Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Nature checks are stupid

So, if I'm a cleric with a proficiency in medicine, you think I should be able to remove Illithid tadpoles?

Exactly.

While I don't strictly agree with the OP I think this is a good point. The game should use a few flat checks. For example the door at Waukeen's Rest if you roll a 20 a 6 strength character can open it, if you roll 1 a 20 strength character can fail at it. I know dice rolling is ultimately pure abstraction but certain things simply aren't chance. If you're strong you can always lift a boulder, jump so far, etc. While being intelligent might not mean you're infallible in your mushroom recall skills.

I think a few flat checks here or there would really help a lot. Also some reliance on simply "saying the right thing" would be nice too. Mostly all the dialogue comes down to rolls and checks but rarely are we as players challenged to know what to say, which can be a little unfortunate.

So you think they should do away with Dungeons and Dragons - as well as the Baldur's Gate IP - so that it works like a completely different game...

D&D ustilises roleplay to help a player determine their actions and can help a dm (or the game code) determine outcomes of events. If an action stands a realistic possibility of success, and/or a realistic possibility of failure, that is where we make a check. If there is no realistic possibility of failure, or no realistic possibility of success, then no check is needed and the dm adjudicates what happens. That's D&D.

Right now, in game, we're being asked to make checks for an almost ridiculous number of things, many of which should be left in roleplay space (such as many dialogues), or which shouldn't require a check at all because they either cannot succeed or cannot fail (I'm looking at you, DC 0 illithid checks).

As mentioned also (and not sure why the op has been cherry picking respones to resist acknowleding this), even in cases where there is a variable outcome, many situations are ideal for using passive checks, which are also an established mechanic in the rule set, and they do not involve any dice-rolling.

Yessir



You're right. It's a good compromise.

I don’t want passive checks all the time. That means unless you meet a certain threshold you will always fail. Dice rolling at least gives you a chance to succeed (and fail).

Knowledge checks should be passive checks much more often.

A scenario where a Wizard with high intelligence and Arcana proficiency fails to figure out a magic device, but the party Barbarian succeeds on it because of a lucky roll shouldn't happen. It's nonsensical, and it undermines character builds. It's not funny either. It's just annoying when you build a character specialized in a certain way but then the game tells you "No, you suck at it. Watch this random amateur nail it".

The fact that the 8 Str Wizard can get their revenge by succeeding on a DC 15 Athletics check which the 18 Str Barbarian fails, does not fix this nonsense.

So, passive checks where it makes sense, please. The d20 rolls are way too random combined with the little weight coming from proficiency and abilities.

The hell if it isn't funny.

Someone passed their hyperbole check.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had flat checks in them. I don't see the existential world ending threat of using them intelligently in BG3.

I have no problem with the Barbarian figuring out how to use a magic device on a lucky roll. However, as the DM, I reserve the right to have the Barbarian figure out how to use that wand of magic missiles by shooting himself in the foot - literally - and waste one of three usages the wand possessed.

The only failed check that annoys me is not knowing Astarion is a vampire. Dude has FANGS.