Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Clearly, the OP wants a new DOS game.

DOS2 combat had so many flaws and I am happy that BG3 combat does not resemble it at all. Much more dynamic and fluid.

I think Larian will eventually add an option for threshold Skillchecks based on stats instead of dice roll to avoid randomness.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
OP Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Of course, the outcry of 'Baldur's Gate did it this way' has come through loud and clear.

I suggest people actually replay Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. You'll very quickly realize that there are no stat checks, for example, and very few things actually 'gated' behind your mental stats. The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Of course, the outcry of 'Baldur's Gate did it this way' has come through loud and clear.

I suggest people actually replay Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. You'll very quickly realize that there are no stat checks, for example, and very few things actually 'gated' behind your mental stats. The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.

This post is unintentionally hilarious because you're so condescending but you clearly have next to no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever played AD&D before? Do you know what an edition of D&D is, even?

Well, surely you do. And surely you know that BG1&2 are based on AD&D. And surely you know that Diplomacy didn't even get a set of rules until Dragon Magazine #169. And surely you know that the out-of-combat skill checks from the core rulebook are limited to rogue skills that are clearly included in the game, and "Non-Weapon Proficiencies" with a single DC of 21 (which can be truncated as pass-fail using a standard roll with minimal intervention on the maths), right? And surely you know that some dialogue options in BG1&2 are gated by your mental ability scores, right? And surely you remember that nobody had the expectation the IE games were going to include non-weapon proficiencies such as "Boating" or "Papermaking," just as no one had the expectation that they would use expanded rules from every issue of Dragon published to release in an engine perfected in the late 1990s, right?

I mean, surely you wouldn't post something like that without understanding the history of the genre, and surely you wouldn't equate limitations of a game engine/production budget with intentional design deviations, right?

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
DOS2 combat was fun. I dont really care BG3 to be like DOS2, just make it more FUN. If you want a D&Desk by the book simulation there is Pathfinder: Kingmaker.
D&D 5e works great in PnP, having that human element. 100% pure by the book computer DMs are the most boring games of all. Bend the rules a little. Add SOMETHING to that stale 1 action/bonus/move template.

Too many critical misses, bad rolls for example fills up a "DM meter" gets you some unique DM D100 response to a situation..."That goblin running at you for the kill, slips and impales himself...", or "..suddenly a gust of wind disarms the creature for a round" or "...you hear a yell, GO FORT THE EYES BOO!!!...the creature runs away in terror". < I like that one wink kind of stuff.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 11/10/20 11:10 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
OP Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

And surely you know that some dialogue options in BG1&2 are gated by your mental ability scores, right?


Yes. Some being the operative word of that sentence, and it's barely anything. You can get through BG1 and 2 without issue by setting your INT/WIS/CHA to the bare minimum and still have, basically, the same experience with the same options and same characters and same quest resolutions. You didn't need to roll anything to, say, get Saemon Havarian to help you out. How many dialogue options were gated by your mental ability scores, do you think? We'll say across both games. Come on, don't be shy.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
OP Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Quote
Dialog Checks: There are also a rare number of dialog choices that are only available when the party leader has high intelligence, but these are extremely minor and have no real effect on how quests progress.


Oh.

Oh no.

Oh nooooo.

edit: For example, a quick bit of research indicates that across BG2 and its expansion there's only six or so conversations which check your Wisdom score. I can't find any quick list of Intelligence checks. Charisma is just to generally ask for better rewards, and effects some party members joining you in BG1. But what I have found are multiple posts, from classic BG2 forums to the Beamdog ones, of people saying don't bother with the mental stats because they don't effect the game enough.

Last edited by Milkfred; 11/10/20 11:01 PM.
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
DOS2 combat was fun. I dont really care BG3 to be like DOS2, just make it more fun. If you want a D&D by the book simulation there is Pathfinder: Kingmaker.


I can play both games and I have but its not the same thing so your statement doesn't work.

Pathfinder is a different rule set so it does not play the same as 5e.

Last edited by UnderworldHades; 11/10/20 10:58 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred
You didn't need to roll anything to, say, get Saemon Havarian to help you out. How many dialogue options were gated by your mental ability scores, do you think? We'll say across both games. Come on, don't be shy.

Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
And surely you know that Diplomacy didn't even get a set of rules until Dragon Magazine #169.

But hey, if I were caught out like that, I would try to cherry-pick a criticism and reorient my argument too.

Fact is this is a suitably shallow reply given your lack of contextual knowledge, especially considering the thrust of your last post was that BG1&2 didn't reflect the ruleset they were based on as accurately as BG3 (which is laughable) and not that there were a small number of mental stat checks.

But simply because this is kind of funny, and I have nothing better to do right now, here's some:


An incomplete list from BG2:
Cyric's Avatar in the pocket plane challenge room:
Cyric: Now, then. Let's get trivial matters out of the way first. Do you know who I am?
You seem... familiar somehow... (Wisdom less than 8, Intelligence greater than 13)
You're... the current god of murder? ( Wisdom between 8-16)
Yes. You're Cyric, reigning god of murder. (Wisdom 17+, or player is a cleric)

Yakman in the Watcher's Keep portal level:
Yakman: Yakman used to sleep, long time ago. But it get cold, so cold. Frozen Yakman! Demons come, and it get cold. No sleep make Yakman go crazy, Yakman knows. Crazy Yakman!
Maybe a heal spell will help restore your sanity? (Wisdom 15+, or player is a cleric)

The wraith shade of Gorion in Yaga-Shura's mom's temple
Gorion: You are a disappointment. You were supposed to be so much more, . You were supposed to be something greater, and yet in the end, you murdered even me!
Gorion would never say these things. You are not he! (Wisdom 12+)

The beholder in the Sahuagin city
Spectator: I assume he was talking about this chest, though. And that means I can't let you open it... or do anything to it... even if I'm not guarding what's inside.
But that doesn't mean you can't open it, right? Then I could get what's inside without touching anything. (Wisdom 13+)

Elven gate guard in Suldanessellar:
Elf: No! No, go away! You... you're just another illusion, trying to trick me! I won't open the gate, I won't!
All of the illusions have been of horrible creatures... I am not a creature of any sort. Why would they create an illusion like me? (Wisdom 15+)
Illusions exist through belief. Stop believing in them, and they no longer exist. You can try the same with me, but I assure you I am quite real. (Intelligence 15+)
You're just going to have to trust me, friend. I'm here to help, not to fight. (Charisma 15+)

The "dragonslayer" in one of the tents in Trademeet:
Wilfred: Too bad I was by myself at the time. I could only gather as much gold as I could carry. Still, it was enough to make me plenty wealthy. Plus, it was a good deed, which is my forte.
You don't look like someone who could single-handedly slay a dragon! What's the real story here? (Wisdom 15-16)
I'm wise enough to see right through your story, Wilfred. You're lying. (Wisdom 17+)

There's also a "Reaction adjustment" which is based in part on your CHA score. In BG1 at least, this impacts a large number of NPC reactions, including that of party members who can join your cause:
https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Reaction


Again, it doesn't matter, because this was only tangential to your original point, but it is really funny.


Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred
[edit: For example, a quick bit of research indicates that across BG2 and its expansion there's only six or so conversations which check your Wisdom score. I can't find any quick list of Intelligence checks. Charisma is just to generally ask for better rewards, and effects some party members joining you in BG1. But what I have found are multiple posts, from classic BG2 forums to the Beamdog ones, of people saying don't bother with the mental stats because they don't effect the game enough.


I've never seen a clearer example of someone moving goal posts to save such an embarrassingly trivial amount of intellectual face.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
OP Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I find it funny OP used Nettie as an example for showing that failing has no interesting consequences. Failing in that instance leads to several interesting options and different outcomes. And failing a DC5 skillcheck happens in TTRPG too. This usually leads to laughing at the table, and the player coming up with how he/she failed spectacularly. Just do the same when you fail a skill check. I haven't noticed any glaring issues where you just fail without having the option to solve the situation in some other way.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

That's not what's at stake in your original argument. I'm just humoring you because anyone who has played those games and a session of AD&D could tell you were talking out of your arse. In case you forgot, you concluded your example with:
Originally Posted by Milkfred
The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.


The idea that social skill checks are an integral part of the system BG1&2 are based on is completely misinformed, but you latched onto the only thing you could and tried to slide the goal posts further and further toward the easy dunk that BG1&2 were designed with a minimal set of rules for social interactions, just as the system they're based on. I'm not sure whether these playground tactics work in your personal life, but laid out in text it's pretty clear just by scrolling up that you started arguing for something else entirely the moment you were caught out.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
OP Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
OP Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

That's not what's at stake in your original argument. I'm just humoring you because anyone who has played those games and a session of AD&D could tell you were talking out of your arse. In case you forgot, you concluded your example with:
Originally Posted by Milkfred
The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.


The idea that social skill checks are an integral part of the system BG1&2 are based on is completely misinformed, but you latched onto the only thing you could and tried to slide the goal posts further and further toward the easy dunk that BG1&2 were designed with a minimal set of rules for social interactions, just as the system they're based on. I'm not sure whether these playground arguments work in your personal life, but laid out in text it's pretty clear just by scrolling up that you started arguing for something else entirely the moment you were caught out.


I'm sorry, friend, but you appear to be having a stroke. BG3 is not based on AD&D. The year is 2020, not 1980.

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

That's not what's at stake in your original argument. I'm just humoring you because anyone who has played those games and a session of AD&D could tell you were talking out of your arse. In case you forgot, you concluded your example with:
Originally Posted by Milkfred
The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.


The idea that social skill checks are an integral part of the system BG1&2 are based on is completely misinformed, but you latched onto the only thing you could and tried to slide the goal posts further and further toward the easy dunk that BG1&2 were designed with a minimal set of rules for social interactions, just as the system they're based on. I'm not sure whether these playground arguments work in your personal life, but laid out in text it's pretty clear just by scrolling up that you started arguing for something else entirely the moment you were caught out.


I'm sorry, friend, but you appear to be having a stroke. BG3 is not based on AD&D. The year is 2020, not 1980.

You somehow managed to confuse your own argument. I'm in awe.

Let me spell the counter-point out for you, bud:

BG3 is less stringent about making the player follow the rules of D&D 5E than BG 1&2 were about making the player follow the rules of AD&D. Unless you want to anachronistically hold BG 1&2 up to the 5E ruleset, which makes no sense, your reply is deeply confused.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


I think that has been answered pretty convincingly. It's that you are given a check to pass, and if you pass it, you 're given another check, pass it and you're given another, and then a fourth. Fail any one of them and you're kicked onto the fail path. If you're trying to hit a goblin, the game doesn't go "did you really hit the goblin? Roll again", and make you roll a total of four times before it'll say "okay, I guess you did hit it after all".

The laws of probability mean the chance of passing four checks in a row is a lot worse than of passing one. It's clear that the developers really don't want you to be able to pass that check. The solution is equally clear: Make that into one check with a very high DC.





Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.


Which speaks of what? A fundamental lack of understanding in how the 5e rules are meant to be applied... leading into the conclusion that: No, the ruleset isn't the problem, the mishandled application of it is.

Last edited by WarBaby2; 11/10/20 11:25 PM.
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.


Which speaks of what? A fundamental lack of understanding in how the 5e rules are meant to be applied... leading into the conclusion that: No, the ruleset isn't the problem, the mishandled application of it is.



Oh I agree, ruleset isn't the issue. Its how Larian has implemented and handled it in EA release version.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.


On this I will agree. Multiple skill checks for one thing, is usually the sign of a new GM who doesn't understand that the rate of failure goes through the roof if you ask for too many skill rolls. Not only that, but you don't want to bog down the flow of the game with too many rolls.

But I do think the Nettie encounter is fine otherwise. You can solve the situation several ways after failing the skill roll.

Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11

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