
enthusiast

enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Armor Class: 14. Attack Roll: 6(1d20, Advantage) + 3(Wisdom) + 2(Prof) = 11. Miss.
Armor Class: 10. Attack Roll: 10(1d20, Advantage) + 3(Wisdom) + 2(Prof) = 15. Hit.
But 7 and 8 versus 14 and 10 are not 84 and 96 percent of success chance.
On the first roll against the AC14, you need to roll at least a 9. 5 Bonus + 9 = 14. With advantage, that is a 84% chance. On the second roll against the AC10, you need to roll at least a 5. Bonus + 5 = 10. With advantage, that is a 96% chance. http://media.zerohitpoints.com/images/higherthan.png
Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 03:39 PM.




Duchess of Gorgombert

Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010

This is to be expected in lower levels. Currently the max bonus you can get to a roll is +6 (+2 proficiency, +4 stat modifier). Assuming a DC of 10 (easy) you will get an average success of 55% (no bonuses) up to an average of 85% (+6 bonus, would show up as a roll against 4). Those modifiers can get pushed quite far. In RAW dnd you could get a rogue on level 4 to +8 (+2 proficiency x 2, +4 stat modifier) on a skill via expertise (not in bg3 as far as I know). This would get the success change up to 95%. On lvl 5 that rogue would have a modifier of +10 (+3 proficiency x 2, +4 stat modifier) and basically could never fail an easy (DC 10) ability check. The modifiers still play a decisive roll, even on lvl 4. The table shows the average success chances for a level 4 character with attribute 8 (1), 10 (0), 16 (4) and 16 + proficiency (6): Modfiers 1 0 4 6
DC 5 75.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00%
DC 10 50.00% 55.00% 75.00% 85.00%
DC 15 25.00% 30.00% 50.00% 60.00%
DC 20 0.00% 5.00% 25.00% 35.00%
DC 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00%
So the bonuses play a role, which only increases with proper character growth. That's quite interesting. I mean in that character stats become more relevant. "Proper character growth" feels a bit like learning RPGing all over again as with nonD&D ones you can generally blag it with less than ideal characters by alternative means but... well, I'm at the stage where D&D feels like it's simultaneously pulling in both directions, rather paradoxically, with both chance and explicitlydefined rules both coming into effect. Lawful and chaotic combining to create evenmorechaotic when one doesn't have any experience so tries to transpose alternative experience gained with something that looks like it should kindasorta be the same thing.
J'aime le fromage.




Cleric of Innuendo

Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020

Move to the Dark Side... discover GURPS.




Duchess of Gorgombert

Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010

Move to the Dark Side... discover GURPS. That sounds vaguely familiar. I'm sure I recall some people I knew at college in the late 1980s were involved in an online version of that (I suspect that was a large part of why the "good terminals" were rarely available) but I was preoccupied with trying to get myself expelled by creative misuse of the internet. "I've just discovered this awesome new thing! So I'll make good use of it by sending people reams of rude poetry and invoke the wrath of their sysadmin by causing their email system to crash in a fit of pearlclutching!" etc. Some example I'm setting. I should probably change my title to "ageing reprobate".
J'aime le fromage.




stranger

stranger
Joined: Oct 2020

Tooltip is about chance of successful roll, not about guaranteed values in the worst case scenario. Thank you, I would never figure it out =)
Last edited by kodirovshchik; 24/10/20 03:56 PM.




Cleric of Innuendo

Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020

Sadly, I don't think GURPS lends itself to CRPGs because it has too many variables. There is so much possible variation that you'd never be able to plan a set campaign arc to cope.
As a 12yearold in a 53yearold's body, I am obviously disgusted and disappointed in you being an 'aging reprobate'.




enthusiast

enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Updated my big 55.x% chance project from the last page. https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=714951#Post714951 We're now at 800 rolls. The first exceptionally bad streak remained a bit of a burden, but we're getting there. We've also had our longest streak without misses so far. Especially loved the streaks we'd gotten between rolls 400 and 450. A streak of hits was follwed by a streak of misses was followed by a streak of hits was follwed by a streak of misses. 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% miss 55% hit 55% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit > first 50: 17 hits, only 34% hits 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% hit 56% hit 56% miss 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56%dw miss 55% hit 55% miss 55% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit > 43 hits of first 100: only 43% hits 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 56% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 56% miss 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% hit 55% hit 55% miss > 71 hits of 150, still only 47,33% hits 56% miss 55% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 55% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% hit 56% hit 97 of 200 hits > still only 48,5% hits 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 56% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit 56% hit 56% hit 56% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 55% miss 55% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% hit 55% hit > 128 hits of 250= 51,2 % 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% hit 55% hit 56% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 55% hit 55% hit 55% miss 55% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% hit 56% hit 55% miss 55% miss 56% hit 55% hit 55% miss 55% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% miss 56% miss 55% miss 55% miss 55% hit 55% hit 55% miss 56% miss 55% hit 149 hit of 300 = 49.66% hits miss miss hit hit miss hit miss miss hit hit miss miss hit miss miss miss miss miss miss hit hit hit miss hit hit miss miss hit hit miss hit miss miss hit miss miss hit miss hit hit miss miss hit hit hit hit hit hit miss miss > 173 of 350 hits = 49.43% hits hit hit miss miss miss hit hit miss hit hit hit miss hit miss hit hit hit hit miss hit hit miss hit hit hit hit hit hit hit hit hit miss miss hit hit hit miss miss hit hit miss hit miss hit miss miss miss hit miss miss > 204 hits of 400 = 51% miss miss hit miss miss hit hit miss hit hit hit hit hit hit miss miss miss miss miss miss miss hit hit hit hit miss miss miss miss hit hit hit hit hit miss miss miss miss miss miss hit miss hit miss hit miss miss hit hit miss > 227 hits of 450 > 50.44 % hit hit hit miss miss hit hit miss miss hit miss hit miss hit hit miss miss miss miss miss hit miss miss miss miss hit miss miss miss hit miss miss miss miss hit miss miss hit hit miss miss miss hit hit miss hit hit miss miss hit > 247 hits of 500 > 49.4% hits hit miss hit hit hit hit miss hit hit miss miss hit miss miss miss miss hit hit hit miss miss hit hit miss hit miss hit hit hit miss hit hit miss hit hit hit hit miss hit miss hit hit miss hit hit hit miss miss hit miss > 277 hits of 550 = 50.36% hit hit miss hit hit miss hit hit hit miss hit hit hit hit hit miss hit miss miss miss hit miss hit hit hit hit hit hit hit miss hit hit hit hit hit hit miss hit hit hit hit hit miss hit miss hit hit miss hit miss > 313 hits of 600 = 52.17% hit hit hit hit hit hit miss miss hit miss miss hit miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss hit hit hit hit miss miss hit hit hit miss hit hit miss miss hit miss miss miss miss hit hit hit miss miss miss hit hit hit hit > 338 hits of 650 = 52% miss hit hit hit hit miss hit hit hit hit hit hit miss hit hit hit hit miss hit hit hit miss hit hit hit miss hit miss hit miss miss hit miss hit miss hit hit miss miss hit miss hit miss hit miss hit hit miss hit  hit > 371 hits of 700 = 53% hit hit miss miss hit hit hit miss hit hit miss hit miss miss hit hit miss hit miss miss hit hit miss hit miss miss hit miss hit miss miss miss hit hit miss hit miss miss miss hit hit miss hit miss hit miss miss miss hit miss 395 hits of 750 = 52.67% miss hit hit miss miss hit hit hit miss hit miss miss hit hit hit hit hit hit hit miss hit hit miss hit hit miss miss hit hit hit hit miss miss hit hit miss miss hit miss hit hit miss miss miss miss hit miss hit hit hit > 425 hits of 800 = 53.13%
TOTAL ROLLS: 800 TOTAL HITS: 425 EXPECTED: ~440 HIT RATIO: 53.13% EXPECTED: 55.x% LONGEST STREAK WITHOUT A HIT: 9 LONGEST STREAK WITHOUT A MISS:9 Will likely continue to the 1,000, so far all looks well within the margins of error.
Last edited by Sven_; 25/10/20 12:00 PM.




apprentice

apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020

I updated the google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ahq3jkENBJ_gLPDDeHFZDK2Kg9oZhCCaNZ6p8ijWPM/edit?usp=sharingI added a new sheet called "StatsFine". I did not group the chances together but analyzed every possible chance separately. And this paints a much clearer picture: The more I rolled, the closer I came to the expected success rate. Errors do not have a tendency to be below or above the expected rate. My previews analysis in "Stats" introduced artifacts due to the grouping of expected success rates, which are all eliminated in the new fine analysis.




enthusiast

enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Did you also roll 4 misses on the bounce in the 94% bracket? edit: Just checked the data sheet. Not quite, but you had missed a 94% in succession twice. Not quite as long odds, but that's got to hit the percentage at that sample size (just like mine).
Last edited by Sven_; 25/10/20 02:24 PM.




member

member
Joined: Oct 2020

The issue with RNG is that a singular % "hit chance" is only accurate over an infinite sample size. This "random" not "random" generator only becomes a "hit chance" over thousands of samples. Example  a 95% "hit chance" generation may take 100,000 rolls to hit or get within 1% of the 95% "hit rate".
The way around this is to "force" this ratio over a much smaller sample as the "hit chance" is calculated NOT generated. This makes it a hit RATIO not CHANCE. In this way a 95% hit ratio is 19 hits to 1 miss which can be forced. For 95% you generate a small binary matrix from 1 to 20 adding one zero randomly with 19 ones. Roll the 120 RNG noise generator and if you land on that MISS then delete that row from the matrix making it impossible to roll MISS for 19 more attacks against that target. These calulations are binary and any CPU would cheese the calculations.
My main point is that using RNG probability to calculate "chance" when it is a "ratio" is extremely inaccurate when using teeny weeny sample sizes. This is why "random" must be applied to another "random". Applying a randomly generated number to a semirandomly generated binary matrix based on hit % would stop the 95%> formula from the "miss miss miss miss miss miss". It basically makes your chance to hit increase by 5% every time you miss and decrease by 5% everytime you hit until the ratio is reached. Job done. This is not a dice roll, this is the matrix as there is no spoon.
RNG applied to "rolls" has the potential to totally ruin game experiences, XCOM anyone? I hope ^^^^^^ this makes sense to someone at least as it isn't easy to explain.




enthusiast

enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

I hope ^^^^^^ this makes sense to someone at least as it isn't easy to explain. Tim Cain explained it over here, basically (may not be the exact same thing, mind). https://youtu.be/MEewLWDpscA?t=1793I personally wouldn't want that, but then I also like dice.
Last edited by Sven_; 25/10/20 09:06 PM.




journeyman

journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020

A Wizard doesn't roll low. Nor dos he roll high. He rolls precisely what he means to.
Last edited by rodeolifant; 26/10/20 08:05 AM.




member

member
Joined: Oct 2020

The issue with RNG is that a singular % "hit chance" is only accurate over an infinite sample size. This "random" not "random" generator only becomes a "hit chance" over thousands of samples. Example  a 95% "hit chance" generation may take 100,000 rolls to hit or get within 1% of the 95% "hit rate".
The way around this is to "force" this ratio over a much smaller sample as the "hit chance" is calculated NOT generated. This makes it a hit RATIO not CHANCE. In this way a 95% hit ratio is 19 hits to 1 miss which can be forced. For 95% you generate a small binary matrix from 1 to 20 adding one zero randomly with 19 ones. Roll the 120 RNG noise generator and if you land on that MISS then delete that row from the matrix making it impossible to roll MISS for 19 more attacks against that target. These calulations are binary and any CPU would cheese the calculations.
My main point is that using RNG probability to calculate "chance" when it is a "ratio" is extremely inaccurate when using teeny weeny sample sizes. This is why "random" must be applied to another "random". Applying a randomly generated number to a semirandomly generated binary matrix based on hit % would stop the 95%> formula from the "miss miss miss miss miss miss". It basically makes your chance to hit increase by 5% every time you miss and decrease by 5% everytime you hit until the ratio is reached. Job done. This is not a dice roll, this is the matrix as there is no spoon.
RNG applied to "rolls" has the potential to totally ruin game experiences, XCOM anyone? I hope ^^^^^^ this makes sense to someone at least as it isn't easy to explain. Yeah, but this is all the player's "fault" for not knowing how statistics work, wanting the immediate success and not realizing that this game is based on dice rolls. Your system would get sort of rid of the "unlucky" streaks, by actually screwing with the chances and rigging the dice. So you replace a working and transparent system with a manipulated one that is less transparent to appease uneducated/biased players. And you can already circumvent this by reloading. In my book you need to educate the players on your system, which the game does decently well: It is pretty transparent how the chances are created although I would like more detail how hit chances come together.




stranger

stranger
Joined: Oct 2020

I may be banned (hope not xD)  but i recently play Solasta early access. It basics on same D&D rules and WOHOO there is all right with chances! Hey rly i have some critical misses  but it feels normal. It feels ok while you have atack +6, enemy AC 15  and you miss(55% on hit). Even when i miss twice in a row. BUT  for all fights in this game (lesser then in BG3 in 3 times tho) i have only one! loose strick  3 misses in a row with 70% on hit. Its just not normal in BG3.




old hand

old hand
Joined: Jan 2011

I may be banned (hope not xD)  but i recently play Solasta early access. It basics on same D&D rules and WOHOO there is all right with chances! Hey rly i have some critical misses  but it feels normal. It feels ok while you have atack +6, enemy AC 15  and you miss(55% on hit). Even when i miss twice in a row. BUT  for all fights in this game (lesser then in BG3 in 3 times tho) i have only one! loose strick  3 misses in a row with 70% on hit. Its just not normal in BG3. To me it isn't the critical miss, it's the 5e disadvantages feature and many enemies are in unlit and low light settings which means for your To Hit Roll you roll twice and it takes the worse of the two. I can tell you that really really ups the chance of a bad roll and the start the miss game. In that game I haven't found a way to shoot light at a distance at an enemy to make them lit to get that off, it seems it could use something like that. If any of this commentary can be used in BG3, great.




journeyman

journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020

Okay, look. A d20 goes by 5% increments. This is not to be contested, it is logical enough.
To roll a specific number on a D20 gives you one in twenty odds, equals 5%. A 70% percent chance, whilst it looks like a high number, means that there is 30/5=6 Outcomes that fail. So, you must roll a six or upward. Come now, it's annoying if you fail three times in a row, but it's not like it's therefore tigged against you. Sure, that's fairly easy to beat, typically, but the fact that you get a streak of three misses is certainly not unheard of; I've done *far* worse at the D&D table than *that*.
Bloody spiders and their webs.




enthusiast

enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Seems like Solasta is now going with the "pseudorandom" solution then. Which, given how faithful they claim their adaptation to be, find a little hard to believe. Sooner or later you'll have your streaks  certainly was that way with the demo back then. Unsurpringly, same topic, same discussions (just on smaller scale, given the game's smaller playerbase). https://steamcommunity.com/app/1096530/discussions/0/3008927444649117345/
Last edited by Sven_; 26/10/20 08:47 PM.




stranger

stranger
Joined: Oct 2020

I may be banned (hope not xD)  but i recently play Solasta early access. It basics on same D&D rules and WOHOO there is all right with chances! Hey rly i have some critical misses  but it feels normal. It feels ok while you have atack +6, enemy AC 15  and you miss(55% on hit). Even when i miss twice in a row. BUT  for all fights in this game (lesser then in BG3 in 3 times tho) i have only one! loose strick  3 misses in a row with 70% on hit. Its just not normal in BG3. To me it isn't the critical miss, it's the 5e disadvantages feature and many enemies are in unlit and low light settings which means for your To Hit Roll you roll twice and it takes the worse of the two. I can tell you that really really ups the chance of a bad roll and the start the miss game. In that game I haven't found a way to shoot light at a distance at an enemy to make them lit to get that off, it seems it could use something like that. If any of this commentary can be used in BG3, great. The problem is dat i know about 2 rolls when you have advantage/disadvantage  i say critical as critical for battle and my win, not situations when you roll 1, and my "complaints" not about this. I say when in BG3 i fight against some dendroid or whatever they are (small island on swamp) i made good job to set my vampire behind them. And he miss 4 round in a row! he had 84% success on anatck! Ok fine lets suppose dat he has like 50% chance on hit, and dat 34%  estimated increase of chance to hit from sec roll. Then he made 8!! 8 rolls  and all failed. 0,34+% chance on dat. Ok, ill take it. But why!! Why i have similar situations 7 times? I remember all of them. I dont remember my fails in Solasta because they were "natural"  and yes i have my fails even when enemies was lightened up and when i strike from stealth. Its ok. But when you do ALL that you can in principle to enlarge you chances but game said you "Nah, forget it!'" and all your team miss 7/8 atacks on 6hp ogre (4 main hand and 3 off hand atacks)  when ALL of them stay behind him in the yard at noon... it is not right. In a board game you can explain this as bad luck or you have hands out of the ass, but when you have dat situation on conputer... and only in 1 game  dats suspiciously.
Last edited by Axyramariel; 26/10/20 09:21 PM.




journeyman

journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020

Okay. You need to stop declaring the improbable the impossible.
The dice rolls are among the easiest things the studio can implement. Creating scenarios/exceptions where the player suddenly rolls lower... That is actually pretty hard. Considering that the studio have yet to properly balance out of the data they collect from us players, do you honestly think they'd implement such a scheme? To what end? To not make us like the game? It's part of the game, streaks happen.
Your calculation is off. Luckily, you provided an easy to calculate figure.
If the base chance is 50%, that means that 10 sides of a D20 result in succes (2 to 11). With advantage, that chance increases to 75%, because 50% twice. Note that, even with advantage, and a seamingly high statistic, you now have a one in four chance to fail. Yeah, that happens, even eight times in a row. It's hard to reproduce if you want it to happen, but it still happens. So does rolling Yahtzee on your first turn, but I've done it. Those odds are lower; 1 in 1296. I can assure you that I haven't rolled that many times, even though grandma really liked that game.
To quickly address your initial numbers: On an advantage roll where your chance is 85%, the target roll is 9, giving you 11 valid sides on a D20. You have a 60% chance per roll. To illustrate; you have a 40% chance to fail per roll, you have a 15% chance to fail at both rolls. Doesn't seem so weird now, does it? If it does, then... Well, I don't know what to tell you.




enthusiast

enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Well, it looks like they may just fiddle with their dice. I personally hope they are going to make it optional. Because the audience is so much bigger and they're coming from such different games, their expectations for how narrative is handled is very different. So for a D&D player who is completely cool with getting three ones on the D20 in a row, they go like "yeah, this happened yesterday to me, this is completely normal." And then there are people who are coming from titles like XCOM or something more strategic where they would expect some dampers or stabilization on RNG so that you never see a really bad streak or something like that. So we're now discussing how we're going to tackle that. From our own experience at the tabletop, we know that even though dice are supposed to be pure randomness and very honest, the DM has has the screen for a reason where they're rolling their dice in secret. That is already in D&D this builtin mechanism for stabilizing randomness and an understanding that creating a compelling narrative takes a bit more than just completely [rolling] in a random motion.[
It has to be handled very carefully, because players are very good at spotting the game putting its thumb on the scale and the cheating the randomness. So right now we're discussing where exactly we're gonna start stabilizing RNG, most likely in combat scenarios. This is something that people have very specific set of expectations for. It's where they want a lot of control, have a lot of plans, and come up with very interesting tactics and strategies. If you have too much RNG it just messes it up. It devolves tactics to something less interesting. https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...les_the_RNG_of_DDinspired_dice_rolls.php




