Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
30% I understand.
50% I also understand.
But 75% and over? Really?

And how do you miss with the guy standing right in front of you? Why not just say dodge? That would make me feel a little better.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
There does seem to be something screwy with the RNG unless the chance-to-hit isn't the full story. I've noticed the 75+% chance translates into "will probably miss" and it frequently does it several times in a row. And not just as a one-off either, it's been a real pain all the way through. There's also something a bit off with rolling low during speech checks too, I've noticed: I've now learnt to F5 before talking with anyone as there seems to be an overwhelming likelihood it'll fail however high or low the number.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Aug 2017
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Aug 2017
I am going to say it if it makes you feel better: As currently implemented, Miss is not just you missing the target, is also hitting and not doing damage.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: CARDIFF
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: CARDIFF
Originally Posted by vometia
There does seem to be something screwy with the RNG unless the chance-to-hit isn't the full story. I've noticed the 75+% chance translates into "will probably miss" and it frequently does it several times in a row. And not just as a one-off either, it's been a real pain all the way through. There's also something a bit off with rolling low during speech checks too, I've noticed: I've now learnt to F5 before talking with anyone as there seems to be an overwhelming likelihood it'll fail however high or low the number.



F5?


Love and sausages xx
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by 0Muttley0
Originally Posted by vometia
There does seem to be something screwy with the RNG unless the chance-to-hit isn't the full story. I've noticed the 75+% chance translates into "will probably miss" and it frequently does it several times in a row. And not just as a one-off either, it's been a real pain all the way through. There's also something a bit off with rolling low during speech checks too, I've noticed: I've now learnt to F5 before talking with anyone as there seems to be an overwhelming likelihood it'll fail however high or low the number.



F5?


Quicksave for save scumming. I constantly mash F5 before every encounter.

Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.


Ok Professor.

Give me the likelyhood of missing 14 times in a row with above 50% to 80% hit chance.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.


Ok Professor.

Give me the likelyhood of missing 14 times in a row with above 50% to 80% hit chance.


I think you maybe over exaggerating because I save scum a lot and the hit chances are consistent with what is displayed.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 18/10/20 11:17 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.


Ok Professor.

Give me the likelyhood of missing 14 times in a row with above 50% to 80% hit chance.


I think you maybe over exaggerating because I save scum a lot and the hit chances are consistent with what is displayed.


Dude I am telling you there are certain mobs that have insane dodge/miss chance.

I cleared the whole goblin courtyard with 4 level 4.
But two Bug Bears killed my team because I literally could not hit them.The Miss chance of this game is messed up.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
For fun, in my game, Laezel rolled 3 Crits in a row against
her fellow Giths.
Sort of felt like a movie.

Probability is 0.0125 % (0.000125)

Last edited by Baraz; 18/10/20 11:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah but dude.. it happens a lot. Like.. a lot a lot. An overwhelming amount of times that makes it not normal and something is off. I've also noticed that some enemies get to just run by a melee-engaged party member with no opportunity attack, despite not using disengage. Like, it just doesn't trigger half the time. And the AI still overwhelmingly targets and optimizes a strat against low AC/critical party members, cleric and rogue being the most common. My first playthrough I had one hell of a time keeping Astarion and Shadowheart alive, they would just get ganged up on immediately no matter how I placed them or tried to funnel the flow of enemy approach.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Milani
Yeah but dude.. it happens a lot. Like.. a lot a lot. An overwhelming amount of times that makes it not normal and something is off. I've also noticed that some enemies get to just run by a melee-engaged party member with no opportunity attack, despite not using disengage. Like, it just doesn't trigger half the time. And the AI still overwhelmingly targets and optimizes a strat against low AC/critical party members, cleric and rogue being the most common. My first playthrough I had one hell of a time keeping Astarion and Shadowheart alive, they would just get ganged up on immediately no matter how I placed them or tried to funnel the flow of enemy approach.

I did notice some AoO not triggering, though I know it is only once per turn.

And yes the AI tends to focus the cleric I noticed, and she has mediocre AC (at level 4, I gave her 10 Dex and gave her a half-plate which is Medium armor).

Last edited by Baraz; 18/10/20 11:37 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who isn't having issues with hitting things.
Creating advantages for yourself dramatically increases your hit chance.
If ranged, take high ground. If melee, get to the side of or behind the target. Ensure that the target is well-lit.
Suddenly, you've got an 85%+ chance to hit a grand majority of the time.

I don't feel like the miss chances are screwy at all. Something like 85% isn't 100% just because it's highly likely that you'll connect. There's still a 15% per roll that you're going to miss.
If you were seeing very long strings of misses and you met all of the advantage conditions and you were working around resistances for saves, then I'd say that there was an issue.
After 60+ hours of played time across many classes, I've found that to never be the case and the hit rates are accurate.


I don't want to fall to bits 'cos of excess existential thought.

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
I am not a professor, and I don't know how old the princess will be when she is twice as old as the prince was when he was half their combined age, but I think the Bernoulli trial probability math gets pretty simple for the case of a single repeated outcome. If you have a random 50% chance to hit each time, then I believe the probability of missing 14 times in a row is (0.5)¹⁴ = 6.1 × 10⁻⁵, which I interpret as not something you should not expect to see very often, even after thousands of hours of play.

Last edited by Argyle; 19/10/20 12:34 AM. Reason: ha ha, forgot the word "not"!
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I think it is definitely worth looking at as people seem to be having a reoccurring problem with hit chances but would it possible for someone to post a screencap of it happening alongside characters stats so we can determine if there is a problem that is not being noticed? I've personally never encountered such a consistent streak of bad luck but I came into this with a lot of experience and knowledge so I would not know if that is a mitigating factor.


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
vel Offline
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
>> Bernoulli trial probability math gets pretty simple for the case of a single repeated outcome.

That was amazing Argyle.

Also, agree with OP, something seems incorrect about displayed hit probability. Anything below 85% or so seems very likely to miss.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Even in the demo videos from Larian, they missed twice in a row with something around 90% chance to hit and mafe a joke about stormtroopers.

It would be very easy to demonstrate though, make a quicksave before an attack at say 75%, then record a video of reloading and making the same attack over and over.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Tzelanit

After 60+ hours of played time across many classes, I've found that to never be the case and the hit rates are accurate.


Agreed. Whilst I wouldn't completely rule out an issue with the RNG (this being Early Access and all) --


there is absolutely nothing obvious going on with that in the way people make it sound.


The majority of these threads can be explained with confirmation bias plus what Tim Cain of Fallout fame says here (sorry for always linking that, this is a must watch for anybody, maybe even Larian's own QA / playtesters).

https://youtu.be/MEewLWDpscA?t=1500

Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 05:06 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
30% I understand.
50% I also understand.
But 75% and over? Really?

And how do you miss with the guy standing right in front of you? Why not just say dodge? That would make me feel a little better.


Yes, this can be very frustrating. Another thing that was frustrating to me that I didn't know you can get was the Brain companion at the very beginning while you are on the ship. I managed to roll all high numbers and recruited it BUT my game glitched and crashed BEFORE I could save. When I tried to do it again, I kept rolling low numbers over and over and over again until I gave up and move on. That was soooooo frustrating. I was very upset that I missed the chance of getting it as an extra companion on the ship.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Tzelanit

After 60+ hours of played time across many classes, I've found that to never be the case and the hit rates are accurate.


Agreed. Whilst I wouldn't completely rule out an issue with the RNG (this being Early Access and all) --


there is absolutely nothing obvious going on with that in the way people make it sound.


The majority of these threads can be explained with confirmation bias plus what Tim Cain of Fallout fame says here (sorry for always linking that, this is a must watch for anybody, maybe even Larian's playtesters). hehe

https://youtu.be/MEewLWDpscA?t=1500


Originally Posted by vometia
There does seem to be something screwy with the RNG unless the chance-to-hit isn't the full story. I've noticed the 75+% chance translates into "will probably miss" and it frequently does it several times in a row.


"Will perhaps miss" is what a 75% chance literally is. It's akin to rolling at least a 7 on the D20. Long-term average, a fourth of all rolls should be a miss. Missing twice in a row is as low as a 1 in 16 chance, doing so thrice a 1 in 64 chance, all of which very likely to happen if you factor in how often you roll and how many hours you may play. Everybody should experience this quite frequently. Even missing that 75% chance four times in a row is not any higher than a 1 in 256 chance, hugely far from winning the lottery.


Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 05:37 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Sven_
Everybody should experience this quite frequently. Even missing that 75% chance four times in a row is not any higher than a 1 in 256 chance, hugely far from winning the lottery.

The trouble is, it keeps happening; i.e. much more often than 1:256. I wouldn't like to commit to a figure, but it happens way too often; certainly more so than landing a critical hit, for instance.

The other thing is it seems rather redundant as even if you do pass the chance-to-hit, it then rolls again to see if the target is realistically damaged or just a glancing blow.

Of course it may simply be communicated to the player rather poorly: if perhaps it's "you have a 75% chance all things being equal, but now I'll factor things like respective skills, strengths and other stuff that's going on into the equation" which would render that number rather meaningless.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Jan 2018
W
veteran
Offline
veteran
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Yeah, confirmation bias plays a huge part in this. You are far more likely to remember missing multiple times than hitting consecutively.

Also, you would probably hit as many times on a 20% chance as you miss on an 80% chance, but since most people choose not to attack if their odds are that bad and just take a different option, the data you are working with is incomplete and skewed.

If you are really missing 14 times in a row there could be something up with your game, maybe you somehow triggered a bug, or it could be one of those improbabilities that when considered on the cosmic scale are virtually inevitable to happen from time to time.

Personally I have not noticed anything wrong with the RNG. I’ve missed on a 98% once, and I have also gotten 3 consecutive critical hits. Unlikely things happen from time to time, but generally my results match the expressed success percentages.

Last edited by Warlocke; 19/10/20 05:59 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by vometia

Of course it may simply be communicated to the player rather poorly: if perhaps it's "you have a 75% chance all things being equal, but now I'll factor things like respective skills, strengths and other stuff that's going on into the equation" which would render that number rather meaningless.


From my experience, it isn't. They even factor in the percentage when considering advantage/disadvantage on the attack roll, which is why you have displayed chances such as 99%, 36% or 88% given that you get to throw the dice twice and have to take the higher/lower roll.
http://zerohitpoints.com/Articles/Advantage-in-DnD-5#:~:text=Shown%20for%20each%20number%20on,rolling%20a%2010%20or%20greater.

I personally can't relate to what you are experiencing at all. Given that you have expressed to be very unlucky in general, this may be mostly confirmation bias ("Ah, see, I'm unlucky again" -- except for the many times you aren't). smile

Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 06:01 AM.
Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
I will just quote what I said in another thread
Originally Posted by Sharp

As far as I am aware the currently displayed hit chances are accurate and the dice are not weighted in any direction, although they are considering weighting them in the player's favor in future. If they do that, I would rather have a difficulty option with non weighted dice, since I am not a fan of weighting to begin with. The human mind is notoriously bad at grasping probability, there are a lot of studies on this. So even if the hit chance is perfectly accurate, people will "feel" it is wrong, because our grasp of probability as a species is flawed. If you wish to read up on the subject, here is an example of a very simple puzzle to which most humans will choose incorrectly, even though pigeons will choose the correct answer. Here is another paper on the topic. Game designers are also well aware of this, the probability of hitting is skewed in the player's favor in XCOM for example. My favorite example though is probably this talk given by Tim Cain, at 25 minutes into this video.

I see someone else has mentioned that video already, but the other links are also worthwhile perusing.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
I am not saying there is nothing wrong with the chances displayed, but as always I'd wager the overwhelming part of frustration is confirmation bias and human psychology. A 75% chance is not a guaranteed hit, yet it is treated that way. You wouldn't take odds like that in real life. Say there is a puddle on the road, you are wearing very nice shoes and you would guess that you are likely to be able to jump it, yet would most likely just step around it.

And with the amount of rolling in this game with varied chances the odds of having a bad streak every once in a while is high enough, and that is what sticks in your mind. Not the times four 75% hits connected in a row.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

And with the amount of rolling in this game with varied chances the odds of having a bad streak every once in a while is high enough, and that is what sticks in your mind. Not the times four 75% hits connected in a row.


Additioinally, you are going to find many players who experience -- in some way or another -- just the same as you (this includes my own experience too). This is a game meanwhile played by hundreds of thousands, despite the Early Access. So if you're looking for a confirmation, you'll find it. I'm almost tempted to do some actual testing now, armed with pen and paper (heh) but as said, I can't see anything obvious "off". I think this is a really fascinating topic though, in particular because of human psychology at play. Without it, casinos and gambling outlets would be lost too (gambler's fallacy, etc.)

I've seen players claiming that the dice were actually rigged right on these boards, insofar as that the opposition would barely ever miss, which obviously also isn't happening, certainly not over the mid to longer term. Over a sequence or two, much goes (and will if this is truly random). Additionally, actually rigged dice against the player would be majorly stupid from a developing standpoint, as it would undermine all player trust -- there's much easier and "Fair" ways to make the game hard. Such as always putting the player at a numeral and positioning disadvantage, giving creatures abilities they don't have in the pen&paper, etc. (which BG3 sometimes does too).

If you'd roll the dice long enough, you're guaranteed curious sequences. smile






Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 08:47 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
I missed 6 time in a row with 81% hit chance. Nothing is impossible but here the probability is less than 10^-3.
The RNG is screwd, everyone noticed it. Truth to be told, RNG is screwd in most software, non only videogames, but there are tricks to level the distribution of outcome. I'm sure Larian's guys and gals are not stupid, if they are going to put their heads on it they will find a solution (DOS2 didn't have such a problem).

The only thing to hope for is that they are reading these posts laugh

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Eddiar
30% I understand.
50% I also understand.
But 75% and over? Really?

And how do you miss with the guy standing right in front of you? Why not just say dodge? That would make me feel a little better.

The question is: what do those percentage number represent? Those are adaptation of d20 rolls and include things like advantage (rolling twice And picking higher number). Unlike XCOMs or PoEs it doesn’t represent actual calculations behind the hit. Perhaps 75% was a double d20vs10 roll?

I would recommend jumping into combat log next time (can be expanded in bottom right corner) and see for yourself what actually happened.

And no matter what your chances are rolling 1 will always fail, and rolling 20 will always be a critical hit.

Last edited by Wormerine; 19/10/20 09:27 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Sharet
I missed 6 time in a row with 81% hit chance. Nothing is impossible but here the probability is less than 10^-3.


This is a 1 in ~20.000 chance, not that hugely far off Tim Cain's Fallout example. It's long odds, but given the number of rolls and players, it should occur with some frequency.

Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 09:36 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Every game with randomness gets these same posts. And in none of those games, this one included, I haven’t encountered anything weird with how chance to hit works. Sure, I miss attacks, but never felt it’s ”more than supposed”.

Played through this Early Access (with several characters) and failed a bunch of rolls along the way. That’s expected. Failed some quite important rolls in and out of combat. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But nothing prevented me continuing the game. I help downed companione back up, resurrect dead ones, lick my wounds at camp, and then continue playing.

I don’t doubt that fail streaks happen to people, that’s expected as well. With tens of thousands of players rolling hundreds of rolls all the time, some of them are likely to get those nasty streaks. But I do think that many of us remember the negative outcomes and forget the positive ones.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by Sharet
I missed 6 time in a row with 81% hit chance. Nothing is impossible but here the probability is less than 10^-3.


This is a 1 in ~20.000 chance, not that hugely far off Tim Cain's Fallout example. It's long odds, but given the number of rolls and players, it should occur with some frequency.


The problem is that it happens consistently to the same player and across the player base. As for the fact that if you have a 3:1 critical miss/critical success ratio is indicative the RNG doesn't work properly.

Last edited by Sharet; 19/10/20 09:38 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharet
Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by Sharet
I missed 6 time in a row with 81% hit chance. Nothing is impossible but here the probability is less than 10^-3.


This is a 1 in ~20.000 chance, not that hugely far off Tim Cain's Fallout example. It's long odds, but given the number of rolls and players, it should occur with some frequency.


The problem is that it happens consistently to the same player and across the player base. As for the fact that if you have a 3:1 critical miss/critical success ratio is indicative the RNG doesn't work properly.


Or rather, players are anecdotally relating their experience of this happening to them which is not necessarily the same thing as it actually happening. Unless we look at the numbers (the game engine numbers, not the statistical math based on the anecdotes) this is just a bunch of people going "I feel like...". Which is fine and can totally be relevant feedback but in terms of specific criticism of a random number generator "I feel like I miss a lot" isn't really too meaningful due to, amongst other things, Gambler's Fallacy and Confirmation Bias.

Sometimes I get really annoyed at my companions too because it feels like they mess up a lot but as a gut feeling from looking at the stats of NPCs and pretty solid knowledge of the D&D system, I'm fairly confident (but unable to provide solid evidence for) that the system is working as intended and that if anything needs tweaking it can probably be fixed by modifying enemy statistics rather than looking at the RNG.

Last edited by Khorvale; 19/10/20 10:02 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Sharet
[quote=Sven_]

The problem is that it happens consistently to the same player and across the player base.


Depends on the playing hours and number encounteres, and specifically the number of rolls, but this could very well happen to the same player, yes, say every week or such. It's nowhere close to winning the lottery or any other hugely unlikely event.

An 80% chance would be akin to needing to roll at least a 5 on the D20.[Linked Image] I came comparably close to not doing that 6 times in a row just on my first fresh attempt on rolladie.net.



Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 10:05 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Dice rolling tends to do this. Good thing about it is that enemies have the same string of bad luck that we do. Had so many fights where they all missed for a whole round.

Joined: Aug 2014
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Aug 2014
In PnP (3.5) there were plenty of ways to boost your spell DC. So far in this game I feel like its a total waste to cast crowd control because your chance of landing the spell is like 60% at most. Its wierd that it feels like this because the cantrips (or any damage spell) have similar chance to hit. I guess it matters if its a cantrip that you can cast ad infinitum but even with a hardhitting finite spell I would rather cast that at 60% than a CC spell.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Torque
In PnP (3.5) there were plenty of ways to boost your spell DC. So far in this game I feel like its a total waste to cast crowd control because your chance of landing the spell is like 60% at most. Its wierd that it feels like this because the cantrips (or any damage spell) have similar chance to hit. I guess it matters if its a cantrip that you can cast ad infinitum but even with a hardhitting finite spell I would rather cast that at 60% than a CC spell.


This is a good observation I feel. Since most (all?) crowd control spells are finite resources with typically a mediocre chance of success I personally gravitate towards cantrips and direct damage instead for most encounters, and save my CCs for "later" but I'm inevitably disappointed by my CCs when I finally use them.

Joined: Aug 2014
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Aug 2014
We usually had that Fighter with 2-hander with all the feats that boosted hitchance, our group relied on him to have a near 100% chance to hit. As the streamlining of classes right now (dont know how it is in 5.0, but in BG3 atleast), it doesnt feel like there is any way to become a Excellent Blademaster or whatever. Just level up, chose MAYBE 1 thing, "Accept". Congratulations, you're now level 2 but you dont feel like you're any stronger.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I also agree on the point of low success chance with spells, but that's because you only get limited spell slots.

Only having a 60% chance to land a spell seems ridiculously low and makes it not worth casting anything but magic missile and cantrips.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I dont think the RNG is flawed here. I normally sense that if it would be skewed big way.

But in computer terms RNG doesnt exist. Its often generated by an algorithm using the computers clock.

It wouldnt be damaging if the Larian showed the algorithm doing the RNG and give us access to it so we can RNG thousands of times and generate spread sheets.

Sometimes there are little errors like for example rounding wrong.

to preserve symmetries - 2,5 rounded to 1 significance is for example 2 - not 3.

"Rounding to the nearest integer
Rounding a number x to the nearest integer requires some tie-breaking rule for those cases when x is exactly half-way between two integers — that is, when the fraction part of x is exactly 0.5.

If it were not for the 0.5 fractional parts, the round-off errors introduced by the round to nearest method would be symmetric: for every fraction that gets rounded down (such as 0.268), there is a complementary fraction (namely, 0.732) that gets rounded up by the same amount.

When rounding a large set of fixed-point numbers with uniformly distributed fractional parts, the rounding errors by all values, with the omission of those having 0.5 fractional part, would statistically compensate each other. This means that the expected (average) value of the rounded numbers is equal to the expected value of the original numbers when we remove numbers with fractional part 0.5 from the set.

In practice, floating-point numbers are typically used, which have even more computational nuances because they are not equally spaced."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding

children often learn wrong rounding in school


Last edited by Tav3245234325325; 19/10/20 12:59 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Tav3245234325325
I dont think the RNG is flawed here. I normally sense that if it would be skewed big way.

But in computer terms RNG doesnt exist. Its often generated by an algorithm using the computers clock.

It wouldnt be damaging if the Larian showed the algorithm doing the RNG and give us access to it so we can RNG thousands of times and generate spread sheets.

Sometimes there are little errors like for example rounding wrong.

to preserve symmetries - 2,5 rounded to 1 significance is for example 2 - not 3.

"Rounding to the nearest integer
Rounding a number x to the nearest integer requires some tie-breaking rule for those cases when x is exactly half-way between two integers — that is, when the fraction part of x is exactly 0.5.

If it were not for the 0.5 fractional parts, the round-off errors introduced by the round to nearest method would be symmetric: for every fraction that gets rounded down (such as 0.268), there is a complementary fraction (namely, 0.732) that gets rounded up by the same amount.

When rounding a large set of fixed-point numbers with uniformly distributed fractional parts, the rounding errors by all values, with the omission of those having 0.5 fractional part, would statistically compensate each other. This means that the expected (average) value of the rounded numbers is equal to the expected value of the original numbers when we remove numbers with fractional part 0.5 from the set.

In practice, floating-point numbers are typically used, which have even more computational nuances because they are not equally spaced."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding

children often learn wrong rounding in school



Frankly, this puts a smile on my face.

I can assure you Larian does not recreate a bicycle, they are also not incompetent and don't know how to properly generate random value in their games. It's not some indie studio getting its feet wet with first game, they don't need random forum poster teaching them how naive random number generators, like those based on internal clock work.

It's ok, you can let them handle this.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I don't usually say it but I think git gud is a proper response here. Lighting has a lot of influence on hit success, as well as hight and buffs. My usual strategy of go high and bless does the job most of the times. And I'm this guy who plays these games for the story, normal mode at best


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't usually say it but I think git gud is a proper response here. Lighting has a lot of influence on hit success, as well as hight and buffs. My usual strategy of go high and bless does the job most of the times. And I'm this guy who plays these games for the story, normal mode at best


I was outside.
On the second level if temple of Selune.

With my party + 1 arch druid we killed everyone in the courtyard.
My party wiped when 2 drunk bugbears missed/dodged every attack in four rounds.

And they of course hit every attack.

This is beyond "git gud".

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
In my current game, during the fight outside the druid camp, the Goblins missed the three NPS at the gate consistently for three turns. For the first time in multiple playthroughs all three of them survived. In a couple of others they all died, and once Wyll died as well.

Confirmation bias would lead to only looking at the times they all died and think that the odds were always against you, and you wouldn't notice, or at least care to notice when all the dice rolls went in your favour like when everyone survives.

The point is that everytime the outcome is randomised, and people will have a tendency to only notice negative results.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 19/10/20 02:05 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't usually say it but I think git gud is a proper response here. Lighting has a lot of influence on hit success, as well as hight and buffs. My usual strategy of go high and bless does the job most of the times. And I'm this guy who plays these games for the story, normal mode at best


I was outside.
On the second level if temple of Selune.

With my party + 1 arch druid we killed everyone in the courtyard.
My party wiped when 2 drunk bugbears missed/dodged every attack in four rounds.

And they of course hit every attack.

This is beyond "git gud".

It's possible I guess. With RNG games even the best players can lose. It remains me of fire emblem playthroughs I see sometimes. You can play fire emblem slowly and meticulously but still be obliterated by RNG. It's rare, but it happens. I can only say that from my experience I never died and felt "damn I did everything right and still lost" even though sometimes it's a possibility.

Regardless, I'm sure the game will go through many balancing until release


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
My confirmation bias goes the opposite way ... I keep buying lottery tickets even though I have never won more than $4. I know there is a lucky ticket out there, I have just got to try harder.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Tav3245234325325
I dont think the RNG is flawed here. I normally sense that if it would be skewed big way.

But in computer terms RNG doesnt exist. Its often generated by an algorithm using the computers clock.

It wouldnt be damaging if the Larian showed the algorithm doing the RNG and give us access to it so we can RNG thousands of times and generate spread sheets.

Sometimes there are little errors like for example rounding wrong.

to preserve symmetries - 2,5 rounded to 1 significance is for example 2 - not 3.

"Rounding to the nearest integer
Rounding a number x to the nearest integer requires some tie-breaking rule for those cases when x is exactly half-way between two integers — that is, when the fraction part of x is exactly 0.5.

If it were not for the 0.5 fractional parts, the round-off errors introduced by the round to nearest method would be symmetric: for every fraction that gets rounded down (such as 0.268), there is a complementary fraction (namely, 0.732) that gets rounded up by the same amount.

When rounding a large set of fixed-point numbers with uniformly distributed fractional parts, the rounding errors by all values, with the omission of those having 0.5 fractional part, would statistically compensate each other. This means that the expected (average) value of the rounded numbers is equal to the expected value of the original numbers when we remove numbers with fractional part 0.5 from the set.

In practice, floating-point numbers are typically used, which have even more computational nuances because they are not equally spaced."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding

children often learn wrong rounding in school



Frankly, this puts a smile on my face.

I can assure you Larian does not recreate a bicycle, they are also not incompetent and don't know how to properly generate random value in their games. It's not some indie studio getting its feet wet with first game, they don't need random forum poster teaching them how naive random number generators, like those based on internal clock work.

It's ok, you can let them handle this.



Sry if it didnt come across, english isnt my native language. I didnt want to belittle the developers.

But I come from a scientific background and checking each others results / methods is a standard routine and has nothing to do with emotions.

I think the game is great and showing us the algorithm /or giving us access to the dice roll function would only prove that the RNG is correct and people wouldnt have to rely on subjective observations.

Last edited by Tav3245234325325; 19/10/20 02:15 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
In my current game, during the fight outside the druid camp, the Goblins missed the three NPS at the gate consistently for three turns. For the first time in multiple playthroughs all three of them survived. In a couple of others they all died, and once Wyll died as well.

Confirmation bias would lead to only looking at the times they all died and think that the odds were always against you, and you wouldn't notice, or at least care to notice when all the dice rolls went in your favour like when everyone survives.

The point is that everytime the outcome is randomised, and people will have a tendency to only notice negative results.


The problem is the probability of missing every attack for several rounds.
Either we are not seeing something or there is a bug.

Which for an EA is very very likely.
Maybe there is a spell or set of circumstances that cause 80% hit rate drop to 15% without the player ever knowing it.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
There is something that is a potential problem I came across, sometime, the specific point you press with your mouse gives bad chance, and if you click on a different point on the same enemy with the same attack you get much better one.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 with the OP

I have the same experience, i miss alot and enemies miss very rarely, even in my tank.

When i must do just 7 or more, and must F5 3 times, its a frustration. if was so rarely, ok its the RNG, but its very very common to miss a action / speech. I dont know if Larian see the Statistic of roll, but for me, the game is named "Baldur's F5 Gate F8"


Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
30% I understand.
50% I also understand.
But 75% and over? Really?

And how do you miss with the guy standing right in front of you? Why not just say dodge? That would make me feel a little better.


You realise that with a 99% chance to hit, there is still a 1% chance you will miss, right? Now compare 99% to 75% smile


.i.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Phomane
+1 with the OP

I have the same experience, i miss alot and enemies miss very rarely, even in my tank.

When i must do just 7 or more, and must F5 3 times, its a frustration. if was so rarely, ok its the RNG, but its very very common to miss a action / speech. I dont know if Larian see the Statistic of roll, but for me, the game is named "Baldur's F5 Gate F8"



Are you telling me that you beat BG1 and 2 without ever once having had to reload?

If you are reloading for every single dice roll then that is your choice.

If you are actually reloading only after failing an encounter, that would be on par with the same experience from the first two games.

A 75% chance to hit is still 25 times more likely to miss than a 99% chance to hit.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 19/10/20 02:50 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Zarna
Dice rolling tends to do this. Good thing about it is that enemies have the same string of bad luck that we do. Had so many fights where they all missed for a whole round.

I had this happen, and it was so bad that the main mob rage quit the fight.

The Phase Spider Matriarch missed so many times that she rage quit the fight. She seriously teleported out of visual range, and when my party cleared the adds and the one spider we had left, combat ended, with her no where to be seen.

Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Zarna
Dice rolling tends to do this. Good thing about it is that enemies have the same string of bad luck that we do. Had so many fights where they all missed for a whole round.

I had this happen, and it was so bad that the main mob rage quit the fight.

The Phase Spider Matriarch missed so many times that she rage quit the fight. She seriously teleported out of visual range, and when my party cleared the adds and the one spider we had left, combat ended, with her no where to be seen.


She phased to the furthest corner of the cave. Just head towards the exit, she will probably be at the second floor of the cave.

Joined: Oct 2020
O
stranger
Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Random number generation can be streaky sometimes.It is always the same probability for every single roll. Example: You roll 4, 4, 4. Now our feeling tells us it will be very unlikely that there will be another 4. In fact it tells us that it should be time to roll over 10 by now! But your next roll does not care about about history. Every possible streak with the same length is just as likely as any other. This may feel unfair sometimes, but it is in fact nothing more than our perception.
If you really want to show that there is something wrong, make a video with a save file and load it 100 times or so and count hits against the chance of hitting.

In addition to people talking about 100% chances: there are none in DnD. Yes, BG3 sometimes says 100%, but this is acutally 99,6% (0,4% is the likelihood of 2d20 where you roll a 1 both times).

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Eddiar
30% I understand.
50% I also understand.
But 75% and over? Really?

And how do you miss with the guy standing right in front of you? Why not just say dodge? That would make me feel a little better.


Yes, this can be very frustrating. Another thing that was frustrating to me that I didn't know you can get was the Brain companion at the very beginning while you are on the ship. I managed to roll all high numbers and recruited it BUT my game glitched and crashed BEFORE I could save. When I tried to do it again, I kept rolling low numbers over and over and over again until I gave up and move on. That was soooooo frustrating. I was very upset that I missed the chance of getting it as an extra companion on the ship.

Greetings,
Truth is it does not follow off the ship frown So you did not miss much if that is a consolation. Getting it or not has no impact all in all, but it helps a bit in the three tutorial fights.

Last edited by Baraz; 19/10/20 03:27 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
O
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
O
Joined: Oct 2020
i posted about this days ago.
i feel that larian has coded a rigged d20 thats biased vs players.

most rolls i see are 1-4. this is by far the most commonly rolled algorithm for players.

and the creating advantage in the game is terrible too.
advantage is primarily created by height advantage .

which makes automatically makes people who enjoy melee combat, always disadvantaged.

the game pigeon holes you to gsin higher ground and use ranged dps to kill.

and that Lariam, sucks.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.


Think I actually failed on a 100% before. Assuming they're following the rules then there will always be a 5% chance to miss - if you roll a 1 its an automatic miss regardless of how good your bonus is.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Eireson
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.


Think I actually failed on a 100% before. Assuming they're following the rules then there will always be a 5% chance to miss - if you roll a 1 its an automatic miss regardless of how good your bonus is.


You didn't fail you misclicked on the ground.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Re different experiences/interpretations of the RNG, I suppose it is remotely possible that there are several strategies being employed depending on the player to assess reactions to them. But this is purely conjecture on my part and I am absolutely not speaking for Larian: I have no idea what they would do, only what I would do.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't think they are loading the dice. My complaint is bloated HP and stats for your encounters. In doing this a miss at 75% feels really bad when you're facing down a level 4 or 5 with 2x 3x the hp that you have. 3-4 higher AC and a Gith fighter who never misses. Goblins with high AC but you never find armor on them.

So my thought was (at least about the dice rolling) Somehow their *might* be a visual bug on my chance to hit. But I do think there is an issue with melee fighting atm. To easy to disengage, just walk behind your target. Even if you're face to face with them, no attack of opportunity when you or they just reposition behind you to get a higher % to hit.

At first playthrough, I thought, jesus this game is very hard. But once you start cheesing the environment, which this game clearly wants you to on ANY hard fight, it went from hard, to stupid easy. I dislike that more than missing 2 3 times with a 75% chance to hit.

IDK, overall thoughts, they are not loading the dice. We just can't see how many disadvantages we have when we roll.

OR they could have done this.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

Last edited by Mezbarrena; 19/10/20 04:19 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
O
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mezbarrena
I don't think they are loading the dice. My complaint is bloated HP and stats for your encounters. In doing this a miss at 75% feels really bad when you're facing down a level 4 or 5 with 2x 3x the hp that you have. 3-4 higher AC and a Gith fighter who never misses. Goblins with high AC but you never find armor on them.

So my thought was (at least about the dice rolling) Somehow their *might* be a visual bug on my chance to hit. But I do think there is an issue with melee fighting atm. To easy to disengage, just walk behind your target. Even if you're face to face with them, no attack of opportunity when you or they just reposition behind you to get a higher % to hit.

At first playthrough, I thought, jesus this game is very hard. But once you start cheesing the environment, which this game clearly wants you to on ANY hard fight, it went from hard, to stupid easy. I dislike that more than missing 2 3 times with a 75% chance to hit.

IDK, overall thoughts, they are not loading the dice. We just can't see how many disadvantages we have when we roll.


cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
The inflated HP is a huge problem with D&D based video games and was even bigger a problem in Dungeons And Dragons Online.

Enemies in that game could have thousands of hit points, but spells still followed the PnP limits of 'enemy must have under 30 / 75 hp'.

So Symbol of Death originally killed any enemies with under 75 HP, except all the basic enemies had like 2000, amd going up to 6 figures for bosses. By the time an enemy was at under 75 HP, the next standard attack swing would kill it anyway. They later reworked such spells to no longer be HP based, so symbol of death was changed to inflict negative levels instead, but that was several years after it was already in its completely unusable HP limit state.

If following PnP HP amounts, the fact is that a Wizards spells slots would last for many fights in a row as you wouldn't need to use up every spell, or such ability. In this game you pretty much need to long rest after most encounters die to how many HP the enemies have and how often your spells will still miss.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Zarna
Dice rolling tends to do this. Good thing about it is that enemies have the same string of bad luck that we do. Had so many fights where they all missed for a whole round.

I had this happen, and it was so bad that the main mob rage quit the fight.

The Phase Spider Matriarch missed so many times that she rage quit the fight. She seriously teleported out of visual range, and when my party cleared the adds and the one spider we had left, combat ended, with her no where to be seen.


She phased to the furthest corner of the cave. Just head towards the exit, she will probably be at the second floor of the cave.

Yep, and I did find her, but it was hilarious.

Joined: Oct 2020
H
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
H
Joined: Oct 2020
I dont remember the game but it considered higher hit percentages as sure crits. IF you had 17-20 crit range you would surely crit if u had 81% hit chance. In this game i have missed on 90% hit chance. FUNNY

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Oldnight
Originally Posted by Mezbarrena
I don't think they are loading the dice. My complaint is bloated HP and stats for your encounters. In doing this a miss at 75% feels really bad when you're facing down a level 4 or 5 with 2x 3x the hp that you have. 3-4 higher AC and a Gith fighter who never misses. Goblins with high AC but you never find armor on them.

So my thought was (at least about the dice rolling) Somehow their *might* be a visual bug on my chance to hit. But I do think there is an issue with melee fighting atm. To easy to disengage, just walk behind your target. Even if you're face to face with them, no attack of opportunity when you or they just reposition behind you to get a higher % to hit.

At first playthrough, I thought, jesus this game is very hard. But once you start cheesing the environment, which this game clearly wants you to on ANY hard fight, it went from hard, to stupid easy. I dislike that more than missing 2 3 times with a 75% chance to hit.

IDK, overall thoughts, they are not loading the dice. We just can't see how many disadvantages we have when we roll.


cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?


It shouldn't. I should have clarified. I hate cheesing the environment. But clearly Larian is setting up BG3 this way. Which I think is a MASSIVE mistake.
Melee shouldn't take a back seat to ranged. But think of all the encounters you have been in. IF the enemy has 1 melee at least 2-3 others are archers. There are just too much ranged to deal with when you're melee atm. AND all the melee enemies seem to havet fire bombs just to chuck at you for good measure. The ranged attacks/enemies need to be toned way way down. I am having the least fun atm when my main character is a fighter. By the time you are any bit setup, they have 6 archers just launching arrows at you from the top of a building. So I take down one target then have to run 9 miles to get to the archers on one side. With them having the advantage of high ground. It's next to impossible to win the encounter. (yeah I know I am exaggerating a little here)

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
It reminds me of when they showed the game in the first time and Shadowheart kept missing and Sven is like :"she is good I swear" lol


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
As a long time D&D player, the horror stories of misses that this thread has claimed don't even come close to what I've seen in real life.

I once had a player roll 9 critical fails in a row. I believe he ended up trashing all three sets of dice he used for these rolls. I also had another player roll 11 natural 20's in a single night, he only rolled 17 times that night. (I remember these numbers because we were all laughing so hard about it, we wrote them down to preserve the memory.)

Playing Savage Worlds, I also had a single goblin with almost no HP solo a max level character over 10 rounds. The player just needed to hit once. The goblin needed to hit over and over and over (neither ever got the wonderful exploding dice). In the end, the player lost.

True randomness is weird. I've also had 3-4 rounds in BG3 where I can't hit anything despite an 80% chance or better. I also crushed the goblin camp my first play-through because ~12 goblins landed about 4 shots on my party (3 on Gale) over 3 rounds and I easily picked them off. It wasn't so easy the second playthrough...

Joined: Oct 2020
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
To avoid people whining there should be an option where you can see a mini 20 sided dice in the combat log with the number you rolled in the attack.
Early levels are like this you don't have enough gear to improve your to hit bonuses. Probably they will add a story mode for people that don't want to enjoy D&D combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Take advantage of the surroundings guys. I just arrived at the hut and took out all minions of the hag with absolute ease by climbing the ladder and attackin from up there. meanwhile, the minions tried to reach me and i kept firing from above. when some of them actually came in melee range they were already like 70% damaged and i finished them off easily.

so: try always to get on higher grounds. you're hit chance increases dramatically.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I'm sure the full game will have difficulty settings with more favourable rolls


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Takamori
To avoid people whining there should be an option where you can see a mini 20 sided dice in the combat log with the number you rolled in the attack.
Early levels are like this you don't have enough gear to improve your to hit bonuses. Probably they will add a story mode for people that don't want to enjoy D&D combat.


I think if other messages like blocked or dodged appear as a result of my bad rolls it could be more acceptable.

Because some part of me can't imagine why my character suddenly became so incompetent that they could not hit this giant target.

And by the way I just remembered in the very same battle my rogue missed 3 times (Sneak + 2 offhand strikes) against one of the bugbears that had slipped on one Gale's iceblasts and was dodging my drows attacks while lying on his back.

I lost my sanity right then and there lol.

R
Romanfiend
Unregistered
Romanfiend
Unregistered
R
You should become a Grenadier. You don't really need to hit anything, just throw grenades, aoe spells, etc. Although with your luck you would critically miss and light yourself on fire. :p

Joined: Oct 2020
K
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
K
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree. BG 3 must have virtually weighted dice for the most Nat 1's or Critical Misses. They definitely need to work on the d20 roll.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I feel like this thread is too focused on the arbitrary percentage in the lower left corner. I personally didn't pay much attention to it since it isn't explained anywhere how it's calculated.
SOMETIMES you see modifiers next to it, like " ^ High Ground" but you don't always do, and most of the time I have very little idea why my hit chance is only 50% while I'm standing in a well lit room next to an Ogre the size of a barn door.

The most likely reason for me missing (or more accurately "not doing damage") are bad dice rolls. And attack rolls in BG3 are horrendously bad in my own humble experience.
I've parsed my most recent run through the goblin camp and part of the Underdark and took 100 rolls. I'm talking raw attack dice rolls here, just a D20 roll before modification.
Character was a Dwarf Fighter using a 2-handed weapon. At least half of these rolls were made with advantage. The average initial roll was 6.32.

It doesn't only FEEL bad at this point, it just is.

Lae'zel as an Eldritch Knight doesn't have any similar problems.

My inspiration to do this parse was a guy in a neighboring forum that measured 50 rolls at 6.35 average, which I already thought was quite low.

I seriously hope that Larian is also taking a look at roll averages in their telemetry and sort it by class, stats, weapon used, whatever it takes, because something is just off here and the number of posts about this topic tells me that players feel it.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I noticed too this strange accuracy. When my roug have 84% chance on backstab and he missed - its ok, i can understand dat... but he missed it 3 rounds in a row !!!!! Just how??? 84%... main-hand atack skill... And dat situation was more then once or twice. May be backstab atack bonus ist count? We just dat "hey you have 84%!!" but in real life you have 50%? And with magic - my priest have 50-55% chance to land his focus-based magic skill, but as fact statistic shows dat she land her spell in 20-25% cases. I dont get it rly... I think there is bug with % what we SEE and we with what we ACTUALLY HAVE.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
When talking about this I always think of America's funniest home videos, where you see a thousand guys slipping hilariously on ice. Then you recall how you also did fall that one time, so you think: "Wow, that really does happen to everybody!" yet you are deliberately omitting all the times everyone in the country including yourself obviously did not fall flat on his buttocks. laugh That is confirmation bias and probability at work.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I just say it again - in DOS and DOS2(mostly in DOS) i have my fails with control, atack, resists and other - and it was fine! I accept dat no problem. But here is BG3 - when i have 3 1hit enemies and calculation of success near 80% for 4 members of your team (+ all of them dual weapons). In DOS i will expect dat with 8 hits with 3 neaded (even if count 4 hits with twice lesser chances) - my team will kill them all. Dats what expect. In BG3 i have 2 hits (may be 1) - and dats not normal. It isnt normal when you team go flank and ogre, have 75% to hit - and YOU NOT SHURE if any ONE OF THEM will land a hit! With something of dat you have to be shure dat 1 miss! May be 2! I agree dat we remember mostly bad - but it ist the case, rly. With skill checks all the same. I undesrstand dat if you need go through 2-3 skill checks in a row with 50-60% each = 25-36% eventually, or even worse. But when you go to swamp and go wizard/magic check, when you need roll at least 9, and you fail... again and again... like 4-5 times in a row. Then after half an hour i decide reload and leave dat land for next levels, i just.... meet the same.... bad luck? I have 60% chance of success and fail it again and again. Dats aint normal. Its just... after 20 hours of gameplay all dat you rly understand - "You have <80% for hit? Well you may try of course, but if only nothing else you can do". I played XCOM 1 and 2, i more then once, i know how it feels when miss on 98-99%, i know there is a bit risk bet on a shot with 75%, even there will be 2 shots - there can be fail (like 6,25%). And it can happens 2-3 times across full gameplay (many hours). But not in each battle! Dat not normal!

Last edited by Axyramariel; 19/10/20 07:26 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
J
stranger
Offline
stranger
J
Joined: Oct 2020
The amount of times lae'zel misses is staggering. I had fights where her hit chance was consistently around 90% and she didn't hit once. So, what I am saying is that the percent chance seems to not matter too much as such. Characters with darkvision, such as Astarion, seem to have less misses when having the same hit chance. So, like others mentioned, there are factors affecting your hit chance that are not expressed in the numbers and are not very clear.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Syrek
I feel like this thread is too focused on the arbitrary percentage in the lower left corner. I personally didn't pay much attention to it since it isn't explained anywhere how it's calculated.
SOMETIMES you see modifiers next to it, like " ^ High Ground" but you don't always do, and most of the time I have very little idea why my hit chance is only 50% while I'm standing in a well lit room next to an Ogre the size of a barn door.


You can check this some in the combat log, at least it displays advantage/disadvantage. Low hit chances next to an opponent are typically ranged attacks, as you gain disadvantage with any ranged attack if the enemy is (too) close. It could be simply a high armor class though, a buff on the enemy or a debuff on the character.



Originally Posted by Jilljedin
So, like others mentioned, there are factors affecting your hit chance that are not expressed in the numbers and are not very clear.


Characters who can't see enemies fully due to darkness have disadvantage on their roll, which is calculated into the percentage displayed. E.g. Lae'zel who doesn't have darkvision targets a phase spider clouded in darkness. The phase spider has an armor class of 13, Lae'zel an overall attack bonus of +5. Therefore she would need to roll an eight, which is a 65% chance. Due to the disadvantage, you roll the dice twice and are forced to take the lower one, which makes this but a 42% chance. This is being displayed correctly, it also says in the combat log that the character was at a disadvantage (due to not seeing the enemy properly).

Ideally there should be a turtorial how the more basic things work, too.

Last edited by Sven_; 19/10/20 08:39 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Oldnight
cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?

Consider that at lower levels we are all weaker. I am fairly sure that melee will be much more useful as we progress in levels. Unless you are a combat expert, would you want to be surrounded by enemies? I would think that you would get more creative and avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are guaranteed to take damage.

Joined: Oct 2020
O
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Oldnight
cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?

Consider that at lower levels we are all weaker. I am fairly sure that melee will be much more useful as we progress in levels. Unless you are a combat expert, would you want to be surrounded by enemies? I would think that you would get more creative and avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are guaranteed to take damage.


1. a s a melee fighter i should have good mitigation via armor and passively from dodge/parry block

2. why should melee with ac 17 to 19 be hit with a 90%+ chance by mobs? its rigged-- there is not rng-- is pure and simple--- too many people playing are saying the same thing, and where there is smoke there is fire.

3 why do iahve have to play ranged? to be successful without have to save everytime i hit with a melee attack because its so damned rare to hit with melee weapons?

the mobs are +/- 1 level from us-- there arent experts-- yet they are much more adept than players in combat.

the same mobs often have

a. lower ac
b. lower atk stats than our singular rolled characters-- yet their atk success rate is much higher.


listen i like the game -- im not bashing it. I stating that there is something wrong with the algorithm vs players.

why wouuld they do it?

simple--- with limited content they want players to struggle so the play through lasts longer.

We are always going to have the outliers who want find hacks/cheats/bugs/ etc to speed run through with no combat

We are going to have the players who would rather solo the game from ranged stealth-- good for them.

id prefer to to take a party and get up front and personal with the mobs-- IE Elrdrith Knight main + Eldritch kngiht lael + pure rogue astarion + wyll-- at times its gets verydifficult because you constantly roll natural 1-4 over and over and over for melee attacks. That is not rng when it happens from thge start to finish of the earyl access.

Joined: Oct 2020
O
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Takamori
To avoid people whining there should be an option where you can see a mini 20 sided dice in the combat log with the number you rolled in the attack.
Early levels are like this you don't have enough gear to improve your to hit bonuses. Probably they will add a story mode for people that don't want to enjoy D&D combat.


granted i havent played dnd since 3.5

but + 6 to hit has alw
Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by Syrek
I feel like this thread is too focused on the arbitrary percentage in the lower left corner. I personally didn't pay much attention to it since it isn't explained anywhere how it's calculated.
SOMETIMES you see modifiers next to it, like " ^ High Ground" but you don't always do, and most of the time I have very little idea why my hit chance is only 50% while I'm standing in a well lit room next to an Ogre the size of a barn door.


You can check this some in the combat log, at least it displays advantage/disadvantage. Low hit chances next to an opponent are typically ranged attacks, as you gain disadvantage with any ranged attack if the enemy is (too) close. It could be simply a high armor class though, a buff on the enemy or a debuff on the character.



Originally Posted by Jilljedin
So, like others mentioned, there are factors affecting your hit chance that are not expressed in the numbers and are not very clear.


Characters who can't see enemies fully due to darkness have disadvantage on their roll, which is calculated into the percentage displayed. E.g. Lae'zel who doesn't have darkvision targets a phase spider clouded in darkness. The phase spider has an armor class of 13, Lae'zel an overall attack bonus of +5. Therefore she would need to roll an eight, which is a 65% chance. Due to the disadvantage, you roll the dice twice and are forced to take the lower one, which makes this but a 42% chance. This is being displayed correctly, it also says in the combat log that the character was at a disadvantage (due to not seeing the enemy properly).

Ideally there should be a turtorial how the more basic things work, too.


I dancing lights eveywhere with the same terribad roll results.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Oldnight
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Oldnight
cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?

Consider that at lower levels we are all weaker. I am fairly sure that melee will be much more useful as we progress in levels. Unless you are a combat expert, would you want to be surrounded by enemies? I would think that you would get more creative and avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are guaranteed to take damage.


1. a s a melee fighter i should have good mitigation via armor and passively from dodge/parry block

2. why should melee with ac 17 to 19 be hit with a 90%+ chance by mobs? its rigged-- there is not rng-- is pure and simple--- too many people playing are saying the same thing, and where there is smoke there is fire.

3 why do iahve have to play ranged? to be successful without have to save everytime i hit with a melee attack because its so damned rare to hit with melee weapons?

the mobs are +/- 1 level from us-- there arent experts-- yet they are much more adept than players in combat.

the same mobs often have

a. lower ac
b. lower atk stats than our singular rolled characters-- yet their atk success rate is much higher.


listen i like the game -- im not bashing it. I stating that there is something wrong with the algorithm vs players.

why wouuld they do it?

simple--- with limited content they want players to struggle so the play through lasts longer.

We are always going to have the outliers who want find hacks/cheats/bugs/ etc to speed run through with no combat

We are going to have the players who would rather solo the game from ranged stealth-- good for them.

id prefer to to take a party and get up front and personal with the mobs-- IE Elrdrith Knight main + Eldritch kngiht lael + pure rogue astarion + wyll-- at times its gets verydifficult because you constantly roll natural 1-4 over and over and over for melee attacks. That is not rng when it happens from thge start to finish of the earyl access.

I didn't think you were bashing the game, even if you were it is an opinion you should be allowed to have. Perhaps I am comparing too much with other types of games I play and I see nothing wrong with having to be creative and stay out of trouble as much as possible until growing stronger, even if it means not playing with your desired playstyle until then. (For example, don't rush into a town full of supermutants armed with only a machete and basic leather armour even if you want to play melee, instead use whatever crap rifle you picked up, find a point out of reach and start picking them off slowly, moving position so they don't find you.)

I still don't feel the dice are rigged here, have many times seen the constant miss and also frequent nat 20s, for both myself and the enemies and often in the same long fights. It is frustrating if you are right on top of the enemy, go to stab them and miss but this is the same in DnD but here you can reload if the fight does not go the way you wish.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Oldnight
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Oldnight
cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?

Consider that at lower levels we are all weaker. I am fairly sure that melee will be much more useful as we progress in levels. Unless you are a combat expert, would you want to be surrounded by enemies? I would think that you would get more creative and avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are guaranteed to take damage.


1. a s a melee fighter i should have good mitigation via armor and passively from dodge/parry block

2. why should melee with ac 17 to 19 be hit with a 90%+ chance by mobs? its rigged-- there is not rng-- is pure and simple--- too many people playing are saying the same thing, and where there is smoke there is fire.

3 why do iahve have to play ranged? to be successful without have to save everytime i hit with a melee attack because its so damned rare to hit with melee weapons?

the mobs are +/- 1 level from us-- there arent experts-- yet they are much more adept than players in combat.

the same mobs often have

a. lower ac
b. lower atk stats than our singular rolled characters-- yet their atk success rate is much higher.


listen i like the game -- im not bashing it. I stating that there is something wrong with the algorithm vs players.

why wouuld they do it?

simple--- with limited content they want players to struggle so the play through lasts longer.

We are always going to have the outliers who want find hacks/cheats/bugs/ etc to speed run through with no combat

We are going to have the players who would rather solo the game from ranged stealth-- good for them.

id prefer to to take a party and get up front and personal with the mobs-- IE Elrdrith Knight main + Eldritch kngiht lael + pure rogue astarion + wyll-- at times its gets verydifficult because you constantly roll natural 1-4 over and over and over for melee attacks. That is not rng when it happens from thge start to finish of the earyl access.

You know, I once played Aion. As an Asmodean, I had to run a 4 person dungeon once a week trying to get my extendable weapon for PvP. I ran that dungeon every week for 2 years, and I never got it. People in my Legion got their weapons, even got weapons for alts, but I never got mine. The running joke was that it could have a 100% drop rate, and I still wouldn't get it. But I'm not going to stop there, in a little Korean Grinder I used to play, taming pets had a small percentage chance to succeed. It took me a little over a year, and about 300 cards, to catch one Salamander. The RNG gods have hated me for as long as I've played games with RNG, unless, as per your theory, the dice in every RNG game I've played in the last 30 years has had it's dice weighted against me?

Joined: Oct 2020
O
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Oldnight
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Oldnight
cheese the environment
why?
why should melee take the backseat to range?

Consider that at lower levels we are all weaker. I am fairly sure that melee will be much more useful as we progress in levels. Unless you are a combat expert, would you want to be surrounded by enemies? I would think that you would get more creative and avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are guaranteed to take damage.


1. a s a melee fighter i should have good mitigation via armor and passively from dodge/parry block

2. why should melee with ac 17 to 19 be hit with a 90%+ chance by mobs? its rigged-- there is not rng-- is pure and simple--- too many people playing are saying the same thing, and where there is smoke there is fire.

3 why do iahve have to play ranged? to be successful without have to save everytime i hit with a melee attack because its so damned rare to hit with melee weapons?

the mobs are +/- 1 level from us-- there arent experts-- yet they are much more adept than players in combat.

the same mobs often have

a. lower ac
b. lower atk stats than our singular rolled characters-- yet their atk success rate is much higher.


listen i like the game -- im not bashing it. I stating that there is something wrong with the algorithm vs players.

why wouuld they do it?

simple--- with limited content they want players to struggle so the play through lasts longer.

We are always going to have the outliers who want find hacks/cheats/bugs/ etc to speed run through with no combat

We are going to have the players who would rather solo the game from ranged stealth-- good for them.

id prefer to to take a party and get up front and personal with the mobs-- IE Elrdrith Knight main + Eldritch kngiht lael + pure rogue astarion + wyll-- at times its gets verydifficult because you constantly roll natural 1-4 over and over and over for melee attacks. That is not rng when it happens from thge start to finish of the earyl access.

You know, I once played Aion. As an Asmodean, I had to run a 4 person dungeon once a week trying to get my extendable weapon for PvP. I ran that dungeon every week for 2 years, and I never got it. People in my Legion got their weapons, even got weapons for alts, but I never got mine. The running joke was that it could have a 100% drop rate, and I still wouldn't get it. But I'm not going to stop there, in a little Korean Grinder I used to play, taming pets had a small percentage chance to succeed. It took me a little over a year, and about 300 cards, to catch one Salamander. The RNG gods have hated me for as long as I've played games with RNG, unless, as per your theory, the dice in every RNG game I've played in the last 30 years has had it's dice weighted against me?


the rate of die roll 1-4 is too staggering to be that rng.
i look at my rolls and mob rolls every atk nowdays.

i think we all we be surprised how much 1-4 is being by players.

Joined: Feb 2018
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Feb 2018
I think the RNG is fine. Rather, I believe the issue is they are not doing the math correctly on the tooltip when you are disadvantaged.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
For fun I reloaded a 95% hit chance for Lae'zel 70 times. The enemy had an AC of 7, Lae'zel has an overall attack bonus of +5 (+2 proficiency, +3 from strength). A 95% chance is akin to rolling at least a 2 on the D20. In other words, Lae'zel can only fail to hit on a critical miss (rolling a 1). This is a bit long, but may show a couple things:

1) how streaky things can be over the short to mid-term
2) that only over many many many rolls, the 95% chance would actually "apply".
3) Things for sure aren't as obvious as people make it sound in here (which would be majorly stupid on Larian's behalf anyways)

We were actually slightly below the 95%, as out of 70 attacks, only 63 hit (which is a 90%). The more rolls, the closer to the 95% you'd get. Generally, you'd need to roll at least 100 attacks to say anything of added value. The average attack roll was a 9.2, which too was slightly below the expected 10 -- again, only in the long-term you'd be getting there.I had collected ~50 attack rolls in a prior attempt for an average of 12. Neither of this is a mistake, this is randomness at work.





11 hit
14 hit
19 hit
1 critical miss
19 hit
3 hit
4 hit
5 hit
2 hit
14 hit
1 critical miss
3 hit
2 hit
7 hit
5 hit
1 critical miss
9 hit
6 hit
4 hit
20 critical hit
3 hit
8 hit
14 hit
6 hit
15 hit
4 hit
13 hit
10 hit
1 critical miss
4 hit
11 hit
19 hit
2 hit
3 hit
13 hit
20 critical hit
5 hit
17 hit
13 hit
2 hit
16 hit
15 hit
1 critical miss
1 critical miss
14 hit
10 hit
14 hit
1 critical miss
18 hit
18 hit
14 hit
7 hit
11 hit
4 hit
19 hit
5 hit
3 hit
11 hit
18 hit
20 critical hit
3 hit
2 hit
7 hit
19 hit
18 hit
6 hit
2 hit
9 hit
19 hit
4 hit

Originally Posted by Oldnight



listen i like the game -- im not bashing it. I stating that there is something wrong with the algorithm vs players.

why wouuld they do it?

simple--- with limited content they want players to struggle so the play through lasts longer.



There's a thousand ways to ensure that other than riggin the dice though, which destroys all player trust. Larian have complete control over not only opposition stats, but also the encounter design.

If you can show that a high AC character is actually hit 90% of the time in the long-run, I'll start listening though. From my experience, this is completely false. There is nothing this obvious going on, neither in terms of bugs or otherwise.

And that's not defending the game. As a D&D game, I don't want them to listen to players who are badly rubbed by actual RNG (see the Tim Cain talk, where he talks about that players would actually prefer something else, even though they talk "randomness".)

Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 09:43 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
this is the count for each number you reported for easy viewing:
Code
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
7	6	6	6	4	3	3	1	2	2	4	3	6	2	1	1	4	6	3

I know people you would expect that every number has the chance of 1/20 times 70. So the most common count "should" be 3-4. But randomness doesnt really work like that with small numbers such as 70.

Here are some other d20 rolls for 70 times ( https://rolladie.net/ ):
Code
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1	5	9	5	2	2	2	2	3	2	5	5	7	2	4	2	4	3	2	3

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1	6	4	4	5	3	5	1	6	4	1	9	5	5	1	1	3	1	3	2

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
4	2	4	5	4	7	5	1	4	2	3	3	3	6	2	3	1	6	2	3


the second dice roll gave me 9 times 12 and only 1 time 11.. thats only 10% chance while it should be the same for 12 and 11!

this is a d20 roll for 9999 times, should be farely equal right?
Code
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
493	487	516	521	491	537	489	491	558	491	576	470	508	488	471	512	499	483	468	450

even now you see still differences from 470 (dice result 12) to 576 (dice result 11) although each dice result has the same chance! But still only 80% chance compared.


Here are 100000 times a d20 roll (generated with excel because the website crashes with such high numbers):

1 4947
2 4968
3 5059
4 4931
5 5084
6 5143
7 5044
8 4973
9 5030
10 5032
11 4896
12 5004
13 5109
14 5100
15 4931
16 4960
17 4954
18 4989
19 4895
20 4951


now you can see the reuslts are more like the "expected" ones. each dice number has the same chance and should average 5000 times (20 * 5000 = 100000).
Still you see lows such as 4895 (dice result 19) and highs such as 5143 (dice result 6) - meaning a 95% chance compared although the "virtual dice" is not weighted at all. I just trust excels random generator here.

If you have excel here you can generate endless results for yourself:

german version: =ZUFALLSMATRIX(100000;1;1;20;1)
english version: =RANDARRAY(100000;1;1;20;1)

The higher the number of rolls the lower the extreme differences get.

for science 1 million times:

1 50318
2 49848
3 49769
4 49885
5 49901
6 50148
7 50179
8 50236
9 50011
10 50031
11 50228
12 49868
13 49831
14 49725
15 49834
16 50106
17 49587
18 50020
19 50115
20 50360



Last edited by Tav3245234325325; 20/10/20 11:07 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
H
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
H
Joined: Oct 2020
The game doesnt have that strategic feel; when your min maxed warrior misses more than a healer backline cleric with crossbow, you start to get a feeling of something is wrong with your build when its actually rng stopping you from enjoying your custom character.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Harry7T
The game doesnt have that strategic feel; when your min maxed warrior misses more than a healer backline cleric with crossbow, you start to get a feeling of something is wrong with your build when its actually rng stopping you from enjoying your custom character.


This may happen in the short, to short mid-term of a battle. D&D mechanics are that way. However in the longer run, the Maths is against the Cleric.

The game may actually introduce character stats the way Pillars Of Eternity has them. How often characters hit over an actual playthrough, how much damage they make, etc. This was really insightful and useful when doing different builds and playing characters with various strategies.

[Linked Image]

Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 10:52 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
H
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Well, my gripe is that you cannot do anything deterministically. Everything has a rng layer to it. When you hit with 90% accuracy it should fall into your crit range (19-20). But in this game it misses.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
With 90% you will Hit 9 Times out of 10. Just do it 1 Million Times to See this result averaging.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Some people have clearly never had the dice gods against them for a D&D session...in my experience missing every attack in an encounter is very possible

Joined: Oct 2020
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Oct 2020
The real culprit here may be the fact that the tooltip is showing you a percentage chance of success. If instead it was showing the true roll to beat along with your corresponding roll, you would possibly feel less slighted by the outcome. Also remember that these aren't cumulative roll percentages here. Your percentage change to hit doesn't go up bacuase you missed the first time. It stays exactly the same if no other conditions change. You have to think of every single roll in isolation as its own outcome which has no bearing on the roll before or after it. So to say you can't believe that you would repeatedly miss something with a 75% change to hit might be a little naive.

I personally don't like the hit percentage and would much rather see roll i need and be shown the roll outcome in the combat log. I also hate the current roll system which doesn't add my bonuses to my roll, rather shows it in reverse. Larian could you change both of these things for me please and thank you smile

Take your medicine when you roll poorly. It just makes the hits even sweeter.


Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by TheSatanicForce
Some people have clearly never had the dice gods against them for a D&D session...in my experience missing every attack in an encounter is very possible

The Lore about the Luck that your dice are imbued with is known to just about every table RPGer out there. It is one of the important first instructions; other people's names; how to find the loo; DO NOT touch someone else's dice without permission!

There is probably money to made developing an computer overlay that allows you to take your virtual dice and wash them in (un)holy water to recharge their luck.

Last edited by Sadurian; 20/10/20 12:37 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by noodles666
The real culprit here may be the fact that the tooltip is showing you a percentage chance of success. If instead it was showing the true roll to beat along with your corresponding roll, you would possibly feel less slighted by the outcome.


If this was included, I hope they'd make it optional. I'm fine with the percentages, however I also appreciate the nature of the dice very much. :hihi:

Thinking about it though, would it really be much better? The odds as such are not that intuitively to grasp in particular on advantage/disadvantage rolls -- at the moment the game does all that Math and displays the correct probability. People may be very bad with probability, but they intuitively grasp that higher percentages are better than lower ones. Plus on the 95% to hit chance, you'd need to roll a 2 at least, which as shown in my big post on this page, can still go wrong not only in sequences, but also in a row. Thus people who wanted to believe the dice were rigged would still insist they were rigged even if they weren't.


Originally Posted by Sadurian

There is probably money to made developing an computer overlay that allows you to take your virtual dice and wash them in (un)holy water to recharge their luck.


First DLC just got announced. laugh

Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 01:14 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
How does a 1st or 2nd level character ever get a 95% hit chance in the first place? I am used to the older to-hit-AC0 (THAC0) tables, but the probabilities should be about the same in 5e. A 1st level fighter's base score hits a monster with a modest +4 armor class on a roll of 17 - 20 out of 20. That's 4 possible rolls out of 20, or a 20% chance. Throw in a couple bonuses OK, but there is no way this character should ever get a 95% hit probability. That's why that first wolf in BG was so tough to beat!

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Argyle
How does a 1st or 2nd level character ever get a 95% hit chance in the first place? I am used to the older to-hit-AC0 (THAC0) tables, but the probabilities should be about the same in 5e. A 1st level fighter's base score hits a monster with a modest +4 armor class on a roll of 17 - 20 out of 20. That's 4 possible rolls out of 20, or a 20% chance. Throw in a couple bonuses OK, but there is no way this character should ever get a 95% hit probability. That's why that first wolf in BG was so tough to beat!


Your calculation is a bit weird. A level 1 fighter would have +2 to attack from proficiency, then let's say he/she has +2 in strength. It makes a +4 bonus on attack roll. If he/she tries to hit a AC 14 monstrer, he/she would need a 10+ on a dice roll, which is a 55% chance to hit. If you count any advantage, which is calculated with probabilities in bg3 and not by throwing 2 dice, the fighter would need to roll even smaller numbers and so would have higher chances to hit.

Last edited by Nyanko; 20/10/20 01:38 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by TheSatanicForce
Some people have clearly never had the dice gods against them for a D&D session...in my experience missing every attack in an encounter is very possible

The Lore about the Luck that your dice are imbued with is known to just about every table RPGer out there. It is one of the important first instructions; other people's names; how to find the loo; DO NOT touch someone else's dice without permission!

There is probably money to made developing an computer overlay that allows you to take your virtual dice and wash them in (un)holy water to recharge their luck.

I laughed, and then called R&D... grin

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Yeah, nobody likes the old THAC0 system, but that's all I know. I was just reading off the tables in the old Dungeon Master's Screen, Fighter THAC0 = 20 at level 1, hoping that the basic probabilities would be similar in 5E. But even 55% is nowhere near 95%. I think it is still safe to say that 1st level characters should not hit very often, so if I ever see a 95% chance on my screen feedback in Chapter 1, I would not be inclined to believe it. Once again, the Mists of Leira shroud us with unknowing.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: California
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: California
The rng, especially when attacking with advantage, definitely seems screwy to me. I can't count how many times I've missed with 88-95% to hit, when attacking from advantage. And not just once, but repeatedly in almost every combat. Also, whenever the dice say I have a 50% or less to hit, I just assume I'm going to miss. Because that's what happens just about every single time.

I've also noticed FAR too many occasions where when attacking from advantage, if I check the die roll for the miss, it will be 3. Not 1-2, not 4-10. 3. 99% of the time, it's a 3. To me, that seems like something's broken. Not only does it mean that rolling 2d20 my highest number was a 3, but it's CONSISTENTLY 3.

Last edited by WumpusRat; 20/10/20 01:58 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I just remembered again in Dungeons and Dragons Online ...

'Miss miss miss miss block block dodge dodge blurry blurry incorporeal incorporeal save save save save' ...

Were all lovely on my invincible defenses pyjama monk tank smile

Roll a 1? Oh there was stuff for that. No more auto fail on a 1 for every save. Pump up saves with paladin splash. Untouchable little fast blitzkrieg punchy stabby ninja spy halfling that went zoom zoom zoom through everything without taking a scratch.

When a scratch was taken healing dragonmark, a few LOHs and unlimited heal scrolls from UMD. But then they added reaper difficulty and everything one shotted me frown

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 20/10/20 02:29 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WumpusRat
The rng, especially when attacking with advantage, definitely seems screwy to me. I can't count how many times I've missed with 88-95% to hit, when attacking from advantage. And not just once, but repeatedly in almost every combat. Also, whenever the dice say I have a 50% or less to hit, I just assume I'm going to miss. Because that's what happens just about every single time.

I've also noticed FAR too many occasions where when attacking from advantage, if I check the die roll for the miss, it will be 3. Not 1-2, not 4-10. 3. 99% of the time, it's a 3. To me, that seems like something's broken. Not only does it mean that rolling 2d20 my highest number was a 3, but it's CONSISTENTLY 3.


Beware, all the Wizards with their unresistable surface cantrips will tell you it's just confirmation bias and everything's just fiiiine, you just don't get how dice work!

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Argyle
Yeah, nobody likes the old THAC0 system, but that's all I know. I was just reading off the tables in the old Dungeon Master's Screen, Fighter THAC0 = 20 at level 1, hoping that the basic probabilities would be similar in 5E. But even 55% is nowhere near 95%. I think it is still safe to say that 1st level characters should not hit very often, so if I ever see a 95% chance on my screen feedback in Chapter 1, I would not be inclined to believe it. Once again, the Mists of Leira shroud us with unknowing.

It just depends on what you're fighting, I guess. Fighting some bandits, or goblins that are at a CR of what you're level is, it's not going to be the same as trying to hit an Ancient Red Dragon or something. That said, seeing the actual die rolls might make people slow down on the "but they're just trying to pad their hours played" or what have you. Probably not, because they still won't understand probability any better, but who knows, it could help.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
30% I understand.
50% I also understand.
But 75% and over? Really?

And how do you miss with the guy standing right in front of you? Why not just say dodge? That would make me feel a little better.

Have you tried being luckier?

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milani
Yeah but dude.. it happens a lot. Like.. a lot a lot. An overwhelming amount of times that makes it not normal and something is off. I've also noticed that some enemies get to just run by a melee-engaged party member with no opportunity attack, despite not using disengage. Like, it just doesn't trigger half the time. And the AI still overwhelmingly targets and optimizes a strat against low AC/critical party members, cleric and rogue being the most common. My first playthrough I had one hell of a time keeping Astarion and Shadowheart alive, they would just get ganged up on immediately no matter how I placed them or tried to funnel the flow of enemy approach.

That's pretty solid AI then. In PvP, in a setting like this, it's "Cloth, Leather, Chain and Plate" for kill order. Which is hilarious, since "KILL THE (edited for television) HEALER" is quite often screamed in voice and party chat. It would seem they're behaving the way they should.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
D&D's combat system has had this issue from the beginning. Everything is lumped together to being a single attack roll against a single defence number. There have been slight variants (50% miss chance and so on), but the main game was 'roll to hit AC X, no you miss. Next'. The GM might give you more information, such as the fact that the creature is flitting about the place or has a very tough hide, but you are still locked into one roll against one target number.

Other games, including the system I use most in tabletop, break the combat down. You roll to hit, the opponent has the opportunity to dodge/parry or block, the blow hits, and armour reduces the damage you inflict. Slightly slower and an extra dice roll, but it allows you to see where a failed attack broke down. You might need to improve your attack skill, the opponent might be too good in its defences for you to beat, or the armour might be too strong to do meaningful damage.

It also encourages smaller combats! The D&D system is better for facing multiple opponents, but I find it strangely unsatisfying when facing important foes. Aside from slowly whittling down the HP, there is little actual interaction.

I'll also mention that the system uses 3d6, so the probability of rolling median numbers is greatly increased.

Last edited by Sadurian; 20/10/20 03:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
It's going to be really hard to try and incorporate everyone's house rules to mitigate combat situations though.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
I have an idea.

Why don't we take the CRPG concept but play it out using bits of paper and other people. We could make physical representations of the dice, and then all the rules we don't like could be ignored, and those we think should be included could be used without affecting anyone else's game.

It's radical, I know.

Joined: Oct 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2015
All they need to do is change the word *Miss* to *Swish*.. that way it's just a sound effect and not an accusation of failure. :p

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
I read a book about a woman getting into playing D&D,* and her contribution to the group was making her Magic Missiles go 'pew pew pew'.

Needless to say, all Magic Missiles now make that noise in my head when I use the spell.


* Confessions of a Sorceress, if you're interested. It's... okay if you want to see things through different eyes.

Last edited by Sadurian; 20/10/20 04:43 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Ha, that reminds me of Don Martin's cartoon of Excalibur in Mad Magazine:

swish!
fwooop!
clarnng!
schlupff!

"Rats, I fwooped twice in a row!"

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Nice. Now I want different sound effects for different degrees of failure.

miss by 1-3: Clang!! (or Thud!! as appropriate to the surface),
miss by 4-6: Bttwoing! as it is deflected,
miss by 7-9: Whooosh!
miss by 10+: all the other characters break off fighting for a turn to laugh at you.

Last edited by Sadurian; 20/10/20 05:03 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Argyle
How does a 1st or 2nd level character ever get a 95% hit chance in the first place?


His overall attack bonus is 2 smaller than the opposition's armor class, e.g. he needs to roll a 2 to hit. Which witout advantage/disadvantage is a 95% chance.

An example of this would be right from the first (tutorial) fight. Lae'zel at the start has an overall attack bonus of +5 on her melee, the opponents an armor class of 7. Converted to THAC0, with a level 1 THAC0 of 20 it would be the same as hitting an opponent with an AC of 18 (I know that'd be terribad, but this is an altogether different edition with a very different to-hit progression, and Larian have nerfed some ACs -- perhaps in an attempt to make the chances to hit actually higher than in the tabletop, e.g. less complaining..).

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/

Quote
"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."


Well, that doesn't seem to have worked. laugh


Originally Posted by WumpusRat

I've also noticed FAR too many occasions where when attacking from advantage, if I check the die roll for the miss, it will be 3. Not 1-2, not 4-10. 3. 99% of the time, it's a 3. To me, that seems like something's broken. Not only does it mean that rolling 2d20 my highest number was a 3, but it's CONSISTENTLY 3.


Your copy seems to be broken. laugh On a serious note, go on, write it all down, you're going to be surprised.

Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 05:43 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Nice. Now I want different sound effects for different degrees of failure.

miss by 1-3: Clang!! (or Thud!! as appropriate to the surface),
miss by 4-6: Bttwoing! as it is deflected,
miss by 7-9: Whooosh!
miss by 10+: all the other characters break off fighting for a turn to laugh at you.


this a very nice idea though!

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
So, are the dice this obviously rigged against the player then?

Last ~50 player attack rolls (no advantage / disadvantage)

2 20 9 4 18 10 2 11 16 7 20 17 18 18 5 16 4 17 14 19 2 3 16 14 3 10 12 17 19 17 17 16 17 9 2 12 9 3 14 18 12 8 5 5 6 14 13 14 1 20

AVERAGE: 11.5


Last ~50 AI attack rolls (no advantage / disadvantage)

7 8 15 11 5 4 11 19 12 1 4 12 17 10 17 11 10 2 16 20 17 16 10 17 10 7 9 9 15 15 10 7 17 18 20 10 6 2 3 9 20 14 6 9 18 12

AVERAGE: 11.26

Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 06:30 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I've had 95% hit chance a lot with a Ranger since level 1.

Really enjoying the class a lot, and I much prefer a ranger trapper to a rogue.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 20/10/20 06:30 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
you don't know what EA means well done you're useless

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
As I'm really fan of stats, I made another one. This time I started a new game, and made a really shitty elven fighter (Strength 8).

Her overall attack bonus thus: +2 proficiency, -1 from Strength = +1
Enemy AC: 7
To hit: Need to roll a 6 thus, which is a 75% chance on each roll.


All 50 rolls total melee attacks with no dis/advantage.
Note: The game curiously does not display successful attack rolls that deal no damage, that's where the question marks come from (the opposition has damage resistance, therefore it is possible to deal no damage not merely when rolling a 1 (-1 Strenght, but also a 2 on the damage roll).

1 critical miss
? hit
16 hit
16 hit
5 miss
8 hit
3 miss
? hit
15 hit
5 miss
10 hit
? hit
? hit
? hit
8 hit
20 critical hit
20 critical hit
1 critical miss
18 hit
14 hit
6 hit
2 miss
3 miss
----------------------
11 hit
? hit
8 hit
16 hit
14 hit 1 ) WHAT PEOPLE DON'T TEND TO REMEMBER
15 hit
10 hit
10 hit
12 hit
19 hit
8 hit
----------------------
2 miss
8 hit
3 miss 2) WHAT PEOPLE TEND TO REMEMBER
5 miss
3 miss
----------------------
? hit
6 hit
16 hit
14 hit
9 hit 3) SEE 1)
14 hit
8 hit
9 hit
12 hit
16 hit
--------------------
3 miss
------------------------------

TOTAL ROLLS: 50
TOTAL HITS: 38 (76%)




Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 09:53 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
So theres nothing wrong with the game, just the people playing it.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_
Note: The game curiously does not display successful attack rolls that deal no damage, that's where the question marks come from (the opposition has damage resistance, therefore it is possible to deal no damage not merely when rolling a 1 (-1 Strenght, but also a 2 on the damage roll).

I appreciate your stats, but wanted to focus on this line. This is a bug (or something Larian has decided to change). In 5e, you always do at least 1 damage if you hit. Even if your strength modifier is -5, you roll a 1 on your damage die, the enemy has resistance, AND the enemy has that feat that reduces oncoming damage by 3. You still do 1 damage if you hit.

EDIT: The above is incorrect, don't listen to me. Min damage is 0.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 20/10/20 10:31 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sven_
Note: The game curiously does not display successful attack rolls that deal no damage, that's where the question marks come from (the opposition has damage resistance, therefore it is possible to deal no damage not merely when rolling a 1 (-1 Strenght, but also a 2 on the damage roll).

I appreciate your stats, but wanted to focus on this line. This is a bug (or something Larian has decided to change). In 5e, you always do at least 1 damage if you hit. Even if your strength modifier is -5, you roll a 1 on your damage die, the enemy has resistance, AND the enemy has that feat that reduces oncoming damage by 3. You still do 1 damage if you hit.


At this point I would assume that even Larian didn't actually know that.

It seems like such an obscure rule.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
So theres nothing wrong with the game, just the people playing it.


I wouldn't say there could be nothing wrong. But it certainly is not as obvious as some make it sound. The thing is, bad rolls happen. There are curious streaks of not missing in a row, that's just the nature of any RNG, or dice. However, in the bigger picture of a longer run, this simply evens out (and the good streaks are forgotten, human psychology).


Originally Posted by mrfuji3

I appreciate your stats, but wanted to focus on this line. This is a bug (or something Larian has decided to change). In 5e, you always do at least 1 damage if you hit. Even if your strength modifier is -5, you roll a 1 on your damage die, the enemy has resistance, AND the enemy has that feat that reduces oncoming damage by 3. You still do 1 damage if you hit.


Didn't know that, I only got the 5e starter set. smile The game for the time being at least treads things that way until patched then, thx (I was really confused by no attack roll being displayed, despite the apparent hits -- it simply says "opposition took no damage" in the log or some such).

Last edited by Sven_; 20/10/20 10:21 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_

Didn't know that, I only got the 5e starter set. smile The game for the time being at least treads things that way until patched then, thx (I was really confused by no attack roll being displayed, despite the apparent hits -- it simply says "opposition took no damage" in the log or some such).

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf

At this point I would assume that even Larian didn't actually know that.
It seems like such an obscure rule.


Actually, I looked it up after reading your two posts to double check. Apparently I am wrong, and my groups have been playing incorrectly this entire time! Huh.....my bad. Apologies for misinformation

You can do 0 damage.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

You can do 0 damage.


So it's just an acknowledged bug with the combat log? smile

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
You can do 0 damage.

Indeed. Heavy Armour Mastery for the win!

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sven_

Didn't know that, I only got the 5e starter set. smile The game for the time being at least treads things that way until patched then, thx (I was really confused by no attack roll being displayed, despite the apparent hits -- it simply says "opposition took no damage" in the log or some such).

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf

At this point I would assume that even Larian didn't actually know that.
It seems like such an obscure rule.


Actually, I looked it up after reading your two posts to double check. Apparently I am wrong, and my groups have been playing incorrectly this entire time! Huh.....my bad. Apologies for misinformation

You can do 0 damage.

Whatever you do, don't tell your DM... eek

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
So, is there something obviously wrong with ADVANTAGE then?

Took my shitty elven fighter again and always had her run behind the enemy for advantage. This means her 75% melee attack from the last page turned into a 94% one -- which is also calculated correctly, btw
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

Remember that the question marks are from hits that rolled no damage -- the game doesn't display the attack rolls from no-damage rolls. This is a shitty fighter with no bonus on her attack and damage rolls, but a -1 penalty from her 8 Strength, so that actually happens from time to time (in particular against opposition with resistance such as here).

16 hit
13 hit
? hit
9 hit
19 hit
16 hit
16 hit
9 hit
20 critical hit
20 critical hit
------------------------
3 miss
3 miss
3 miss eekWHAT PEOPLE MOST DEFINITELY REMEMBER laugh
5 miss
------------------------
? hit
15 hit
18 hit
13 hit
15 hit
16 hit
12 hit
? hit
? hit
11 hit
11 hit
13 hit
13 hit
? hit
? hit
12 hit
13 hit
18 hit
20 critical hit
? hit
18 hit
? hit
7 hit
11 hit
7 hit
13 hit
17 hit
17 hit
12 hit
18 hit
2 miss
? hit
16 hit
? hit
15 hit
17 hit


TOTAL ROLLS: 50
TOTAL HITS: 45
TOTAL HIT RATIO: 90%


I was actually lucky in that I got one bad streak with really long odds in there. This meant that we finished actually below the expected 94% -- but as you can anticipate, the more rolls, the closer to the 94% you'd be getting.

Last edited by Sven_; 21/10/20 05:41 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah your stats naturally lack big data. With a set of 50 one miss has quite the effect on the overall percentage. Still, since you've done it thrice now all within the realm of statistical variance we can extrapolate that the percentages in this game generally work how they are displayed in this game.
You also demonstrated how even with high odds bad streaks can happen without a large effect on the overall statistics. It is anyone's guess if you would notice a 5% difference in hitting with 50 95% strikes.

So what we can conclude thanks to your stats is that the perceived rigging of the dice is a combination of lumping different chances together (a fight will generate a lot of varied hit chances), small datasets (even long fights will likely only have 20-40 rolls), confirmation bias and human psychology (negative outcomes stick in the mind more) and misunderstanding/misinterpreting of statistics and their relevance in an environment like this, while also not personally gathering data to confirm suspicions. Additionally there are other things at play that can amplify the perception, yet have nothing to do with combat rolls, like saving throws, dialogue options and passive ability checks, that are less transparent in their display.

So, I think it is sufficiently proven by you in this thread that in general the combat chances are correct. It would be cool to highlight these posts or sticky them up top, so that players can easily be directed to them or the posts can be referred to in the future. Kudos to you for doing all that work.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Things cannot be as off as people claim either way. smile I'll later do one on disadvantaged attacks also with a new character (some claimed it had something do with the character, which doesn't make much sense as it's dice all the same) -- which may or may not be another set of data to verify the other ones. Probably gonna take a Cleric or Mage and test their spells/cantrips in close battle disadvantage for a bit of variance.

Doesn't take much time if anybody wants to chime in some... I do this in the first fight of the game in big parts because quickloading when the fight is over doesn't take as much time as in the latter part of the game. So you can get some numbers pretty quickly (50 rolls in perhaps 15 minutes).

Last edited by Sven_; 21/10/20 10:43 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
It sounds like a character data sheet might be the answer to all this. We know that such things can be tracked within the software, so having a small box on the character sheet showing the various rolls made over the course of a PCs career would settle the question. Present it as a graph and raw numbers, and players could refer to it to see if 'their' dice are rolling particularly high or low.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
So, disadvantage. I rolled a dwarven warlock with Charisma of 15 and let him attack the AC7 enemies with his eldritch blast from close distance. At a reasonable distance, this would be a 90% chance (+4 attack bonus vs AC of 7 = need to roll a 3 to hit). However, with disadvantage, which forces us to take the lower of two attack rolls, it's but a 81% chance. Contrary to the advantage test above, it should also increase the likelyhood of critical misses rather than critical hits (spoiler: it did).
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

This much in advance, this time I was getting reasonably lucky, not so much at the start, but later on.

2 miss
11 hit
7 hit
8 hit
5 hit
11 hit
2 miss
4 hit
14 hit
3 hit
13 hit
12 hit
16 hit
9 hit
11 hit
3 hit
--------------------
1 critical miss
19 hit TWO CRITICAL MISSES; WHAT PEOPLE MAY REMEMBER wink
6 hit
1 critical miss
2 miss
----------------
10 hit
8 hit
16 hit
3 hit
12 hit
8 hit
8 hit
7 hit
7 hit
16 hit
6 hit
7 hit
13 hit
12 hit
16 hit
15 hit 29 HITS IN A ROW -- WHAT PEOPLE WON'T REMEMBER
8 hit
5 hit
4 hit
9 hit
5 hit
8 hit
11 hit
3 hit
3 hit
15 hit
7 hit
9 hit
5 hit
--------------------

TOTAL ROLLS :50
TOTAL HITS: 45
TOTAL HIT RATIO (90%)

At least 100 throws would naturally be a better data set (sample size). Unless I just mistyped, the 29 hits in a row on a 81% chance are a 1 in ~450 chance which should not be that common, but will happen a very reasonable amount of time if you consider the number of rolls on a night, even a playthrough or even multiple playthroughs. Edit: Speaking of which, loading the save and doing my next four attacks immediately rolled two critical misses, so there. laugh


Last edited by Sven_; 21/10/20 03:01 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
One thing to note here: Today I rolled a miss on a 96% chance three times in a row (standard attack with Lae'zel from behind). Now that is extremely unlucky, but I reloaded before each hit. On the fourth reload I used a different skill (the AE-Swing with the longsword) and that did connect. Because of the long reload times I did not reload again, but could it be that the outcome of the roll is calculated, for each skill, before you actually use it?

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
This is going to be my last, the ambiguous fifty-fifty chance (well not quite). Apparently that ALWAYS misses. laugh

To simulate it, I picked a Tiefling wizard and gave her Lae'zel's short bow, which the Tiefling wizard has no proficiency in (plus no dexterity bonus). That means she doesn't get any bonus on her attack rolls with the bow. To hit the AC7 opponent, she needs to roll a 7. Now if we range-attack those opponents from close range, that is a disadvantage roll, which means it's but a 49% chance. That's how we rolled and attacked. As we were disadvantaged all through, the low attack rolls plus exclusively critical misses as opposed to critical hits were no mistake, but by design, er disadvantage.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/


---------------------
2 miss
5 miss
5 miss "I JUST KNEW IT, a ~50% chance ALWAYS misses!"
6 miss
---------------------
10 hit
16 hit
4 miss
1 critical miss
10 hit
14 hit
5 miss
5 miss
1 critical miss
9 hit
1 critical miss
10 hit
1 critical miss
8 hit
7 hit
5 miss
13 hit
16 hit
2 miss
11 hit
8 hit
7 hit
5 miss
-----------------
? hit
7 hit
13 hit OR DO THEY?
11 hit
13 hit
11 hit
----------------
5 miss
10 hit
---------------
4 miss
3 miss
2 miss PLAYER RAGEQUITS
6 miss
2 miss
---------------


OVERALL ROLLS: 40
OVERALL HITS: 20
TO HIT RATIO: 50%

Originally Posted by VincentNZ
One thing to note here: Today I rolled a miss on a 96% chance three times in a row (standard attack with Lae'zel from behind). Now that is extremely unlucky, but I reloaded before each hit. On the fourth reload I used a different skill (the AE-Swing with the longsword) and that did connect. Because of the long reload times I did not reload again, but could it be that the outcome of the roll is calculated, for each skill, before you actually use it?


No, I've first done that actually, reloading after each attack. Additionally, I get different outcomes on the first attacks of my reloads in general, -- I finish the combat rather than reloading each roll now (goes quicker). smile

Last edited by Sven_; 21/10/20 02:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
@Sven

Since you are doing the tests could you try it with these parameters?

Fight the goblins at the top floor of Selune's temple ruins.
No hiding or cheesing.

Party consists of Wizard, Rogue, Warlock and Cleric.
Cleric: Autoattack and Cantrips
Wizard: Only Cantrips
Warlock: Eldritch Blast (OT 36% hit rate when in front of the target?)
Rogue: Sneak attacks, off hand strikes and auto-attack

This was the setting where I saw the phenomenon.
Like I said, before the 2 bug bears destroyed me I had cleared the entire courtyard of goblins with little to no difficulty.
Something happened up there that inspired this thread.

It is an early access afterall. Things are not working properly all the time.


Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar
@Sven

Since you are doing the tests could you try it with these parameters?

Fight the goblins at the top floor of Selune's temple ruins.
No hiding or cheesing.

Party consists of Wizard, Rogue, Warlock and Cleric.
Cleric: Autoattack and Cantrips
Wizard: Only Cantrips
Warlock: Eldritch Blast (OT 36% hit rate when in front of the target?)
Rogue: Sneak attacks, off hand strikes and auto-attack

This was the setting where I saw the phenomenon.


Do you have a save of that? I needed to do an altogether new save and level up first, and can you be more specific what you saw? Eldritch blast gets a disadvantage if the opponent is too close, for instance (e.g. standing right "in front of them"). However, the percentages displayed take this into account correctly.

The next time something like that happens it may be an idea to keep a (previous) save or some such, also for a possible bug report.

Last edited by Sven_; 21/10/20 03:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by Eddiar
@Sven

Since you are doing the tests could you try it with these parameters?

Fight the goblins at the top floor of Selune's temple ruins.
No hiding or cheesing.

Party consists of Wizard, Rogue, Warlock and Cleric.
Cleric: Autoattack and Cantrips
Wizard: Only Cantrips
Warlock: Eldritch Blast (OT 36% hit rate when in front of the target?)
Rogue: Sneak attacks, off hand strikes and auto-attack

This was the setting where I saw the phenomenon.


Do you have a save of that? I needed to do an altogether new save and level up first, and can you be more specific what you saw? Eldritch blast gets a disadvantage if the opponent is too close, for instance (e.g. standing right "in front of them"). However, the percentages displayed take this into account correctly.


I am afraid not.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar

I am afraid not.



Well I'll keep an eye on it when I get there again. Do you mean the drunken and sleeping ones at the top of the entrance?

Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I was curious, so I started a new game and tracked the results of the displayed rolls. At the time of this post I got so far:
Character: Warlock (The Great Old One)
Companions: Shadowheart, Astarion, Lae'zel
Progress: Cleared Ruins, Visited Grove (Killed Harpies), Cleared Blighted Village, Cleared Spiders (the series of "80"s at the end is from cheesing the spider queen with Astarion^^)

I have gathered my results in a google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...DK2Kg9oZhCCaNZ6p8ijWPM/edit?usp=sharing.
The "Stats" sheet contains the analysis of the raw data in the "Data" sheet. 100% chances are not recorded. I admit the statistics I employ are a bit dirty.

But as far as I can see it seems that the probabilities/rolls in the game actually work out. The error charts show that very well. The error between actual and expected rolls gets smaller with an increasing number of rolls.

Last edited by TyPinOwly; 21/10/20 07:23 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sven_

Didn't know that, I only got the 5e starter set. smile The game for the time being at least treads things that way until patched then, thx (I was really confused by no attack roll being displayed, despite the apparent hits -- it simply says "opposition took no damage" in the log or some such).

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf

At this point I would assume that even Larian didn't actually know that.
It seems like such an obscure rule.


Actually, I looked it up after reading your two posts to double check. Apparently I am wrong, and my groups have been playing incorrectly this entire time! Huh.....my bad. Apologies for misinformation

You can do 0 damage.



yea, the obscurity is that 0 damage still counts as damage and breaks effects like sleep or fulfils the requirement to maintain barbarian rage (you have to attack or take damage each turn or the rage ends, 0 damage is still damage taken, even if it does not effect the health bar it effectively still hit for damage... so a wizard could feasibly keep a barbarian in rage by spanking him for 0 damage... useful for out of combat usage of the resistance it provides)

Last edited by pill0ws; 21/10/20 07:26 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
^ laugh Pretty awesome!

Originally Posted by TyPinOwly



That's certainly a more professional way to do it, I like. smile

Was there anything else? I think some had some suspected that the probabilities displayed on spells/saving throws were wrong.

From the numbers as such I just checked, they seem alright -- I just tried to cast Bane and Charm Person with Shadowheart on a bunch of goblins with CHA 8 each (-1). The DC of her spells is 13, so for the necessary CHA saving throw they needed to roll a 14 each. When casting Bane, one goblin actually succeeded in rolling exactly a 14, the others not. This would be a 35% chance for the Goblins to succeed, ergo a 65% chance of success for Shadowheart.

edit: Unsuccesful throws should arguably been shown in the log too. This currently also applies some for concentration checks, only if concentration is broken, is the saving throw shown (or is it actually vice versa?).

I'd also strongly urge to make no-damage rolls not look like misses in some way, because misses they aren't.

Last edited by Sven_; 22/10/20 12:23 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_

Was there anything else? I think some had some suspected that the probabilities displayed on spells/saving throws were wrong.


I check from time to time whether the displayed hit percentage match the actual role difficulty. And so far, including advantages, they seem to display correctly. Not so sure on (spell) saving throws for monsters. I can't (or don't know how) examine the enemy's saving throw proficiencies. But when taking educated guesses, they seem to be alright.

I also advanced in the game some more and updated the google sheet. Had a couple of bad rolls for high percentage chances, which "tainted" the results (I am sure in the long run this will disappear again). But currently the 90-95 range only succeeds with a rate of 79%... The other high percentage ranges seem fine though. The low percent ranges are kinda fishy due to a low number of rolls. I might try to take some unfavorable attacks to get more rolls in the low percentage range in.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
If someone wants to check this, I do suspect that critical fails are broken. I've seen a bunch with advantage, leading me to think that it might be taking a 1 from either dice to determine crit fails, which is a plausible programming mistake. Otherwise the dice are working, and people are just so bad at math that they think they are missing too much when the chance to hit as been artificially inflated.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Originally Posted by TyPinOwly

I also advanced in the game some more and updated the google sheet. Had a couple of bad rolls for high percentage chances, which "tainted" the results (I am sure in the long run this will disappear again). But currently the 90-95 range only succeeds with a rate of 79%... The other high percentage ranges seem fine though. The low percent ranges are kinda fishy due to a low number of rolls. I might try to take some unfavorable attacks to get more rolls in the low percentage range in.


Possibly worth checking. That said, with some added luck, even over 50 rolls, rather than ending at the "expected" 81%, we had a 90% to hit ratio with a 81% chance.

Originally Posted by SilverSaint
If someone wants to check this, I do suspect that critical fails are broken. I've seen a bunch with advantage, leading me to think that it might be taking a 1 from either dice to determine crit fails, which is a plausible programming mistake. Otherwise the dice are working, and people are just so bad at math that they think they are missing too much when the chance to hit as been artificially inflated.


I did one test with advantage, but couldn't see anything out of the ordinary.. Advantage tends to produce critical hits as opposed to misses (as you're always taking the higher of two rolls), disadvantage vice versa. Could do another advantage test again though, perhaps over a couple more rolls.



Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Ok, here's 75 rolls on advantage (on a 94% hit chance each). There's quite a lot of question marks in there, which is because I took my Tiefling Wizard again and had her attack from behindn with her staff (D6-1 damage). That means every time she rolled a 2 or less on the D6, no damage. They should REALLY change this either in the animations or otherwise, because I'm sure most confuse these no-damage rolls for misses. They are not.

As expected advantage favors Critical Hits, so nothing unusual again. For there to be a critical miss you'd need to roll TWO 1s with advantage. No big data again, but coupled with my other tests on advantage, this appears to work correctly too.

? hit
20 critical hit
? hit
? hit
16 hit
? hit
5 miss
14 hit
14 hit
17 hit
? hit
5 miss
? hit
? hit
13 hit
? hit
12 hit
18 hit
8 hit
13 hit
8 hit
13 hit
15 hit
? hit
19 hit
19 hit
? hit
12 hit
20 critical hit
6 hit
? hit
? hit
? hit
10 hit
16 hit
17 hit
6 hit
15 hit
19 hit
12 hit
7 hit
2 miss
? hit
20 critical hit
4 miss
2 miss

12 hit
18 hit
? hit
8 hit
15 hit
? hit
19 hit
16 hit
8 hit
? hit
? hit
14 hit
14 hit
15 hit
20 critical hit
8 hit
18 hit
6 hit
15 hit
? hit
10 hit
16 hit
? hit
17 hits
20 critical hit
? hit
13 hit
10 hit
? hit

TOTAL ROLLS: 75
TOTAL HITS: 70
EXPECTED TO HIT RATIO: 94%
TO HIT RATIO: 93,33%

Last edited by Sven_; 22/10/20 10:32 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Australia
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Australia
I agree op there is something really not working at this time more than just RNG. And skills / spells / weapons don't seem to be doing their full effects of damage..

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
skills / spells / weapons don't seem to be doing their full effects of damage..


Ah, another thing to verify. Who's in? laugh

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
So, is there anything obviously wrong with the damage roll? DanteYoda brought it up.

Picked a bang average Warlock and let him cast his Eldritch Blast. Eldritch Blast deals 1D10 (1-10) force damage, for an average of 5.50. Opposition doesn't have resistance against that. Here we roll.


4
10
3
8
3
10
10
10
3
2
10
10
5
2
4
4
1
8
4
7
4
3
7
6
7
1
4
4
1
9
7
10
4
9
1
4
1
10
7
9
8
5
7
8
6
8
10
4
3
6


TOTAL ROLLS: 50
TOTAL DAMAGE: 291
EXPECTED AVERAGE: 5.50
AVERAGE DAMAGE: 5.82




Last edited by Sven_; 22/10/20 07:08 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Is there something obvious wrong with the damage rolls? Part Deux.

This time I picked a rogue (+3 from dexterity), and let her attack with her short bow. That's 1D6+3 (4-9) for an average of 6.5. However, the opposition has resistance against piercing damage, which slashes it all in half. This time I stopped early, because it was obvious where this was going again.

3
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
5 (CRITICAL HIT)
4
3
3

TOTAL ROLLS: 30
TOTAL DAMAGE: 92
EXPECTED AVERAGE: 3.25
AVERAGE: 3.07


Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_

Originally Posted by TyPinOwly

I also advanced in the game some more and updated the google sheet. Had a couple of bad rolls for high percentage chances, which "tainted" the results (I am sure in the long run this will disappear again). But currently the 90-95 range only succeeds with a rate of 79%... The other high percentage ranges seem fine though. The low percent ranges are kinda fishy due to a low number of rolls. I might try to take some unfavorable attacks to get more rolls in the low percentage range in.


Possibly worth checking. That said, with some added luck, even over 50 rolls, rather than ending at the "expected" 81%, we had a 90% to hit ratio with a 81% chance.

Originally Posted by SilverSaint
If someone wants to check this, I do suspect that critical fails are broken. I've seen a bunch with advantage, leading me to think that it might be taking a 1 from either dice to determine crit fails, which is a plausible programming mistake. Otherwise the dice are working, and people are just so bad at math that they think they are missing too much when the chance to hit as been artificially inflated.


I did one test with advantage, but couldn't see anything out of the ordinary.. Advantage tends to produce critical hits as opposed to misses (as you're always taking the higher of two rolls), disadvantage vice versa. Could do another advantage test again though, perhaps over a couple more rolls.



Thanks! I guess I was just that one in 16000, I've rolled around 50 advantage rolls and gotten 4 crit fails, which made me suspect something was broken. I could see it being a real mistake in terms of the engine.

Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.

Rolling a 1 is ALWAYS a miss (hence it's called critical miss), even if your total hit modifier is 9 and their AC is only 7, therefore 100% doesn't exist, 1/20 = 5%. And therefore on a normal roll the maximum is 95% assuming your "base hit" > "their AC". This also means that critical hit (20) is also always at least 5% chance no matter what, unless you got a disadvantage roll, then it's 2.5% (2 dice, taking the worst result).
98% I assume has to be a "your base hit" > "their AC" + "advantage roll", because then you will roll 2 dice and take the best result, which is technically 97,5%, but I suppose they rounded it off and having a miss with that means you rolled 2 x 1, really bad luck. Lol

Last edited by Genky; 22/10/20 09:47 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by TyPinOwly

But currently the 90-95 range only succeeds with a rate of 79%...


Not sure if you've updated in the meantime, but do you think they may be worth investigating again for bigger sample sizes?


I've also seen another claim: That the percentages on dual-wielding would be bugged.

I've yet to dual-wield anything tbh on this.

Last edited by Sven_; 23/10/20 07:05 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Eddiar

I was outside.
On the second level if temple of Selune.

With my party + 1 arch druid we killed everyone in the courtyard.
My party wiped when 2 drunk bugbea s missed/dodged every attack in four rounds.




Do you mean these guys? I attacked those two for a while now with my party (main fighter two handed axe, Gale cantrips, Lae'zel her sword, Shadowheart mace and didn't see anything out of the ordinary, all blessed but Lae'zel). I mean I'm sure I would have gotten unlucky too at some point, but...

[Linked Image]

Here are all rolls against them over multiple reloads.

56% attack hit
88% critical hit
65% hit
60% hit
65% hit
60% miss
75% hit
88% hit
60% hit
65% hit
60% hit
56% miss
65% hit
84% critical hit
88% hit
50% miss
65% hit
60% miss
75% miss
65% hit
65% miss
60% miss
75% critical hit
65% miss
65% hit
65% hit
65% hit
65% hit
60% hit
65% hit
84% hit
65% miss
60% hit
65% miss
55% hit

Total rolls:35
Total hits: 25
Average hit chance: 66.54%
To-hit ratio: 71.42%

Last edited by Sven_; 23/10/20 09:21 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.


Well I missed with 100% hit chance as a rogue against a TURRENT soo.. you are just plain out wrong. And the guy above who said that he missed 14 times in a row with 50+ hit chance might have been overexaggerating but not by a lot I had plenty of cases where I simply reload the game because out of 14 hits (And yes I did count them) with 70 hit chance being the fucking lowest i hit twice sooo you know although it is possible to happen it hardly happend once. On top of it all at one point i got so fucking fed up with this BULLSHIT i decided to save and load HIT FOR HIT 51% hit chance it took me 11 loads to hit the target so either I am being unlucky all day every day OR the hit and miss system is BS. Doesn't matter now because I stopped playign the game for the time being until it is fixed stil the problem is there and is real.

Joined: Oct 2020
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Genky
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.

Rolling a 1 is ALWAYS a miss (hence it's called critical miss), even if your total hit modifier is 9 and their AC is only 7, therefore 100% doesn't exist, 1/20 = 5%. And therefore on a normal roll the maximum is 95% assuming your "base hit" > "their AC". This also means that critical hit (20) is also always at least 5% chance no matter what, unless you got a disadvantage roll, then it's 2.5% (2 dice, taking the worst result).
98% I assume has to be a "your base hit" > "their AC" + "advantage roll", because then you will roll 2 dice and take the best result, which is technically 97,5%, but I suppose they rounded it off and having a miss with that means you rolled 2 x 1, really bad luck. Lol


How do you miss with a 100% hit chance? Not CRITICAL miss just a miss? My rogue did so obviously the numbers we are shown are not to be trusted. And that 98% hit chance and a miss is nice and all and I could buy it IF it was really bad luck because honestly the amount of misses i get with 98 hit chance is un fucking real! This is a 1 in 50 hits that is supposed to be a miss well it is not ... not even by a long shot.

Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by frika
How do you miss with a 100% hit chance? Not CRITICAL miss just a miss? My rogue did so obviously the numbers we are shown are not to be trusted. And that 98% hit chance and a miss is nice and all and I could buy it IF it was really bad luck because honestly the amount of misses i get with 98 hit chance is un fucking real! This is a 1 in 50 hits that is supposed to be a miss well it is not ... not even by a long shot.

What is your rogue's base attack + bonus attack for the action you're using and what is the AC of the target? unless your total attack is 12 and their AC 10, you never have a 100% hit (not taking critical miss into account), because even if you have perfect dexterity and you're level 4, your total attack is never more than 6 or 7 (maybe 8 or 9 fully buffed with attack bonuses) unless you used scripts or developer commands to alter them and there aren't a lot of creatures in the game with 10 AC.
Also, as I said, 100% hit chance doesn't exist because you can't remove the 1 from your 20 dice and even if your total attack is 12 with buffs and everything and their AC is only 10, rolling a 1 makes that 13 but it still misses, that's why it's called a critical miss ... a critical miss basically just means you rolled a 1 on your attack dice.

Last edited by Genky; 23/10/20 02:40 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Unsurprisingly from my own experience so far, I see others who actually sit down to take notes find much the same as me (and TyPinOwly). My guess is that people are confused by the rolls that deal no damage, still. They LOOK like misses, but aren't.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/j8xode/rng_testing_how_r_is_the_ng/

There's also a guy on Steam who actually recorded all individual dice over 110 throws on a 65% chance (needed an 8 for a hit).

Quote
1 : 4 times
2 : 5 times
3 : 6 times
4 : 3 times
5 : 7 times
6 : 7 times
7 : 7 times
8 : 8 times
9 : 5 times
10 : 8 times
11 : 7 times
12 : 5 times
13 : 3 times
14 : 6 times
15 : 6 times
16 : 2 times
17 : 3 times
18 : 7 times
19 : 4 times
20 : 7 times

To sum it up:

71 hits (~64,5% chance to hit)
7 crits (~6,4% chance to crit)
29 misses (~35,5% chance to miss)



Originally Posted by Genky
[
Also, as I said, 100% hit chance doesn't exist because you can't remove the 1 from your 20 dice .


In the UI, it does. Attack bonus of 5 vs an AC of 7 (needs to roll a 2) on ADVANTAGE. That said, according to this graph, this exists -- even if you rolled two 1s?? http://media.zerohitpoints.com/images/higherthan.png

[Linked Image]

Going to test it now.




Last edited by Sven_; 23/10/20 03:43 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Genky
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I got a critical miss on 98% chance to hit, but that still does mean that theres a 2% chance to miss and that's what happened.

RNG is RNG. Unless it says 100%, don't expect not to fail.

Rolling a 1 is ALWAYS a miss (hence it's called critical miss), even if your total hit modifier is 9 and their AC is only 7, therefore 100% doesn't exist, 1/20 = 5%. And therefore on a normal roll the maximum is 95% assuming your "base hit" > "their AC". This also means that critical hit (20) is also always at least 5% chance no matter what, unless you got a disadvantage roll, then it's 2.5% (2 dice, taking the worst result).
98% I assume has to be a "your base hit" > "their AC" + "advantage roll", because then you will roll 2 dice and take the best result, which is technically 97,5%, but I suppose they rounded it off and having a miss with that means you rolled 2 x 1, really bad luck. Lol


You can get 100% vs prone or unsuspecting enemies.

Last edited by DumbleDorf; 23/10/20 03:50 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf

You can get 100% vs prone or unsuspecting enemies.


How does it work though? Technically you could still roll 2 1s. smile

Anyway, here's 50 100% throws. As usual, advantage favors critical hits over critical misses. Even over these comparably small samples, you can always see where this is headed. I think I have recorded well over 5-600 rolls now in this thread. TyPinOwly contributed some atop of that.If there are bugs right with the RNG, they sure aren't obvious any.

18 hit
15 hit
18 hit
13 hit
19 hit
15 hit
11 hit
14 hit
20 critical hit
14 hit
15 hit
8 hit
14 hit
17 hit
19 hit
15 hit
20 critical hit
20 critical hit
17 hit
15 hit
18 hit
19 hit
17 hit
18 hit
19 hit
12 hit
5 hit
11 hit
19 hit
5 hit
6 hit
16 hit
18 hit
16 hit
16 hit
11 hit
15 hit
14 hit
12 hit
13 hit
16 hit
20 critical hit
16 hit
14 hit
14 hit
20 critical hit
17 hit
18 hit
17 hit
20 critical hit

TOTAL ROLLS: 50
TOTAL HITS: 50
TO-HIT RATIO 100% (as expected)

Last edited by Sven_; 23/10/20 04:25 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
There's one segment in TyPinOwly's hit charts at the moment that look suspicious, the 90-95% range. So I've increased my sample size for this one and went with a 90% chance. Made a Gyth fighter with an overall attack bonus of +4, and let her melee attack the AC 7 opposition. That's a 90% chance precisely, as she needed to roll at least a 3. This is no cherry picking, I was fortunate enough to be able to explain some of the human psychology at work again. The expectation would be 1 miss in every 10 hits, after all.

19 hit
13 hit
16 hit
18 hit
13 hit
13 hit
1 critical miss*
13 hit
13 hit
15 hit
12 hit
15 hit
17 hit
10 hit
18 hit
18 hit
20 critical hit
17 hit
18 hit
9 hit
8 hit
10 hit
18 hit
1 critical miss*
5 hit
18 hit
9 hit
4 hit
18 hit
9 hit
6 hit
16 hit
3 hit
2 miss*
19 hit
5 hit
7 hit
14 hit
2 miss*
15 hit
5 hit
16 hit
14 hit
11 hit
3 hit
5 hit
---------------------------
1 critical miss*
1 critical miss*
2 miss*
9 hit
6 hit
2 miss*
1 critical miss* WHAT PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER
2 miss*
12 hit
13 hit
13 hit
1 critical miss*
12 hit
1 critical miss*
--------------------------
16 hit
9 hit
18 hit
15 hit
16 hit
9 hit
11 hit
11 hit
11 hit
10 hit
9 hit
8 hit
12 hit
13 hit
15 hit
19 hit
3 hit
15 hit 40 HITS IN A ROW, WHAT PEOPLE WON'T REMEMBER
17 hit
6 hit
6 hit
11 hit
9 hit
7 hit
18 hit
14 hit
14 hit
14 hit
13 hit
14 hit
11 hit
17 hit
16 hit
10 hit
13 hit
10 hit
5 hit
8 hit
18 hit
7 hit
-------------


OVERALL ROLLS: 100
AVERAGE ROLL: 10.85 (EXPECTED 10.5)
TOTAL HITS: 88
TOTAL HITS RATIO: 88% (EXPECTED 90)

Last edited by Sven_; 23/10/20 06:58 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I think this conversation can be put to bed. Nice work everyone. Color me Impressed.

Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
You fellas can try to color me but I doubt you could land a hit.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
I'd be actually very interested in other people's reports now also aware of the no-damage rolls being hits. In particular those who suspect there's still something obviously wrong. That, and possible other bugs aside, is why this topic to me isn't done yet. Collecting 30-50 throws takes like 10-15 minutes max, about the time you may spend venting frustration in similar threads or in front of your pc during your gameplay. There must be now close to a 1,000 throws recorded and linked to in this thread, but they are all from very few sources given that this is argued to be a core game flaw.

I'm personally doing this because I'm interested in stats and numbers, the psychology at play I also know from other games (Football Manager, anyone?), because I want a good game with none of such obvious issues as claimed (who would want an experience such as that?) -- and because I hope they won't go with a pseudo-random system by the time of the release that ensures no bad streaks ever happen (or even one that rigs the dice in favor of the player so that trust is not lost as easily), as that is not particularly D&D. There are games that are doing such things, as player trust is lost easily in particular regarding RNG. The human brain is awful with RNG -- that's the way we're all wired.

Remember that Larian have presumably already nerfed some armor classes, because missing isn't fun. eek
https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/


Last edited by Sven_; 23/10/20 09:44 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_
There must be now close to a 1,000 throws recorded and linked to in this thread, but they are all from very few sources given that this is argued to be a core game flaw.


Well I have recorded 662 rolls myself so far and intend to continue. For the interested people: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ahq3jkENBJ_gLPDDeHFZDK2Kg9oZhCCaNZ6p8ijWPM/edit?usp=sharing

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by TyPinOwly


Well I have recorded 662 rolls myself so far and intend to continue. For the interested people: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ahq3jkENBJ_gLPDDeHFZDK2Kg9oZhCCaNZ6p8ijWPM/edit?usp=sharing


There remain two ranges in particular that are intriguing, at least some. The 90-95% one, as ~10% below the expected (though I was 9% above the expected in my 81% hit chance test -- came out at 90% after 50 rolls). And the 50-55% one. You personally also rarely come out above the expected in your bigger samples, whilst for me it was a mixed experience of being above and below. Excluding the damage roll and AI vs player bias tests I did:

70 rolls 90% hits expected 95% -5%
50 rolls 76% hits expected 75% +1%
50 rolls 90% hits expected 94% -4%
50 rolls 90% hits expected 81% +9%
40 rolls 50% hits expected 49% +1%
75 rolls 93.33% h expected 94% -0.67%
35 rolls 71.42% h expected 66.54% +4.88%
50 rolls 100% hits expected 100% +/- 0%
100rolls 88% hits expected 90% -2%
TOTAL: +4.21% (not weighted accordingly)


I may just do that 55% one over a really big sample of data in the hopes of getting multiple bad and good streaks, and showing what they may mean in the bigger picture. The supposedly "buggy" bugbears may again be a good target for that, so two birds with one stone. laugh edit: Starting good so far, of the first 30 rolls only about a third are hits. Let's see what this may mean in the long run.

NOt that'd convince anybody who isn't convinced yet -- I actually kind of find this fun. laugh

Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 08:45 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
There are two kind of attacks.

The 55% ones are unbuffed Shadowheart and my equally unbuffed main attacking the bugbears melee.
The 56% one is Lae'zel on disadvantage range attacking a goblin.

I was getting exceptionally unlucky for the first 50 rolls with a couple bad streaks. At that point, only a third of all attacks hit, when you'd expect half of them plus to hit. Did 250 rolls total, maybe I'll make this an even longer term project to see how this goes. My pet theory is: What happened in the first 50 rolls is exactly what some people wouldn't want to happen (and what a pseudo-RNG would avoid). I wouldn't want pseudo, personally.



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 %


TOTAL ROLLS: 250
TOTAL HITS: 128
TOTAL HIT RATIO: 51.2%
EXPECTED: 55.x%

LONGEST STREAK WITHOUT A HIT: 8
LONGEST STREAK WITHOUT A MISS: 7

Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 10:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by Eddiar
You fellas can try to color me but I doubt you could land a hit.



I just crit miss with firebolt and do 12 damage with the lingering surface effect anyway like a chad.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_

There remain two ranges in particular that are intriguing, at least some. The 90-95% one, as ~10% below the expected (though I was 9% above the expected in my 81% hit chance test -- came out at 90% after 50 rolls). And the 50-55% one. You personally also rarely come out above the expected in your bigger samples, whilst for me it was a mixed experience of being above and below. Excluding the damage roll and AI vs player bias tests I did:

The 90-95 range was even worse for a time with around 14% behind the expected hit rate. Even though my numbers are lacking a bit behind I think it is fine over all. The game won't have "true" random generation, as this is quite the challenge in computer science. I assume there are no correction mechanisms implemented to force expected hit ratios. If so, I would say a sufficient number of rolls for a certain percentage range would need to be around 1000 (just an arbitrarily chosen high number). Bad/Good streaks are comon with rolling dice (simulated and irl). Thus, those streaks can easily ruin expected ratios. It is also important to note, that a difference of 2.5% in my analysis should be considered okay, because so far I do not account for the spread of expected values within a certain percentage range.

Originally Posted by Sven_

NOt that'd convince anybody who isn't convinced yet -- I actually kind of find this fun. laugh

Same here^^

Also, before recording my rolls I was convinced the rolls are incorrect (especially one encounter where all my 70% failed and the enemies below 50% [according to the log] hit me). But now I believe it is mostly alright. There might still be issues in some places (for instance, I don't know if chances with the lucky trait are displayed correctly) but overall I am satisfied with the RNG so far.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by TyPinOwly

I assume there are no correction mechanisms implemented to force expected hit ratios.


Well if there was one, it wasn't random anymore. laugh I think my next project is going to be a possible bug. Somebody had observed, although over a tiny sample size, that the Great Weapon Fighting Style wouldn't work correctly or that there was something screwy with the RNG there. If you roll a 1 or 2, you get to roll another time (but have to take the new roll). Over that small sample size, he rolled a couple 1s and 2s again, apparently.

Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 11:42 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Just got a critical miss out of a 98% hit chance. Boy does this reminds me of fire emblem


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Just got a critical miss out of a 98% hit chance. Boy does this reminds me of fire emblem


This is actually exactly the same chance as rolling a critical miss on a 51%, 36% or 19% chance. laugh From the probability you can tell that all are advantaged attacks, so you get to roll twice on each and have to take the higher roll. That means if both throws are 1, it's a critical miss on each. http://zerohitpoints.com/Articles/Advantage-in-DnD-5

Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 11:54 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by Abits
Just got a critical miss out of a 98% hit chance. Boy does this reminds me of fire emblem


This is actually exactly the same chance as rolling a critical miss on a 51%, 36% or 19% chance. laugh ^^ From the probability you can tell that all are advantaged attacks, so you get to roll twice on each and have to take the higher roll. That means only if both throws are 1, it's a critical miss. http://zerohitpoints.com/Articles/Advantage-in-DnD-5

Ewww math go away I finished highschool to not have to deal with you anymore


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
What I don't will ever get used to in RPG is that if a character has the max on some attribute it's supposed to be a master or a natural talent.

So I don't get how a rogue with dexterity 18 (or 20 if modifiers are involved) can line up a long queue of miss or really low damage hits. Seriously, it's like a trained sharpshooter continuosly missing his target.

Same goes for a fighter with 18 strenght that misses, when using big weapons that hardly can not hit a target, in a melee confrontation.

i get there are modifiers, that the enemies are trained too, but come on. I lost count of how manytimes my characters miss or fail against lower level antagonists.

(But again I have to cope with teh fact that my luck is really really bad laugh laugh laugh ).

At least I'm learning how to make the best of terrain, objects, and skills laugh laugh

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
It appears the feat Great Weapon FIghting style isn't considered in the combat log, sady. A new roll seems to happen automatically on the hit roll rolling a 1 or 2. It's really taking ages to see a 1 or 2 in the damage roll, not sure though?

Originally Posted by Bufotenina
What I don't will ever get used to in RPG is that if a character has the max on some attribute it's supposed to be a master or a natural talent.

So I don't get how a rogue with dexterity 18 (or 20 if modifiers are involved) can line up a long queue of miss or really low damage hits. Seriously, it's like a trained sharpshooter continuosly missing his target.

Same goes for a fighter with 18 strenght that misses, when using big weapons that hardly can not hit a target, in a melee confrontation.


Yeah, but that's D&D. You have to also consider the enemy's Armor Class. An attribute of 18 gives you a modifier on the hit roll of +4, which is "but" a 20% to-hit chance increase over a character with Strength 10. With proficiency +2 you have an overall attack bonus +6. An opponent with an AC of 15 long-term is going to be hit 60% of the time assuming no advantage/disadvantage. AC15- Attack bonus 6=9, which is what you need to roll http://media.zerohitpoints.com/images/higherthan.png

The same character with Strength of 0 would hit 40% of the time. That is over many many many attacks. If he has no weapon proficiency (+2 bonus) for the big sword being used (which would be a likely thing, say a caster type), he would only hit 30% of the time. On later levels that gap between characters increases, as proficiency bonus increases. The game currently only deals up to levels 4 (+2 bonus from proficiency).

That's on the to-hit end. That strength bonus is also applied on the damage roll on each hit. That's a +4 damage on each succesful hit. So that 18 Strength character doesn't merely hit more consistently in the long run, he also consistently deals more damage. I'd really like for the game to track stats such as Pillars Of Eternity does.

[Linked Image]

Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 12:59 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Bufotenina
What I don't will ever get used to in RPG is that if a character has the max on some attribute it's supposed to be a master or a natural talent.

So I don't get how a rogue with dexterity 18 (or 20 if modifiers are involved) can line up a long queue of miss or really low damage hits. Seriously, it's like a trained sharpshooter continuosly missing his target.

Same goes for a fighter with 18 strenght that misses, when using big weapons that hardly can not hit a target, in a melee confrontation.
[...]

I'm finding myself in agreement having spent many hours playing with a virtual dice that seems to have a particular liking for rolling 3s. I don't know how it all fits in with the D&D rules as I'm not a player but it feels like the dice roll being by far the major deciding factor in any given succeed/fail situation with character skills being only a very minor influence seems completely the wrong way round.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Well as I said it's my issue not only with D & D but any RPG.

Had I better luck probably I wouldn'n even notice it laugh laugh

Joined: Jun 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2019
Notes from the Great Gygax regarding the D&D dice roll:

"Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly on adherent of the latter school ... For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure ... As the DM, the tools of your trade are dice - platonic solid-shaped or just about any other sort. The random numbers you generate by rolling dice determine the results based on the probabilities determined herein or those you have set forth on your own."

This enormous thread reinforces my preference to avoid percentages altogether, and focus on the die rolls. I'd rather see "you need an 8 or better on a d12 roll" as opposed to "you have a 41.66666% chance of success".

(Note that the d12 is vastly underused)

Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by vometia

I'm finding myself in agreement having spent many hours playing with a virtual dice that seems to have a particular liking for rolling 3s. I don't know how it all fits in with the D&D rules as I'm not a player but it feels like the dice roll being by far the major deciding factor in any given succeed/fail situation with character skills being only a very minor influence seems completely the wrong way round.

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):
Code
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.

Last edited by TyPinOwly; 24/10/20 02:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Hi, guys! I have a question. And sorry for the auto-translation.

(84%, highground)

[Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image]

Armor Class: 14.
Attack Roll: 6(1d20, Advantage) + 3(Wisdom) + 2(Prof) = 11.
Miss.

(96%, highground)

[Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image]

Armor Class: 10.
Attack Roll: 10(1d20, Advantage) + 3(Wisdom) + 2(Prof) = 15.
Hit.

In both cases, the guaranteed values in the log are +3 and +2. Five is substantially less than ten and fourteen.

The minimum possible result of an attack roll is (if 1 is still a complete failure) +2, i.e. +2 to guaranteed +5 = 7. If the roll is allowed to be re-rolled, the minimum value will be +3. +3 to guaranteed + 5 = 8. But 7 and 8 versus 14 and 10 are not 84 and 96 percent of success chance.

Do they add bonuses for the popup hit chance twice? Because the gray area in the tooltip appears to be correctly calculated, but the green area does not.



Last edited by kodirovshchik; 24/10/20 03:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Argyle
(Note that the d12 is vastly underused)

I literally bought the tee-shirt. Well, okay, the sweatshirt in my case.

[Linked Image]


Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by kodirovshchik

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

smile

Last edited by Sven_; 24/10/20 03:39 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by TyPinOwly
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):
Code
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 non-D&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 explicitly-defined rules both coming into effect. Lawful and chaotic combining to create even-more-chaotic when one doesn't have any experience so tries to transpose alternative experience gained with something that looks like it should kinda-sorta be the same thing.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Move to the Dark Side... discover GURPS.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Sadurian
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 pearl-clutching!" etc.

Some example I'm setting. I should probably change my title to "ageing reprobate".


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
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.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
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 12-year-old in a 53-year-old's body, I am obviously disgusted and disappointed in you being an 'aging reprobate'.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
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. laugh

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.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I updated the google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ahq3jkENBJ_gLPDDeHFZDK2Kg9oZhCCaNZ6p8ijWPM/edit?usp=sharing

I 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.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020


Did you also roll 4 misses on the bounce in the 94% bracket? laugh 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). smile

Last edited by Sven_; 25/10/20 02:24 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
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 1-20 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 semi-randomly 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.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
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=1793
I personally wouldn't want that, but then I also like dice. laugh

Last edited by Sven_; 25/10/20 09:06 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
[Linked Image]

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.

Fear my wrath, for it is great indeed.
Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
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 1-20 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 semi-randomly 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.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
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 WO-HOO 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.

Joined: Jan 2011
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by Axyramariel
I may be banned (hope not xD) - but i recently play Solasta early access. It basics on same D&D rules and WO-HOO 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.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
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.


Fear my wrath, for it is great indeed.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Seems like Solasta is now going with the "pseudo-random" 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.
Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Originally Posted by Axyramariel
I may be banned (hope not xD) - but i recently play Solasta early access. It basics on same D&D rules and WO-HOO 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.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
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.





Fear my wrath, for it is great indeed.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
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.

Quote
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.




Quote
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 built-in 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

Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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