Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Out of combat skill rolls are too random

Out of combat skills checks work great on a human-driven D&D session because they are open players/DM interpretation, but I have to say they are very poor in a software-driven game.

Playing on a table with real humans, we are only limited in action by our imagination, we can ask more, investigate more, try new things, retry... the GM can tune up or down how hard the skill checks are based on our actions.

Letting my dialog result be decided by a dice rather than my decisions make me feel much less in control of the story, and made me to countless load recent *quick saves* - it got pretty annoying very fast... even more when there are 2 or 3 checks in sequence in the same dialog.

While this is cheating, I can't wait for a mod or a mode that let me have 20 in all skill checks out of combat to let me, finally, enjoy the story with a decent flow.

While the argument could be made to make some dialogue checks an easier mark, failing dialogue checks is to me and many others an important part of D&D storytelling. Everyone knows the most interesting stories happen when you fail in D&D. The challenge on larian's end is to make those failures interesting. Sometimes they devolve into combat of course when you fail a dialogue check with a potentially hostile npc. However, I've found many ways to get around failed dialogue checks after the fact. Either you get another chance later as in the case with companion dialogue checks, or you find the information the NPC would have told you a different way, or numerous other things. They did a fantastic job of making the story as open-ended as I could have expected. I think the main thing that is leaving a bad taste in people's mouth is the very high DC persuasion check fairly early in the game when you meet the acting first druid of the grove. I'd challenge people to go with the failures and see where they lead. I understand wanting to be in full control of the story, but just see what the game has in store for you down further along the line of those undesirable failures, you may be pleasantly surprised. Plus it will likely make subsequent playthroughs more engaging if you actually succeed were your last character failed.

What irks me is the damned "check failed" popup. Now i know something is there and i want to know whst it is.

Completely true. No true choice in most of the conversatios. It is either fight (be it by the sword or by a "persuasion battle") or scram.

I feel like they should keep this hidden and only let us know if the check succeeded.

I kind of disagree, this is also only true playing with a human-driven game, because based on how you failed the GM is able adapt the story on spot and make a new way to let you take the opportunity item/given/stuff given - all aiming the ultimate goal, having fun.
Playing a software-driven game means, in most cases, you just lost an item, one opportunity, or triggered combat - the worst is to lose an opportunity. A game with so many choices and routes could be improved if the opportunities were based mostly on the decisions, not on random rolls. Routes are meant to be explored, not found by chance.



Exactly - a different route based on your decision, hence the reloads.

I could agree that passive checks are somewhat annoying. Especially since at the table you don't use passives that way. The whole point of a passive skill is for the DM to give out info when you are above the threshold.

But for social interactions rolls. Too random?
I have noticed that every social encounter has a "default outcome", and skill checks let's you possible alter that outcome. Saying that "Checks work at the table because of DM interpretation" isn't really valid. Of course the DM can come up with a check and a DC on the fly, but in most bigger encounter based checks he should have a DC in mind from the get go.
I have even heard some prominent DMs online say they usually set one DC for a whole dungeon, every check made is made against that DC.


Another rule for Checks is: Does what the player want to do have a consequence? In that case make a roll, if not let it happen. And I feel Larian has nailed this. Most social rolls has a consequence attached to it, often you can avoid the default scenario, or gain some benefit later.

All in all I don't see an issue with them including checks, in fact I love that they did it, as it makes the game feel more like DnD. I would like to see them visualize advantage better, and maybe make the DC flat and then add the modifier.

i like the dialogs without checks in this game. and there aren't few of them.
give me a check when i try something risky. high risk high reward.

three checks back to back are just bad! either you have to fail just one of them and you just fail or you only have to succeed on one to succeed (which is just tripple dis/advantage)
or the first two just don't matter which is worse! just leave 'em out then.

Indeed, I don't think Baldurs 3 really have passive checks, there are real checks that change the outcome if you reload the game.

Yup, seems that way. I'd much rather have a passive check system. It still encourages exploration, because you still need to walk up to a spot to find something.

The high variance in the d20 Skill Checks does create some odd situations.

The difference between the most trained naturally gifted person (+5) and the worst untrained and talentless (-1) one is not significant. It's only a 30% difference.

The -1 can easily succeed where +5 fails. Say it's picking a lock. It doesn't make any sense Grumby the clumsy half orc picks the lock Nibbles the Nimble halfling lock expert failed to open.

You don't get more skill points either. Everyone gets proficiency bonus at the same rate, slowly. The difference between Grumby and Nibbles doesn't grow much at all.

That's why take10 or thresholds would make much more sense in many cases. Or the variance should be much smaller like a d12.

I mean, that's precisely the point.
Letting you know something is there so you will be able to double check in some way and you won't go on an internet forum bitching that you're completely stuck and have no clue of where to progress.

Not saying you have to like it, but it's not there without a purpose.


Because they are in fact rolls. Not passive.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit blunt but that's a Larian's PR bull right there.
They were rambling on and on about making failure fun but I have yet to find one example of that. Like you said for yourself, failing in this game results in either combat or an option to succeed later (which is completely pointless)