Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Hi all, I've been having quite a bit of fun in early access but I have noticed some things are missing from Dungeons and Dragons that is making certain actions feel a little empty. That feeling that something is missing. I'm talking about ability checks. I believe the game would be more fun, with more ability checks.

In this post I'll be writing about where I feel they are missing and where ability checks should be added. I will write about which should be passive or active. I'm a fan of DnD and Divinity 2 so I've been looking for changes that could make BG3 more fun and engaging. For DnD, a lot of fun/hilarious moments involve ability checks. I would love to hear feedback from other fans of Dungeons and Dragons. So feel free to post your thoughts on the subject (ability checks) and my feedback.

Breaking down doors (Strength, Active):
In BG3: I have to manually tell the character to attack the door for each attack. It’s sluggish and time-consuming.
In Tabletop: The DM asks the player for a strength check to see if they can break down the door.


Recommended:
Replace door health with a DC (5-20). Player sends a character to attack the door and a strength check is rolled.
> If the roll fails the character swings their weapon... it does zero damage and the character acknowledges that they can’t do it.
> If the roll succeeds, the character breaks down the door in one swing and is excited about breaking down the door.

This would have the benefit of making the game more fluid (less time spent hitting a door and more time spent exploring, looting, and fighting). And new players would get more acclimated to how Dice Rolls impact the game. A lot of players could get a laugh out of seeing Gale break down a door. It’s a great opportunity to keep the player engaged.

Shove (Strength, Passive):
In BG3: Shove is a mechanic that becomes situationally OP. It’s low cost and can deal with enemies quicker than spells.
In tabletop: Anything similar is a strength contest where both parties have to roll.


Recommended:
Roll a strength contest between both characters.
> If the player wins the contest the opponent falls prone.
> If the player loses the contest a struggle animation will play.
> If a contestant rolls a natural 1, that character falls prone.
> If a contestant rolls a natural 20, the opponent is shoved 4 meters and falls prone.

This change will add risk in using the shove mechanic. Adding more strategic diversity and engagement for the player. Also, having multiple outcomes makes shove more interesting to see in combat. It'd be hilarious if a shove contest results in two natural 20s and both characters shove each other 4 meters.

Using a Spell Scroll (Intelligence, Passive):
In BG3: Any character can use a spell scroll making fighters/rogues/rangers more valuable than they are in Dungeons and Dragons. Why bring a wizard when the fighter can cast the spells and has better armor/weapons/HP?
In Tabletop: Only magic users can use scrolls to help manage spells in between long rests. There are variants where the character has to pass a DC Intelligence saving throw.


Recommended:

Using a spell scroll requires an intelligence DC equal to 10+spell level OR already knowing the spell.
> If the roll fails there will be a poof around the character as the scroll turns to ash.
> If the roll succeeds the spell can be cast.

This would benefit the game by keeping respective classes to their role and still enabling the player to take on strategic risk. If the player feels a rogue using a spell scroll is their best option, they will have to take it with calculated risk. Giving the player more meaningful choices as they manage the party.

(Ideal change involving Long Rest)
Spell Scroll drops could have a drop rate tied to spells the party knows, so that the groundwork can be in the game to allow for long rests to only occur in “safe zones”. Spell management in dungeons would be about considering what spells you got scrolls for. Adding in more engaging choices to make as the player cannot take a long rest in the middle of a dungeon.

Dip (Intelligence, Active):
In BG3: dip is a mechanic that allows characters to get an easy d4 to their weapon damage. I do see dip as a nice mechanic. In early access, dip is a buff to fighters, rangers, and rogues. However it is too accessible
In tabletop: this does not exist as far as I know.


Recommended:
Outside of combat the player will have to make a DC 5 (intelligence)
> If the roll fails, the character will take 1d4 damage.
> If the roll succeeds, the character gets 1d4 bonus damage on their next hit with that weapon.
Inside of combat the player will have to make a DC 10 (intelligence)
> If the roll fails, the character will take 1d4 damage.
> If the roll succeeds, the character gets 1d4 bonus damage on their next hit with that weapon.

The benefit of this change is that dip will give new players a clear indication of how DC works, it’s situational and will help acclimate players better to dice rolls.

Backstab (Stealth, Passive):
In BG3: backstab is a low-cost mechanic to get advantage on an opponent by moving into their backstab zone. If you compare backstab to flanking, it’s very similar but you only need one character to do so (provided they are facing the correct side of their opponent). From a game design perspective, backstab is low-cost flanking.
In Tabletop: combat doesn’t work this way. This is something that comes from a transition to a 3D (PvE) game.


Recommended:
The character will have to make a stealth check versus the opponent’s passive perception.
> If the character jumped during the turn the roll is a 1.
> If the roll fails the character will not get advantage on their next attack.
> If the roll succeeds the character gets advantage on their next attack against that opponent.

This benefits the game by making the advantage a one-time bonus and giving the player more meaningful choices to make during combat. The player would have to move the character away, provoking an attack of opportunity, and move back into the “backstab zone” to roll for advantage again. Stealth versus passive perception is already in BG3, so I really feel this could be a quick remedy for the issues with backstab.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I agree with doors and shove.

About backstab and scrolls for everyone, I want them to be removed of the game so I disagree.

Dipping is just a free cheat. I'd rather play a game that doesn't include such ridiculous mechanic but they won't remove it so something has to be done.

According to me a rare coating material that would cost action/bonus action to apply is necessary both for consistency and action economy.
We could add a check to see if the coating work or not, but without bad consequences if it doesn't work (you would already have spend and action or bonus action + a material)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/01/21 08:14 PM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
I agree completely. Outside the breaking doors which is clearly just HP driven, I assumed under the hood this stuff was taking place?

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Good ideas. Personally I'm less of a fan of hard DC's. I like it when multiple stages of success and failure (other than nat 1's and 20's) are getting implemented in games. For example rolling a 9 on check to break down a door with a DC of 10 wouldn't be a complete failure, but it would take you multiple swings and maybe even exhaust your character. Or for pickpocketing someone the higher you role the more of that person's inventory can you access. (Ok, slightly off topic because a skill check, but just to give an example how differently you could handle DC rolls)

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Destroying structures would then need different mechanisms in and out of combat. For instance, fo destroy a support beam during combat, in order to make a structure tumble down, it would be logical to hack away the beam's hit points turn by turn, while the battle is raging.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by marajango
Good ideas. Personally I'm less of a fan of hard DC's. I like it when multiple stages of success and failure (other than nat 1's and 20's) are getting implemented in games. For example rolling a 9 on check to break down a door with a DC of 10 wouldn't be a complete failure, but it would take you multiple swings and maybe even exhaust your character. Or for pickpocketing someone the higher you role the more of that person's inventory can you access. (Ok, slightly off topic because a skill check, but just to give an example how differently you could handle DC rolls)
This matches a common tabletop mechanic that failures by 5 or more are "worse failures" then failures of by only 1-4. Larian could implement something like this for these checks.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Backstab (Stealth, Passive):
...
The character will have to make a stealth check versus the opponent’s passive perception.
...
This benefits the game by making the advantage a one-time bonus and giving the player more meaningful choices to make during combat. The player would have to move the character away, provoking an attack of opportunity, and move back into the “backstab zone” to roll for advantage again.
I'm all for reducing the impact of backstabbing, but your suggestion doesn't actually increase player choice. It just changes the guaranteed backstab into a ~50% (dependent on your stealth skill) chance of occurring. In 5e (and BG3) you're already allowed to walk around an enemy without provoking an AoO, so there'd be no reason to move a character away before backstabbing. The reason why this doesn't usually work in BG3 is that BG3's pathfinding is bad.

In order for the player 'choice' to be meaningful, there has to be a downside for failure besides "you don't get advantage". I'd recommend your stealth (or acrobatics or deception) check contested by the enemy's perception (acrobatics or insight), where a failure means you attack at DISadvantage. Now there is risk vs reward.

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by marajango
Good ideas. Personally I'm less of a fan of hard DC's. I like it when multiple stages of success and failure (other than nat 1's and 20's) are getting implemented in games. For example rolling a 9 on check to break down a door with a DC of 10 wouldn't be a complete failure, but it would take you multiple swings and maybe even exhaust your character. Or for pickpocketing someone the higher you role the more of that person's inventory can you access. (Ok, slightly off topic because a skill check, but just to give an example how differently you could handle DC rolls)
This matches a common tabletop mechanic that failures by 5 or more are "worse failures" then failures of by only 1-4. Larian could implement something like this for these checks.

Well, there are other interesting options, such as failure by 1-4 is a success, but you also pay a price (e.g. injure yourself or draw the attention of nearby guards or damage the thing you were trying to steal). Failing forward tends to be more interesting than restrictive failures where you cut off storylines.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Backstab (Stealth, Passive):
...
The character will have to make a stealth check versus the opponent’s passive perception.
...
This benefits the game by making the advantage a one-time bonus and giving the player more meaningful choices to make during combat. The player would have to move the character away, provoking an attack of opportunity, and move back into the “backstab zone” to roll for advantage again.
I'm all for reducing the impact of backstabbing, but your suggestion doesn't actually increase player choice. It just changes the guaranteed backstab into a ~50% (dependent on your stealth skill) chance of occurring. In 5e (and BG3) you're already allowed to walk around an enemy without provoking an AoO, so there'd be no reason to move a character away before backstabbing. The reason why this doesn't usually work in BG3 is that BG3's pathfinding is bad.

In order for the player 'choice' to be meaningful, there has to be a downside for failure besides "you don't get advantage". I'd recommend your stealth (or acrobatics or deception) check contested by the enemy's perception (acrobatics or insight), where a failure means you attack at DISadvantage. Now there is risk vs reward.
I'm all for getting rid of backstabbing entirely. Another thing you can do with stealth is just don't tell the player if they're succeeding or not. If they succeed, fine, they don't get noticed and the enemies don't know they're there. If they fail, it looks exactly the same to the player as if they succeed, but when enemies get a turn, they'll come after the squishy rogue that thought they were hidden.

Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
Those are good ideas.
My thoughts:

- breaking doors: great suggestion, repeatedly attacking a door is boring.

- shove: Players use it mostly to push enemies down a cliff to cause damage and get hight advantage for ranged attacks.
Suggestion: As in PnP it should be an action, not a bonus action.
I think even the PnP rules say that you always succeed if the target is not aware of you (e.g. you have stealth or invisibility.)

- scrolls: Great suggestion
It only works when you know the spell, else you need skill check.

- Dip: Drop it, that a bad mechanic anyway.
If you want extra damage, use a fire arrow. Thats what they are made for.

alternative: You need to use an oil flask on the weapon and then you can dip it into fire so it burns for one minute or you use an acid flask on the weapon to deal acid damage for one minute.
It would be OK if you need a resource to do it.
Just holding a weapon into fire does not deal extra fire damage. There is a reason why magic weapons with additional elemental damage exist.

- Backstab: You have only advantage when the enemy is not aware of you (stealth or invisible)
Characters (player and NPC) should always face the next hostile creature. Jumping does not give advantage because they see you and turn to you.
Otherwise you have only advantage in melee when there is another char and you flank the enemy.

Edit:
Since we talk about suggestions:
- Separate jump and disengage. Jumping away from enemies should cause AoO.
- Add ready and dodge action.
- Not sure what to think of hight advantage.

Last edited by Madscientist; 16/01/21 03:51 PM.

groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Breaking down doors (Strength, Active):
This idea i love!

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Shove (Strength, Passive):
This is ... interesting, not so fantastic as with doors, but still good one that should be implemented.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Using a Spell Scroll (Intelligence, Passive):
Here i would prefer to restrict them for those class that should be able to use them ...
But some risk of backfire for others seem like interesting idea that should be concidered imo.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Dip (Intelligence, Active):
This i concider as slightly bad idea ...
Not entirely bad, but since Dip is mostly useable for classes that are dumping Intelligence, it seem like it would backfire for everyone who can benefit for them. :-/
Also i personaly dont like the usual way people see Intelligence stat as equality of IQ ... wich is at least odd ... so logicaly i have problem to see my Knight that dump stat wich have no use for him to be stupid enough to "accidentaly" burn his whole hand, instead of Dip tip of his sword to fire. :-/

So ... concider Itelligence OR Dexterity OR Constitution whatever is higher ... so you are either smart enough to use it corectly, OR agile enough to avoid backfire, OR durable enough to simply ignore the pain ... maybe. laugh
As you sugest it? Nope, sory. :-/

Also i would like to note that soooo many people here is beging for Dip (since Larian will surely not remove that) require some resources ... like we all have countless Grease bottles in our backpack.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Backstab (Stealth, Passive):
This idea i dont like at all.
I agree that Backstab should be re-worked, but this dont seem like good way. frown

//edit:
Fun fact: I just noticed that you sorted them from best idea to worst one. laugh

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 16/01/21 11:02 PM.

If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Dipping is just a free cheat. I'd rather play a game that doesn't include such ridiculous mechanic but they won't remove it so something has to be done.

According to me a rare coating material that would cost action/bonus action to apply is necessary both for consistency and action economy.
We could add a check to see if the coating work or not, but without bad consequences if it doesn't work (you would already have spend and action or bonus action + a material)

I'm all for this as well. It would make sense that arrows or a blade would need to be coated beforehand.

Originally Posted by marajango
Good ideas. Personally I'm less of a fan of hard DC's. I like it when multiple stages of success and failure (other than nat 1's and 20's) are getting implemented in games. For example rolling a 9 on check to break down a door with a DC of 10 wouldn't be a complete failure, but it would take you multiple swings and maybe even exhaust your character. Or for pickpocketing someone the higher you role the more of that person's inventory can you access. (Ok, slightly off topic because a skill check, but just to give an example how differently you could handle DC rolls)

You've got a good point Marajango. It got me thinking about how to avoid the situation where all four party members fail the DC. For example, a failed check for the first party member could lower the DC for the next party member. They still hit the door, but only weaken it.

Originally Posted by ldo58
Destroying structures would then need different mechanisms in and out of combat. For instance, fo destroy a support beam during combat, in order to make a structure tumble down, it would be logical to hack away the beam's hit points turn by turn, while the battle is raging.

Personally I think these should have a DC as well. Ability checks help players embrace the world of dice rolls. So any good opportunity to have them, I would like to have in the game. I'm concerned HP for structures to be used in combat could slow down the battle as well, where a DC would allow for the structure to be destroyed in 1 turn as it is in the game.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Also i would like to note that soooo many people here is beging for Dip (since Larian will surely not remove that) require some resources ... like we all have countless Grease bottles in our backpack.

I agree that Backstab should be re-worked, but this dont seem like good way. frown

//edit:
Fun fact: I just noticed that you sorted them from best idea to worst one. laugh

Yeah, I almost didn't include dip and backstab since they're hot topics amongst a lot of players in early access. I wanted to make this thread to see if other players would be interested in more ability checks. Also, to hopefully brainstorm some quality opportunities to add ability checks into the game.

I'm one player and I would like to submit the feedback through the direct channel, but only once I know it's something that would improve the game. I'm glad to see posts are agreeing that more ability checks would help make the game better smile

Also, I've enjoyed reading everyone's feedback.

Joined: Jan 2021
F
Fl0 Offline
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Jan 2021
About breaking down doors.
Strength check is good for warriors.
But consider other parties.
4 mages? Currently they can use their cantrips to destroy a door.
4 thieves? It would take time, but still they can destroy a door with their knives.

Suggestion - leave the HP, but also implement strength check to break down a door with one hit, if a blunt weapon is equipped.

Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
The rogues can pick the lock, though. And mages can cast the Knock spell. But ultimately if you make parties like that, they will be unbalanced in some ways. Dealing with doors or chests by not dealing damage is not one of the issues they will have, really.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Fl0
About breaking down doors.
Strength check is good for warriors.
But consider other parties.
4 mages? Currently they can use their cantrips to destroy a door.
4 thieves? It would take time, but still they can destroy a door with their knives.

Suggestion - leave the HP, but also implement strength check to break down a door with one hit, if a blunt weapon is equipped.

Larian gave players a lot of options to get around doors in Divinity 2 and I'm already seeing that in BG3. Also, there is always the chance that a mage will pass the skill check too.

The reason I would like HP removed is that it would speed up gameplay in slow moments and give Larian opportunities to add humor into the game. Imagine having a half-orc barbarian complain that they were defeated by a door.

In tabletop the player can be rewarded with a funny outcome from a natural 1, I haven't really seen any of that in early access. It's a big part of the charm in DnD and it'd be great for BG3 to have some of that same charm.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Also, to hopefully brainstorm some quality opportunities to add ability checks into the game.
I like the attitude ...

In that case:
What do you think about Strength (for low dex. characters ... str clerics prehaps) check for breaking the lock, with danger (in case of critical fail for example) to stuck and mate it unlockable anyhow.


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Also, to hopefully brainstorm some quality opportunities to add ability checks into the game.
I like the attitude ...

In that case:
What do you think about Strength (for low dex. characters ... str clerics prehaps) check for breaking the lock, with danger (in case of critical fail for example) to stuck and mate it unlockable anyhow.

thieves' tools already exist and breaking down the door is already an alternative to that. So it'd be a different flavor of breaking down the door? I do think it would be interesting to see different outcomes for different classes.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I didnt talk about doors, but about locks ...
I mean crates, boxes, etc.


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Lockpicking, in general, I'd like the game to have an ability check animation and modifier bonus shown (as well as thieves' tools proficiency).

It's kind of dry to always have to go to the log in the lower right.

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Lockpicking, in general, I'd like the game to have an ability check animation and modifier bonus shown (as well as thieves' tools proficiency).

It's kind of dry to always have to go to the log in the lower right.

Even more general, with all ability checks, the game needs to do a better job of making it clear how good or bad you are at things. Let's see those modifiers everywhere.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by grysqrl
[quote=DragonSnooz]
Even more general, with all ability checks, the game needs to do a better job of making it clear how good or bad you are at things. Let's see those modifiers everywhere.

I will always support this!

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by grysqrl
[quote=DragonSnooz]
Even more general, with all ability checks, the game needs to do a better job of making it clear how good or bad you are at things. Let's see those modifiers everywhere.

I will always support this!
Same


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