Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by fallenj
Alright so Advantage/Disadvantage is roll 2d20 an take the high/low. The way its setup from the combat log seems like a 1d20 + a flat number added to your roll plus bonuses, is this correct? Besides this, there is currently from what it looks like 2 surprise rounds. Say I attack a creature, they get damage combat starts and surprise round goes I get another attack that is the official surprise round.

For sneak attacks, if I shoot from stealth or start my turn during a combat round go into stealth and attack, I'll get advantage but no sneak attack damage. I'm not sure if this is a bug or if something is off and I'm getting disadvantage also and advantage is still showing up in combat log for me.

Truthfully advantage/disadvantage seems more of a crap fest than anything I've ever read. If I have advantage on enemy i get to roll 2d20, if i have disadvantage i get to roll 2d20, if i have both nothing, if im a halfling i get another reroll on ones even if i have both. Why the hell isnt this just a flat +2/-2 from what i read the percent bonuses to the roll far far blow away any bonus from a spell. Bless why have it???


Correct.
1.) From my recollections there is only 1 surprise round. Your surprise attack goes off, then initiative is rolled and everyone in the combat gets to act. But I might be mistaken...though this is how it *should* work.

2.) I'm assuming this is a bug. The game claims that you get advantage from attacking from stealth (which would allow you to get sneak attack damage), but then that sneak damage doesn't actually apply. Larian seems to have coded it so that your character unstealths before hitting, which then means you're no longer attacking with advantage...

3.) It's a mechanic aimed at simplifying 5e D&D. Instead of having to keep track of numerous small bonuses (e.g., pathfinder's morale, luck, natural, circumstance, dodge, deflection, sacred, size bonuses) some of which stack and some dont, everything is abstracted to 3 options: "advantage, normal, or disadvantage." It makes PnP combat work so much more smoothly, trust me.
However, in a video game, there is no real reason why all those small numerical bonuses shouldn't be included. The game will do all the calculations for you.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Well written and cogent argument. I like the idea of giving height and positioning a flat +2/-2 bonus/deduction. I'd much rather use class mechanics to gain Advantage or mitigate Disadvantage.

Excellent post. Would read again.

Joined: Sep 2016
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Sep 2016

Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong

The Maths: - In 5e, in general, having Advantage is roughly equivalent of having +5 to your roll. Disadvantage is roughly equal to having -5 to your roll. This means if one character is rolling with Advantage, and the other character is rolling with Disadvantage, then there is the rough equivalent of +-10 between their rolls. Additionally, Advantage doubles the chance of rolling a critical hit, and makes critical failures much less likely (5% normally vs 0.25% with Advantage), vice versa for Disadvantage

Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong

Looking at the graphs in the link it seems is only +/- 5 at 10; at 19 it is +/- 1 (linked article says average is +/- 3.325).

Wouldn't this mean if you had a high (say 90%) unmodified chance to hit, using a flat +/-2 would make it more likely to hit than using advantage?

Not sure what proportion of attacks are long odds rather than midrange (where advantage is higher) though or if it matters. I can't work it out in my mind...

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Agree with OP. Especially the height mechanic gets tired very quickly in my opinion. In the first encounter past the tutorial against the intellect devourers, the moderately sloped ground can make a night/day difference depending on which direction you are attacking from.

Concerning the argument that it feels bad to miss frequently: it also feels bad to consistently get hit by the enemy unless taking part in this race-to-the-top mini game.

Apart from the various skills that directly compete as ways to grant/inflict advantage/disadvantage I would also draw a comparison to other conditions. Targeting a creature in darkness (without dark vision) or heavy fog causes disadvantage. Aiming upwards at a moderate angle is way easier than that.
Using a weapon a character is not proficient in removes the proficiency bonus, which is +2/+3 in early levels. Aiming upwards should be easier than using a weapon the character does not know how to handle.

I agree that effects of movement should be more pronounced in a video game compared to TT and height can play a part in that. But I think significantly smaller incentives can accomplish this goal. E.g. a range modifier for ballistic weapons would by itself encourage seeking high ground. And perhaps an attack bonus of 1 with the possibility to increase it through abilities in some classes. IMHO this would already be enough to seek out as an advantage without devaluing other choices too much.

Originally Posted by lx07

Wouldn't this mean if you had a high (say 90%) unmodified chance to hit, using a flat +/-2 would make it more likely to hit than using advantage?

Not sure what scenario you are referring to exactly. Assuming the base scenario is having to roll 3+ (90%), rolling that with advantage would be 99%. Giving a bonus of 2 (rolling 1+) would produce 95% when respecting critical failures. And even ignoring critical failures (100%), the increased chance of critical hits typically makes up for the 1% lower probability.

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Miloment beat me to it Lx07, but significant change in getting a Critical Success/Fail is where the additional benefits from Adv/Dis come from beyond the 3.325. There are lengthy sources around the more popular 5e discussion forums (Giantitp, Enworld) that go *hard* into the math to include comparing Adv/Dis against the average AC per CR level. It always ends up being a rough benefit of +-5 *on average*. Which is why it's the strongest baseline mechanic in a bounded accuracy system.

Joined: Sep 2016
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Sep 2016
@miloment/@Isaac Springsong, thanks I was getting confused by the graphs and misread them. Seems easier visualising with anydice.

I agree with the idea in OP to change so it isn't so easy to get advantage in these ways, just was misreading as flat +/-2 may result in increased hit chance compared to advantage in some situations.

Joined: Nov 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Zahur
Originally Posted by Nyanko
The main problem in making the game more accurate in terms of when to declare an advantage or not will be the percentage of success lowering down dramatically at low level. Will players like the fact they have to wait 5 rounds to kill just one goblin? I am not sure honestly.

I guess they began implementing stricto sensu 5e combat rules but realized it would be too punishing to the pace of combat. So what's the best compromise here?

Those rules are such a sensitive small ecosystem, aren't they? Inspired by this reddit post I made my own analysis. I've ran a simulator with 1 million of goblins and let them fight with one immortal 1st level Fighter (STR 16).

Current BG3, Goblin AC8, HP14, 20% of attacks have disadvantage or they are normal, 80% have advantage
Code
              Rounds  Avg  Min  Low  Med High Max StDev
Short Sword  2703117  2.7    2    3    3    3   8   0.6
Warhammer    2425818  2.4    2    2    2    2   8   0.6
Greatsword   2018406  2.0    1    2    2    2   7   0.4

RAW DnD, Goblin AC15, HP7, 20% of attacks have disadvantage or advantage, 80% are normal attacks
Code
              Rounds  Avg  Min  Low  Med High Max StDev
Short Sword  2723422  2.7    1    2    2    2  21   1.7
Warhammer    2498914  2.5    1    2    2    2  23   1.7
Greatsword   1972064  2.0    1    1    1    1  19   1.4

We can clearly see that Larian tries and actually succeed in achiving roughly same total combat durations. Average time to kill a Goblin is same in BG3 as in RAW DnD. Looking to minimal/maximal value and medians (low, middle and high) there is one round difference, which is OK by my standards. The Problems of RAW are very long miss streaks and larger standard deviation which leads to bad feeling and discomfort. So I think if we are trying to persuade Larian to revert all their changes regarding advantage/disadvantage and HP/AC back do RAW DnD, we should suggest an alternative system which deals somehow with those miss streaks.

My favorite solution is simply not interpret all misses as misses. Often you hit but deal no damage. There could be an animation, sparks, taunts, shouts, etc, depending on how close you were on your d20 attack roll.

Other solid solution would be pseudo-random distribution like Dota 2 is using. This will fake die rolls depending on you current streak but maintain the average probability the same.



And this for me it’s really the point, thank you for running the simulation. It takes the same time on average.

Yes the combat plays differently and yes I agree, I definitely feel more overpowered than in my average DnD session, but I think the point is to create a game that can appeal beyond DnD fan base.

Is BG3 EA giving me enough DnD? So far (120 hours) yes, better than any other game I’ve played. Almost every fight played differently at every replay (4 for now)

Would I like one day to see it modded/upgraded with a RAW mode? Definitely!

Joined: Sep 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Sep 2020
"appeal beoind the D&D fan base"

funny, that's precisely why BG and BG2 were RTwP.

Last edited by tsundokugames; 08/11/20 06:41 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
"appeal beoind the D&D fan base"

funny, that's precisely why BG and BG2 were RTwP.


What’s funny about it?

Joined: Sep 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by bernardthehermit
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
"appeal beoind the D&D fan base"

funny, that's precisely why BG and BG2 were RTwP.


What’s funny about it?

because what you are using as a defense of Larian's choices are the exact words used against Bioware when they made the original BG RTwP. The "wider audience" being all of PC gaming, not just niche RPG players. That is why BG was such a remarkable success, and yet the majority of arguments against BG and BG2 are that they aren't turn based or "faithful" to D&D.

so it's funny to witness the cognitive dissonance in action. "you guys" literally split hairs to try and keep sense of your arguments. it must be exhausting.

Last edited by tsundokugames; 08/11/20 07:16 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by bernardthehermit
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
"appeal beoind the D&D fan base"

funny, that's precisely why BG and BG2 were RTwP.


What’s funny about it?

because what you are using as a defense of Larian's choices are the exact words used against Bioware when they made the original BG RTwP. The "wider audience" being all of PC gaming, not just niche RPG players. That is why BG was such a remarkable success, and yet the majority of arguments against BG and BG2 are that they aren't turn based.

so it's funny to witness the cognitive dissonance in action. "you guys" literally split hairs to try and keep sense of your arguments. it must be exhausting.


I don’t get it. Turn based vs RT is a thing, Height and Backstab mechanics another. You have noticed that both share the same goal. That’s good, but sharing the same goal does not mean you either like them both or dislike them both. With this logic you should either like every type of food or no food at all, because both share the goal to feed.

As for splitting hair, this is a forum about BG3 and this a thread about Height and Backstab mechanics. So yeah, we’re talking and talking about it.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by macadami
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by macadami
Since there is not an overall difficulty slider to 5e as there will be in BG3, how would you suggest making encounters easier and harder?


*Points to the difficulty settings in BG 1 & BG 2*

Use those. I mean this is supposed to be the third game in a trilogy, don't need to reinvent that wheel.



I don't think that will work in 5e. There isn't a way to out scale hits with AC like there was in 2e. BG1&2's main difference was more damage when hit but in 5e It's not even a matter of a completely min maxed character; you just aren't given the tools to prevent the hits, or guarantee them. You would just die from the increased damage on ever hit. I don't even think spell failure is in 5e, casting or copying scrolls, and that was another annoying trait of the difficulty slider.



The best way to scale encounter difficulty in 5th ed is to add more enemies to the fight. Add some more peons... Add a lieutenant to the boss fight (+more peons)... That said the issue there is it slows the encounter down. On table top the DM generally breaks peon minions into groups and has each group act all at once for speed.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Made it to the end...

+1 for the OP.


My take away is that the high ground rule only makes sense when you consider the lack of a cover system.
- 5th ed has 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, and full cover.
- BG3 does not have the cover system but the High Ground sort simulates it for ranged attacks.


My feelings:
- please add the cover system updated for 3d environments (will need to cast more than 4 rays)
- reduce the high ground bonus to +1 or +2 to hit. (and no low ground penalty because cover has you covered now)
- add in the optional flank rules from DMG (2+ characters on each side of the target) with a +2 hit only. (melee needs fun rules too)

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
so it's funny to witness the cognitive dissonance in action. "you guys" literally split hairs to try and keep sense of your arguments. it must be exhausting.

No need to be snarky when arguing your point. Attack the argument, not the man.

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by LodurOfTheSquids
Made it to the end...

+1 for the OP.


My take away is that the high ground rule only makes sense when you consider the lack of a cover system.
- 5th ed has 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, and full cover.
- BG3 does not have the cover system but the High Ground sort simulates it for ranged attacks.


My feelings:
- please add the cover system updated for 3d environments (will need to cast more than 4 rays)
- reduce the high ground bonus to +1 or +2 to hit. (and no low ground penalty because cover has you covered now)
- add in the optional flank rules from DMG (2+ characters on each side of the target) with a +2 hit only. (melee needs fun rules too)



Even if the idea is interesting, I think adding a cover system so far in development is a bit of a stretch. But I dig the +1/+2 for height instead of an advantage. And it can be easily modified I guess.

Last edited by Nyanko; 10/11/20 10:56 PM.
Joined: Dec 2016
Location: Denmark
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2016
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by LodurOfTheSquids
Made it to the end...

+1 for the OP.


My take away is that the high ground rule only makes sense when you consider the lack of a cover system.
- 5th ed has 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, and full cover.
- BG3 does not have the cover system but the High Ground sort simulates it for ranged attacks.


My feelings:
- please add the cover system updated for 3d environments (will need to cast more than 4 rays)
- reduce the high ground bonus to +1 or +2 to hit. (and no low ground penalty because cover has you covered now)
- add in the optional flank rules from DMG (2+ characters on each side of the target) with a +2 hit only. (melee needs fun rules too)



Even if the idea is interesting, I think adding a cover system so far in development is a bit of a stretch. But I dig the +1/+2 for height instead of an advantage. And it can be easily modified I guess.

If they are to implement a cover system then now would be the best time. Keep in mind we're only one month into the early access period and we're most likely still a year (if not more) away from the game's full release.
The longer they wait with implementing any new features, the more likely they are to run into issues.

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Bukke
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by LodurOfTheSquids
Made it to the end...

+1 for the OP.


My take away is that the high ground rule only makes sense when you consider the lack of a cover system.
- 5th ed has 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, and full cover.
- BG3 does not have the cover system but the High Ground sort simulates it for ranged attacks.


My feelings:
- please add the cover system updated for 3d environments (will need to cast more than 4 rays)
- reduce the high ground bonus to +1 or +2 to hit. (and no low ground penalty because cover has you covered now)
- add in the optional flank rules from DMG (2+ characters on each side of the target) with a +2 hit only. (melee needs fun rules too)



Even if the idea is interesting, I think adding a cover system so far in development is a bit of a stretch. But I dig the +1/+2 for height instead of an advantage. And it can be easily modified I guess.

If they are to implement a cover system then now would be the best time. Keep in mind we're only one month into the early access period and we're most likely still a year (if not more) away from the game's full release.
The longer they wait with implementing any new features, the more likely they are to run into issues.


Yeah, but if we have in mind a cover system like xcom for instance, the environment is not suitable at all for it at the moment. The only stuff that would fit are barrels or chests, like all the destructible assets. The problem with these is they can be destroyed super easily.

So it would essentially mean they'd have to rework all the maps to include hard cover structures.

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Overall whatever results in less wasted actions, within reason, is fine by me. It simply feels good to connect your attacks with a good enough ratio and a flipside it certainly feels terrible when game almost punishes you with miss streak RNG.

Positional advantage (backstab) is already an optional rule in 5e, they just need to fix it to their intended light weapons only requirement. Height advantage/disadvantage (just to remind you it's not all happiness and sunshine there) is homebrewed, but I'm totally down with it because it simply makes sense.

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Overall whatever results in less wasted actions, within reason, is fine by me. It simply feels good to connect your attacks with a good enough ratio and a flipside it certainly feels terrible when game almost punishes you with miss streak RNG.

Positional advantage (backstab) is already an optional rule in 5e, they just need to fix it to their intended light weapons only requirement. Height advantage/disadvantage (just to remind you it's not all happiness and sunshine there) is homebrewed, but I'm totally down with it because it simply makes sense.


Neither of what you said is true unfortunately. Positional Advantage has nothing to do with weapons that have the Light property even in the *literally never used anywhere ever* optional rule of "Facing" in the DMG.

And if you think it makes sense, what is your response to the 56+ class abilities and spells that are completely invalidated by the two homebrewed systems?

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Implementing cover would also require a change to their ray-tracing/cover detection/"am I able to hit" algorithm. Currently, if you can draw a line (or arc) to any part of the enemy's body, you can hit them. This doesn't work with cover. You need to draw at least 4(?) lines to different parts of enemies, probably more.

Not arguing against Larian doing it, but it's not nearly as simple as Solasta/XCOM's grid-based cover system.

Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20

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