someone who isn't, but they're not *That* great at it yet. No, they should not be a *lot* better at those skills at level one; they're level one. They've just got a good start ahead of most average others. At level one, if you've got a good stat to back up your good skill, you'll be a +6; at level one, you generally shouldn't be facing any checks much above a 12, at least not often. If you are facing a 15 or above at that level, then you're trying something that's actually quite difficult for someone of your limited experience, and yeah, you can expect to not nail it half the time. Welcome to level one? You're just starting out? Don't expect to be fantastic even at the things you're training yourself towards at this point? Expect to be competent at them, dare I even say, proficient at them, and better than your contemporaries... but not a master, or everyone's go-to gal. In a training room with 20 "my first lock" puzzles (DC 10), the level one wizard, who understand the concept of lock picking, but doesn't know a cinching pin from hair clip when presented with the tools, might be able to fumble his way through ten of them, or so. Meanwhile, a level one rogue who has learned how to use their tools properly, and is nimble of finger (18 dex, thief tool expertise, +8 bonus), might expect to open nineteen of the twenty locks in the same time... probably all twenty, but mistakes can happen. 5e's bounded statistics and the d20 are working just fine.

Hey, you know what... I just ran that experiment five times, using physical dice... the 'rogue' got all 20 locks four times, and got nineteen one time, with a single natural 1. The 'wizard' got 9 locks, followed by 13, 8, 7 and 14 locks on the fifth set - he rolled slightly above average expectations overall. But I don't know what else to say, other than that the system does what it's intended to do... this all feels pretty correct and satisfying to me.

If Bumblefoot Mugbreaker needs a 16 to sneak past the guards, and has 8 Dex and no proficiency, then he's going to fail most of the time, but sometimes (4/20, 20%) he'll luck out and not tip them off, provided his club foot isn't giving him disadvantage on stealth checks to move silently... it probably should be... but if we figured that in, his success rate drops to almost nothing.
If Darkstalker Shadowcloak has been training himself in the arts of stealth for years... then he's probably not a level one character... but that aside, if he IS level one, then he's going to be decently dexy and is apparently a self-proclaimed expert. Let's cut it right back, the bare minimum for edgelording, and call it a 16... then he will succeed more often than not (12/20, 60%). It's a notable margin. It's not an insignificant margin, in fact. It's three times the chance, at level one. It's not 10%, certainly.

The sheer magnitude of skill numbers in older editions were the exact opposite of fun - they meant that, as with all contested arms races, right off the bat, the DCs for things would shoot so high that no-one except super-specialists would have any hope at all of succeeding. It discouraged people from trying anything outside of their very narrow, specific wheelhoues, and it forced players into wedging themselves into said wheelhouses, to the complete exclusion of almost everything else... because if they *Didn't*, then *No-one* would be able to do it at all. Let's NEVER go back to that, thanks.

In an average level party (let's say 9th level; the experts are really starting to seem like genuine experts at a world-class level by this point), that group stealth check goes something like this: The rogue rolls a 3, and has a final check of 16 (presuming no magic items). The clumsy one with 8 dex *Needs* to roll 17 or over (an excellent attempt and a slim chance at best) just in order to do as well as the rogue when she *screws up*. That sounds right to me; where's the problem?

How often has the 8 Int barb come up with super specific arcana knowledge while the wizard is left scratching her head? Well, for my games... Never. Here's why:

- Skill checks are supposed to represent situations where there is a realistic chance of failure or success. IS there a realistic chance of the barbarian with 8 int and a backstory that involves growing up getting hit with rocks might know the lore needed while the wizard doesn't? No? Then the barbarian doesn't roll arcana here. That's how it's meant to work. Players and DMs who regularly request skill checks over ridiculous things where it defies sense for at least one of the outcomes to occur need to take a step back and ask why they're doing a check there, and then not.

- An extra one or two makes a lot of difference, especially with attack rolls, in 5e. My variant human ranger started her adventuring career off with a +9 to her ranged attack rolls... compared to the warlock's +6 and the cleric's +5, it made a positively phenomenal difference over those first 3 levels. She virtually never missed, was happy to shoot with disadvantage, and it was so much of a sure shot thing that it felt completely broken and over-powered for the system. The small numbers are worth a lot; it's a good thing that most people's attack bonus, whatever their method, all generally start within one or two of each other, at least for those character who intend to be using that attack bonus most of the time.

If it 'feels bad' for you, to only be a *Little* better than everyone else at your chosen specialisation at *Level 1*, that's not the fault of the game, or the d20... that problem lies between chair and character sheet. If you are repeatedly and consistently failing checks that you have a high bonus for, and regularly succeeding in checks that you don't think you ought to have been able to succeed at... that's a DM problem, not a problem of the system or the d20 (maybe the d20, if it's the same one and providing such a predictable result - maybe float it and check).

Thanks. Is just that every game that he worked has extremely lackluster magery...

That’s some bullshit, IWD1,2 has very strong casters that can solo HoF, strongest class in PoE 1 is priest, a caster. They realize casters scales much better in poe 1 so they nerfed them a bit in 2, But they are still super strong in PoE2, as the first one to finish all god challenges using a priest.

[quote=dunehunter]And PoE, did you played PoE 1 as a wizard? Not only you need high strength to throw a hotter fireball but also every spell is just a ULTRA NERFED version of 3.5e. Maura's Writhing Tentacles is just a ULTRA NERFED version of black tentacles(which he also destroyed on NWN2), Malignant Cloud is just a ultra weaker version of cloudkill with far smaller duration(which again, he also destroyed on NWN2)

PoE uses totally different attribute definition than DnD, i see nothing wrong with a high strength wizard. 3.5e is a version where casters are overpowered.

And i don't see why u comparing two different system, to judge if caster is good or not its fair to compare them with other classes within the same system. But you unfairly comparing casters cross two totally different system lol. YEAH wizard is soooo weak in PoE, they can't even timestop as wizard in bg2 does! BAH!

Might is strength, at least is used in every dialog as strength.

And stop time is a spell which you only get on end of SoA as scroll.

And PoE wizards aren't weak cuz they can't cast stop time, they can't cast stop time

• Nor any OHK spell(wail of the banshee and finger of death)
• Nor animate dead
• Nor kill an horde of weaklings with an single fireball
• Nor cast wish
• Nor have deadly persistent spells like cloudkill that lasts a lot
• Nor summon Efreets and Planetars
• Nor cast chain contingency
• Nor undo petrification
• Nor shapeshift into powerful creatures
• Nor take control over enemies
• Nor cast duplicates
• Nor cast stoneskin to soak a lot of damage
• Nor cast haste to help companions
• (...)

I could solo BG2:SoA on Legacy of Bhaal as a necromancer, losing all illusion spells due my subclass but on all sawyer games, I fell myself worthless and using far more my party members. The exception is when I installed spell fixes for nwn2. Be a mage in that game become so amazing now that instead of a fix +5 to hit from black tentacles which can't hit anything with AC > 25 to caster level + 8 and a proper grapple routine, made the same rougues who was OHKilling me on ch 1 a piece of cake.

I don't care if for you, having powerful magic effects in a high magical setting is bad; nerfing spells only made this games worse.

Vincke seems to be taking lessons on "how to ruin spellcasting 101" with sawyer.

I can't wait for a full spell fixes mod.

That aside,

I'm finding myself wondering what sorts of DMs you other folks have had in the past, to leave you with view points like this...

- A level one character who is proficient, or even expert, in a particular skill is better, on the whole, in that area than someone who isn't, but they're not *That* great at it yet. No, they should not be a *lot* better at those skills at level one; they're level one. They've just got a good start ahead of most average others. At level one, if you've got a good stat to back up your good skill, you'll be a +6; at level one, you generally shouldn't be facing any checks much above a 12, at least not often. If you are facing a 15 or above at that level, then you're trying something that's actually quite difficult for someone of your limited experience, and yeah, you can expect to not nail it half the time. Welcome to level one? You're just starting out? Don't expect to be fantastic even at the things you're training yourself towards at this point? Expect to be competent at them, dare I even say, proficient at them, and better than your contemporaries... but not a master, or everyone's go-to gal. In a training room with 20 "my first lock" puzzles (DC 10), the level one wizard, who understand the concept of lock picking, but doesn't know a cinching pin from hair clip when presented with the tools, might be able to fumble his way through ten of them, or so. Meanwhile, a level one rogue who has learned how to use their tools properly, and is nimble of finger (18 dex, thief tool expertise, +8 bonus), might expect to open nineteen of the twenty locks in the same time... probably all twenty, but mistakes can happen. 5e's bounded statistics and the d20 are working just fine.

Hey, you know what... I just ran that experiment five times, using physical dice... the 'rogue' got all 20 locks four times, and got nineteen one time, with a single natural 1. The 'wizard' got 9 locks, followed by 13, 8, 7 and 14 locks on the fifth set - he rolled slightly above average expectations overall. But I don't know what else to say, other than that the system does what it's intended to do... this all feels pretty correct and satisfying to me.

If Bumblefoot Mugbreaker needs a 16 to sneak past the guards, and has 8 Dex and no proficiency, then he's going to fail most of the time, but sometimes (4/20, 20%) he'll luck out and not tip them off, provided his club foot isn't giving him disadvantage on stealth checks to move silently... it probably should be... but if we figured that in, his success rate drops to almost nothing.
If Darkstalker Shadowcloak has been training himself in the arts of stealth for years... then he's probably not a level one character... but that aside, if he IS level one, then he's going to be decently dexy and is apparently a self-proclaimed expert. Let's cut it right back, the bare minimum for edgelording, and call it a 16... then he will succeed more often than not (12/20, 60%). It's a notable margin. It's not an insignificant margin, in fact. It's three times the chance, at level one. It's not 10%, certainly.

The sheer magnitude of skill numbers in older editions were the exact opposite of fun - they meant that, as with all contested arms races, right off the bat, the DCs for things would shoot so high that no-one except super-specialists would have any hope at all of succeeding. It discouraged people from trying anything outside of their very narrow, specific wheelhoues, and it forced players into wedging themselves into said wheelhouses, to the complete exclusion of almost everything else... because if they *Didn't*, then *No-one* would be able to do it at all. Let's NEVER go back to that, thanks.

In an average level party (let's say 9th level; the experts are really starting to seem like genuine experts at a world-class level by this point), that group stealth check goes something like this: The rogue rolls a 3, and has a final check of 16 (presuming no magic items). The clumsy one with 8 dex *Needs* to roll 17 or over (an excellent attempt and a slim chance at best) just in order to do as well as the rogue when she *screws up*. That sounds right to me; where's the problem?

How often has the 8 Int barb come up with super specific arcana knowledge while the wizard is left scratching her head? Well, for my games... Never. Here's why:

- Skill checks are supposed to represent situations where there is a realistic chance of failure or success. IS there a realistic chance of the barbarian with 8 int and a backstory that involves growing up getting hit with rocks might know the lore needed while the wizard doesn't? No? Then the barbarian doesn't roll arcana here. That's how it's meant to work. Players and DMs who regularly request skill checks over ridiculous things where it defies sense for at least one of the outcomes to occur need to take a step back and ask why they're doing a check there, and then not.

- An extra one or two makes a lot of difference, especially with attack rolls, in 5e. My variant human ranger started her adventuring career off with a +9 to her ranged attack rolls... compared to the warlock's +6 and the cleric's +5, it made a positively phenomenal difference over those first 3 levels. She virtually never missed, was happy to shoot with disadvantage, and it was so much of a sure shot thing that it felt completely broken and over-powered for the system. The small numbers are worth a lot; it's a good thing that most people's attack bonus, whatever their method, all generally start within one or two of each other, at least for those character who intend to be using that attack bonus most of the time.

If it 'feels bad' for you, to only be a *Little* better than everyone else at your chosen specialisation at *Level 1*, that's not the fault of the game, or the d20... that problem lies between chair and character sheet. If you are repeatedly and consistently failing checks that you have a high bonus for, and regularly succeeding in checks that you don't think you ought to have been able to succeed at... that's a DM problem, not a problem of the system or the d20 (maybe the d20, if it's the same one and providing such a predictable result - maybe float it and check).

I think necromancy should be nerfed in order to make spellcasters more balanced.

Yo be honest i can understand what Sawyer says but he is a kinda extremist on the balance factor(...)