Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Aren’t we as a players supposed not to know an armor class (as well as save throws) of any specific creature without making a successful check?
I also acknowledge how not knowing the probability to hit anything can upset some of the fanbase. And as such again kindly asking you Larian to deliver a raw D&D option for those of us who value this system’s depth above all.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Even though I am a pnp D&D player, I would never use this option in the game. When you play with a tactical combat system, you want to know what the odds of success are before making a decision. Guess work is fun around a table but detrimental to winning a battle in a video game in my opinion, especially in harder difficulties.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by VenusP
And as such again kindly asking you Larian to deliver a raw D&D option for those of us who value this system’s depth above all.
Are valuing system’s depth, if you ask to not have information on which to make information? Or is “a valuing system dearth” mean - I have AC of every monster in the playbook memorised? We also should get details log info as well right? Just miss, not miss.

I don’t know, I can see how DM could use descriptions to suggest what we are doing wrong, which defences we should attack, or what protective spells the enemy has. In computer setting, I find it less fussy if the game just shows that.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
We have a great portfolio of PnP PC adaptations which stick to this rule and there’s a reason for that. This is why passive skill checks are so important to get an information about environment and creatures. This is how D&D is supposed to be played. I want that option in the game.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Thank you, OP, for saying it.

I remember a session where we were fighting enemies with high AC. I worked out for myself that, with a +8 to hit, my chance of hitting it was 60%. I didn't know their ability scores, as I new to the game and had never seen these creatures before (ropers), but I noticed that they were big and slow. I figured they had low dex scores, so I went with spells that forced dex saving throws instead. Turns out, I was right, and I felt good. Praise god.

No one will ever have that experience in BG3. I just cycle through spells, aiming each one at the enemy I want to hit, and pick the one most likely to land. There's no surprise, no learning about my enemy in the thick of battle. It's spoiled. It's stupid. It's wrong. Woe to us, the consumer.

Last edited by footface; 02/05/21 08:49 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Not a problem to me, it's a convenient solution.

I'm also fine with the system used in Solasta that looks closer to RAW.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 02/05/21 09:05 AM.
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by footface
I just cycle through spells, aiming each one at the enemy I want to hit, and pick the one most likely to land.
Yes it’s a huge simplification of everything. You don’t have to think about what kind of creature you are dealing with when digits can tell you everything. Does it have a magical weapon, what is its nature, does it have night vision, what weaknesses could it possibly posses? It’s not a convenience at all. Not to say it’s immersion breaking.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Apr 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Not a problem to me, it's a convenient solution.

Seconding this.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm also fine with the system used in Solasta that looks closer to RAW.

And also this. BG3 is shaping up to be a more cinematic game where sillier stuff happens than what is expected or usual with RAW. And for RAW-purism you can still look forward to Solasta or the eventual RAW-BG3 mod that gets rid of surfaces, jumping and barrels.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Mods suffer from balance issues. And it’s not about purism for the sake of it. It’s about how this game could be much more interesting. Implementing dnd mode won’t hurt barrels lovers much.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
I don't mind the % as much as the ability to "examine" anyone's stats revealing everything including AC, saves, resistances and vulnerabilities.

You should be able to learn that information through skill checks, or gradually by experience in fighting them. Once you would know their AC, I don't mind seeing a percentage to hit since you could calculate it anyway and the game just makes it more accessible.

Last edited by 1varangian; 03/05/21 03:01 PM.
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Once you would know their AC, I don't mind seeing a percentage to hit since you could calculate it anyway and the game just makes it more accessible.
Well yes, the way this information is represented in game isn’t actually the problem.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Gaming <<<convenience>>> is now king. Only way for market share to grow.

Joined: Apr 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2021
I like % shows but I also agree with not knowing the enemy but already knowing their AC and Hit % is OP a bit.

To be honest I am conflicted, i am playing pathfinder kingmaker as a newbie. No % and getting to know the enemy is cool but when I know the enemy it takes a lot of work to check the stats which I dont want to do constantly.

I think % should be shown but if you do not know enemy AC yet it should show "???" .

I also absolutely disagree with people that % just showing is the worst thing ever. Actual QoL changes like % is a great thing, some people might not like it and I am absolutely fine with that but removing it completely is just silly imo. Computer does the math for you and I am all for that.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I cant imagine how else its suppose to work ...

You have 3 enemies ... two in Leather Armor, one of them with shield ... one in Chainmail armor with shield ...
You attack an enemy ...
You have no idea if the strike will land or not, since you dont have any estimated %, or info about their AC ...
You missed.

And now what?

How would you know if you missed, just bcs you rolled 2, or bcs their AC is 25 ? O_o
Based on what would you decide if you want to try your luck with another enemy, or try the same one again?

First one in Leather have AC 19, bcs he have high Dexterity (too lazy to count it right now)
Second one in Leather have AC 21, bcs he have high Dexterity and shield (still too lazy to count it right now)
Chainmail dude have AC 18, since he have +0 from dexterity he dumped (but you dont know that, since you dont see their stats, or AC)

Yes ... those stats were decided specificly so the "most armored" dude is easiest target. smile

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 04/05/21 03:30 PM.

I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I cant imagine how else its suppose to work ...

You have 3 enemies ... two in Leather Armor, one of them with shield ... one in Chainmail armor with shield ...
You attack an enemy ...
You have no idea if the strike will land or not, since you dont have any estimated %, or info about their AC ...
You missed.

And now what?

How would you know if you missed, just bcs you rolled 2, or bcs their AC is 25 ? O_o
Based on what would you decide if you want to try your luck with another enemy, or try the same one again?

First one in Leather have AC 19, bcs he have high Dexterity (too lazy to count it right now)
Second one in Leather have AC 21, bcs he have high Dexterity and shield (still too lazy to count it right now)
Chainmail dude have AC 18, since he have +0 from dexterity he dumped (but you dont know that, since you dont see their stats, or AC)

Yes ... those stats were decided specificly so the "most armored" dude is easiest target. smile

The way it usually works, in my experience, is trial and error. You can see your rolls and know which ones hit and which ones didn't. So you try a few different things, prodding your enemy's defenses, to figure out "how difficult is this guy to hit?" and then adjust your strategy based on what you learn. If you make a bunch of attacks that feel good (high rolls) and you're still missing, you adjust your strategy.

There's no reason, upon seeing someone that you've never encountered before, that you would immediately know the best way to fight them. I could see spending some time to study an enemy before a fight to roll a perception or insight check to get some clues.

Actual numbers for your example:
Leather armor is AC 11 + DEX mod. If leather armor gives you an AC of 19, your DEX would have to be at least 26. Anything over 20 DEX is very difficult to attain.
Same goes with the Leather+Shield guy.
Chain Mail is AC 16, where leather armor typically maxes out.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Giving use to the Insight and Nature skills might be useful, like have a stat that can be used to examine an enemy and thus get said information.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by grysqrl
[I could see spending some time to study an enemy before a fight to roll a perception or insight check to get some clues.
This is actually a very good idea. More use for skills.
Different creatures may require different skill checks. That’s kind of depth I’d like to see in the current year dnd.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by grysqrl
The way it usually works, in my experience, is trial and error. You can see your rolls and know which ones hit and which ones didn't. So you try a few different things, prodding your enemy's defenses, to figure out "how difficult is this guy to hit?" and then adjust your strategy based on what you learn. If you make a bunch of attacks that feel good (high rolls) and you're still missing, you adjust your strategy.
That's is very un-fun. And then spend way too much time replaying encounter again and again, casting various debuffs and dispells hoping that you will figure out what you are supposed to do.

I can only see it work, if game had ways of communicated why and by how much you missed without showing actual numbers (as I would imagine a good DM would do when describing the action).

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by grysqrl
The way it usually works, in my experience, is trial and error. You can see your rolls and know which ones hit and which ones didn't.... -snip-
That's is very un-fun. And then spend way too much time replaying encounter again and again, casting various debuffs and dispells hoping that you will figure out what you are supposed to do.

I can only see it work, if game had ways of communicated why and by how much you missed without showing actual numbers (as I would imagine a good DM would do when describing the action).
Another vote for turning misses into what they actually are:
-miss if you roll < 10
-blocked if you roll between 10 and the enemy's Armor bonus
-dodged if you roll between ^ and the enemy's Armor+Dex
-shielded if rolled between ^ and the enemy's shield bonus
This way, you can visually tell why most of your attacks are missing. Does the enemy have high armor or high dex?

The above combined with a bestiary that updates via arcana/nature checks upon encountering and defeating enemies would be perfect.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I think percentages to hit are fine. As already said, players figure out AC's of creatures quite quickly anyway.

It also has the added benefit of letting people unfamiliar with DnD know how likely they are to hit.

Having to look at enemy animations to figure out what AC they have sounds cool in theory but will become tedious. At least for me.

Not to mention having to know how each animation looks like on different creature and the need to create those animations in the first place.

Plus, whenever I run DnD I tend to "highlight" AC by describing the enemy a bit more, particularly if it is not humanoid. That is absent from the video game, since all you are relying on is the player looking at a model and making the conclusion themselves.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

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