Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Ability checks ... variants.

As title say ...
I would like to ask how would people (and prefferably mostly Larian, but they dont talk here so ...) feel about variant skill checks ...

The reason for that is simple.
Last time i played druid and i admit that i just dumped Intelligence to the ground (8), wich had really frustrating outcome ... my "druid", enbodyment of Nature itself ... was unable to pass litteraly any Nature skill check in whole EA.
Simmilar outcome you could get with Cleric ... that will seem to have litteraly no idea about anything related to religion.
Or there is that old debate about Barbarian that is intimidating someone with Charisma 8 ... should he be able to use Strength instead? I mean sure in tabletop he can ... but how about ingame?
Another Ability to debate would be investigation as a whole ... i mean, its litteraly just looking around and seeing what is a miss ... wich is also description of Wisdom.

I mean, i know that there is "just dont dump intelligence" posibility ... or, even worse "just wear the Warped Headband of Intellect" posibility ...
But on the other hand, i would like to have option to play effective character ... and yet pass the checks, in situations where it would make sence.

And therefore i would like to ask you people ...
Would you like to have option to choose your stat, that will be used for diceroll in certain situations?

What gets me to this idea:
Source: https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/ability_checks/

//Edit:

Would you like to have option to choose your ability used for skill check? single choice
	Yup!
	Nope.
	Dunno / dont care / just wanna see the results
Votes accepted starting: 04/09/21 08:48 AM
View Results

There was feats for this in 3.5 to adjust features to favor attributes you use. I'd vote for something like that but just giving you a option to change skill attributes to whatever, no.

I would never say "change to whatever" ...
To have option to roll persuation with dexterity is worse than bullshit.
(maybe unless you are trying to persuate someone that you are agile enough for something just kidding)

That is why i listed few examples there and kinda hoped that people will either stick to them, or add their own.

I mean, maybe i understand it wrong bud based on what i have read (https://roleplayersrespite.com/dnd-5e-ability-scores) ...
It seems to me that Intelligence is more like regular study ... you lock yourself somewhere with a book, and if you have high Intelligence, you are practicaly able to memorize it whole.
Wisdom on the other hand seem to be more like common sence, or connecting contextual dots ...

Let me give few more examples:
1) Nettie reach for that root, or twig, or w/e that thing is.
On sucessfull Intelligence roll: "You recognize that plant, its *XY*, highly poisonous ..."
On sucessfull Wisdom roll: "You dont know what plant it is, but you dont know any plants with such thorns that are not dangerous ..."

2) When you read Loviathar priest inside goblin camp:
On sucessfull Intelligence roll: "You know this kind of worshiping, this man is priest of Loviathar ... maiden of pain."
On sucessfull Wisdom roll: "You realize that this man mumbles some mantra, while he was whiping himself ... is this some kind of worhiping?"

3) When you find that book of Gods.
On sucessfull Intelligence roll: "You remember those names, this is list of Gods!"
On sucessfull Wisdom roll: "You dont know those names, but something within you responce to them ... as if there was something divine on them."

etc. etc.

Also i would not have any problem if this alternative rolls would be accesible only for related classes ...
I mean, Cleric should have enough life experience to at least "have better chance" to recognize something divine, when he looks at it ... even if his Intelligence (and therefore Religion) checks are low.
Druid should have enough life experience with nature to at least "have better chance" to recognize some plant, or at least guess its purpose ... even if his Intelligence (and therefore Nature) check are low.
Barbarian should seem enough frightening, so his very presence should be intimidating enough ... even if his Charisma (and therefore Intimidation) check are low.
Its all about context.

And quite honestly, i would not even mind if i had to pass a little more dificiult check, or if passing that alternative check would not give me all the information i would get with the first one.

All i want is a character that is in contextualy logical situations able to pass both battle, and conversation checks without sacrificing effectivity in either. :-/
Right now for my Druid i have to decide if i want to be good in Dialogue checks (Int) ... or battle (Wis) ... and that just dont feels right to me. :-/

Dumb Clerics who don't know anything about other religions but their own is absolutely a thing.

Same with a charismatic Barbarian being better at intimidation than another equally strong one devoid of any kind of presence.

And the smart scholarly druid having better knowledge of nature than an equally powerful but less intelligent Druid.

The stats are there to differentiate members of the same class within their group.

Edit: that's also why rolling for stats can be better. With point buy all barbarians will dump cha and int but with a roll you can get that charismatic Barbarian who can be a leader.

Sure they are! And sure they should be!

And IF there would be option to choose wich stat you wish to roll, you would be able to play both Dumb Cleric who don't know abnything about other religions but their own (aka Zealots) ... but also kinda reasonable Cleric that can see that this is "something holy" at least.

As i said previously, i would not even mind if "alternative" stat roll would be slightly (logicaly not so much so it would negate usage of that alternativity) harder ...

And ... agree, rolling for stats is something i hope for as soon as possible.

I would just prefer more ways to use the stats I have in dialogue. So if I have low intelligence, It would be hard to comment intelligently or knowledgeably about, say, a conversation about history. Gale and Lazeal might be able to, but it would be a hard role for me because I specked a character that is not well read or particularly knowledgeable. However, I should be able to use wisdom or charisma to glean another aspect from a convo. High charisma, I could catch the tone and attempt to commiserate with the speaker, like Wyl would. High wisdom, and I could comment about the potential lesson one could gain about the fact just heard, or speculate on how the new info relates to grander goals. Same with all the other stats.

Idk…I just wish overall for more ways to use the stats I have to bypass my deficiencies. Provide more ways to hammer the same nail, in convos particularly.

So I like the idea!

As long as it actually alters the kind of information you get, and the description of how you arrive at it, I'd generally support the use of variant ability checks. They can add interesting and subtle complexity to the game and, if done well, don't need to be misleading or confusing in doing so.

The second post by Ragnarok actually illustrates the concept quite well, and I'd recommend that you consider adding that description and example set into the initial suggestion up top, as it does help illustrate what you're saying.

==

Nature, generally speaking IS an Intelligence check, because usually, what it is being used for, is "What do you know, or what can you recall, or what do your recognise specifically about this thing." That is the purest, truest essence of an Intelligence check.

Similarly, Intimidation absolutely is a Charisma-based skill, because it is about presentation, carriage, presence and force of will... and none of those things have anything to do with the size of your muscles. There are a great many quiet, gentle, softly-spoken and unassuming individuals, who also happen to be a strong and as physically impressive as a mountain... and there are small, cold-eyed, broad-smiling masterminds who can make half a room wet themselves with a couple of well delivered words...

But, the examples given above are exactly the Right kind of way to handle variant skill checks, and if we had more options like that, that put in the extra work of altering the kind of information you get and the flavour of how you get to it, that would be wonderful.

==

As for class bonuses and such I'll say this:


The main hurdle here, I think, is that we'd be relying on the developers to create a system within their checks and dialogue that can do all this in a way that's satisfying, and present the relevant checks to individual characters – and do so without bogging down the game in a mountain of process-slowing roll. If they wanted to provide every interesting variant ability check that make sense at every interaction point where such checks exist, then in the current system, that would mean that it would need to make a behind-the-scenes (what they call passive checks, which I'm still annoyed about) roll for you, for Every Single Ability and Variant Ability check present, to determine whether they should present it to you in the following conversation cue... and that's a lot of inefficient processing, so they'd likely want to come up with a better way of doing it, at a raw real-world mechanical level.

The alternative would be to present dialogue options that aren't the and result of what you say (counter to the way it's set up at the moment), so your choices may actually be, first:

1) [Nature(Intelligence)]: Check the plant to see if you recognise it before you answer her.
2) [Nature(Wisdom)]: Observe the plant and see what it tells you about itself before you answer her.
3) “Okay, do your plant thing, I'm ready!”
4) “I don't trust your plant thing, hands off!”
5) [Draw your weapon and attack] (Because this is a Larian game...)

The key thing here being that you only get one of the checks, and because you come at them differently, you may get different types of information on successful checks, depending on which you choose.

This sounds acceptable to me ...
Either that, or i had in mind another possibility that Variant check will be rolled after first check failed. Since we allready know that Larian have no problem with puting 3 or more dicerolls in the row against us ... therefore it would be nice to see two dicerolls in the row in our favor sometimes.

Like:
1) [Nature(Intelligence)]: Check the plant to see if you recognise it before you answer her. >>failed roll>> [Nature(Wisdom)]: Observe the plant and see what it tells you about itself before you answer her.
2) “Okay, do your plant thing, I'm ready!”
3) “I don't trust your plant thing, hands off!”
4) [Draw your weapon and attack] (Because this is a Larian game...)

Also a little offtopic ...
Is it just me or do you see "4) [Draw your weapon and attack]" as something bad? O_o
Bcs honestly i love it ... and i would like to see that option in every conversation (especialy with Astarion).

Hooray for the “murder knife”! I think it should be an option in every conversation, personally.

*I COMAND YOU TO RISE FROM THE DEAD MY OLD TOPIC*
ehm

I just thought about it recently ...
And maybe i find alternative way.

How about allowing certain classes to use their alternative ability modifier as yet another bonus to roll?

Like:
Roll Nature + Proficiency + (Int -1mod) + Bless (1d4) + (Druid/Ranger Wisdom +4mod)
OR
Roll Intimidation + Proficiency + (Cha -1mod) + Bless (1d4) + (Barbarian Strength +4mod)

That way we would be able to play our characters properly ... still potentialy able to make rolls that make sence for certain classes a little easier than others with no relation to that subject, yet not so easy as dedicated characters, since we still have there that -1 from our dumped stat.

I like the idea in theory and the examples you give are compelling.

However, I don't see it being much of a decision in practice. If given the option, I would always choose to use the ability that gives me the best chance of a succesful outcome. Part of the fun of BG3 is rolling with the punches; lowering the opportunities to fail would diminish that aspect of the game.

Also, I like that characters stink at some things. It helps differentiate them, and it makes a character with more evenly distributed attributes a viable build. The variant ability check rewards min-maxing in a way that's detrimental to roleplay. If you don't want your druid to be a dummy, don't make him a dummy.

That is what i see as he best part ...
Characters still can stink at somehing. :P If you simply pick any other option.

You can just easier avoid such odd situation as:
When Nettie pick out the thorny flower and your Druid have zero idea what it is, and also completely ignores the fact that flower that have thorns longer than your finger could be potentialy dangerous.
When your Half-Orc Barbarian is not "charismatic" enough to scare a Gnome, even tho his fist is probably bigger than the Gnome head.
OR (my favourite) when your Cleric of Jergal have no idea that the statue he just see is Jergal. (Just example)

But yes, i do minmax and im not ashamed of it ...
Since i replay this (and most others) games often enough to see it whole ... also i really dislike this modern "good in everything" kind of heroes. :-/
Once we get dicerolls of ability scores, situation will be a little different, but still it would be fine in my honest opinion to get option to avoid such ridiculous situations.

+1

I guess it's a philosophical distinction, but I think "good at everything" is the same as "good in every situation". There's no shame in minmaxing, but there is poor design in allowing players to face no consequences for their decisions.

Oh but there are consequences ...
Its just not "as hard consequences" as when you need to decide between investing points to relatively useless (and honestly sometimes not even logical ... i mean being "charismatic" is certainly not something i would use to describe my Half Orc Barbarian ... and yet he is intimidating ) stat ... or having character that fails in most or even every situation using the dump-stat no matter how close the topic is for him. :-/
Just imagine if we get to situation, where Druid would be using Nature check to identify animal (wolf for example) that is standing right before him ... and he fail, since his Intelligence sucks ... while being able to change his form to that animal.
Isnt that just absurd?

Its the same as when you have Warped Headband of Intellect ... even there it is probably a bug ... since right now (or at least last time i tryed) it counts both your -1 from dumped Intelligence, and THEN your +3 from headband is added.
Meaning instead of +3 it only gives you +2 in total.

Of course you could technicaly overcome this by seting your Intelligence to 10 and then you would have variant ability (+3 Wis if we stick to the druid example) as powerfull as any "basic ability" (Int in this case) user.
But that can be only achieved by sacrificing those two points somewhere else, so i would not see that as so huge problem.

Also notice that i also suggested that person who is using the variant ability should have slightly different outcome ...
Again if we stick to the Nettie example:
[Int - Naure] > This plant is *xy* blah blah blah you know the usual stuff.
[Wis - Nature] > You dont recognize the plant, but it seems simmilar to some poisonous flowers you encountered in the past ... maybe you should be carefull with that.

Intimidation is a matter of perspective. Maybe the gnome facing the half-orc is nimble enough to dodge any attack. Maybe he's a mage who can cast Hold Person or Misty Step. Your orc showing off their muscles would just make the gnome laugh. An intimidating barbarian can project confidence, i.e : I'm not telling you how, but trust me when I say I can hurt you. It's a distinct skill from strength. If you're using strength to intimidate me, you've just attacked me.

If you need help building an intimidating barbarian, might I suggest the Thaumaturgy cantrip? One of the Tiefling subclasses has it, and it proved invaluable in my fighter run, even with a 10 in charisma.

Yes, it's quite absurd. No DM would ever make the druid roll to identify the wolf. Firstly, I think 5e requires a druid to have seen a creature in order to change into it. Secondly, not every last action needs a roll. You don't roll Dex every time you try to drink a glass of water.

If you need help with nature lore for your Druid, you could take Nature proficiency. Also, Enhance Ability can give advantage in intelligence checks.

Whoops, looks I failed my perception check

The outcomes proposed here are not different at all. The danger of the situation is that Nettie is trying to poison Tav. If both outcomes amount to telling Tav they will be poisoned, the only difference between the options is that one is more difficult than the other.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. There are plenty of places in the game where one outcome can be achieved with different ability checks. I'm glad it's not everywhere, though, for reasons I hope I've made clear.

This sounds to me like argument for variants skill check, rather then against them ...

I mean if something is matter of perspective, it should be potentialy achievable by different ways, rather than only following single exact path. :P

This is fair point ...
But they both can aply even if that Half-Orc is beside of being big, bulky and obviously strong ... also skilled with his words.

I mean our ability score does not affect what other NPC can or cannot do, or what they do believe (that they will be able to dodge) ...
And if we would like to dismantle this situation to stats ... the tiny Gnome is more likely to dodge attact from Half-Orc Barbarian who invested some of his points into Charisma, than the same Half-Orc Barbarian who put them all in Strength to incerase his hit chance.
(Just a joke)

Here is where that matter of perspective comes to play ...

I could aswell claim that Gnome can call YOUR barbarian a bluff and dare him to do his worse, bcs his strength score is not high enough to fulfill his threat.

And that is exactly why i believe we should have alternative options.
You see this, i see that and none of us is exactly wrong.

You probably realize that this responce can be aswell used even for your example.

Its more like the sentence NPC would use for failed roll ...
It does not matter in the end if your Barbarian is intimidating by reciting some classic Mafian quote ... or by bending a steel tube in front of your eyes ... or simply stare you down and frown let their very presence done all the work for them ... the threat is there in all 3 cases and it either works, or not.

Nah, my Barbarian WILL be Half Orc ... anything else simply dont feels right enough, once this option is (read as: will be) there.

One can also argue that no DM would ever make the druid roll to identify a plant with huge thorns to be dangerous ... but here we are.

Yes ... that is exact wording, "seen" ... not "known".
I can watch wolves for years and have no idea they are called wolves.

And that is exactly the difference between Intellect (learned knowledge) and Wisdom (experienced knowledge) rolls.

DO you know this image?

That is why we dont talk here about things that game dont require rolls for us, there is different topic for that (yep, also mine )
We are talking here about rolls we do.

I can also not play a Druid if i want to have good Nature checks ...
I dont see any relation to point of this topic.

I mean its even part of rules:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/b...ores#VariantSkillswithDifferentAbilities

In first case its certain ... in second case its possibility ... if any (or both) fails all they know is that is a plant.
There also could potentialy be [Wisdom - Medicine] check, bcs as you possibly know, many poisonous substances are used in medicine as a remedy (in smaller doses) ...
So the other option could easily be: "You know many posionous healing herbs, but none of them looks like this ... you are not sure if this even is healing herb."

And, lets be honest with each other for a second ... just looking at that plant me as a player i was DEFINIETLY sure that i dont want to offer my hand to her.

I also dont want it everywhere ...
I would quite honestly not even concider it a bad thing that if some of them would be just traps ... or actualy even harder than the original one (as i said earlier) ...
Make Itelligence + Nature check to indetify Nettie herb Difficiulty 10 and Wisdom + Nature check for the same Difficiulty 15 ... and i have no problem with that even tho it completely negates the whole point of using Wisdom.
I just want the option to be present in certain scenarios, since it simply feels right.

This is my hundredth post in this forum, and I feel that most of them were in reply to you, Rag. Always a pleasure, of course

Agreed.

Fair enough.

I did not. I'm glad I do now. Thanks!

If I may quote your first post:

Honestly, the first time I played that scene, I figured the plant was a delivery method, just a pointy stick dipped in some active ingredient. I don't automatically assume syringes are full of poison.

Sure you may ...
But you should also add some context, otherwise i dont know what are you trying to say.

Certainly interesting point of view ...

You could just not dump Int or Cha.