Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by JandK
Tommy is a master swordsman. He rolls a one and misses the enemy. "Oh, well, you can't hit them all," he thinks.

Then he rolls another one and misses again. This time he gets mad.

So we make a rule that he no longer has to roll to hit because it's beneath him.

But now you're talking about attack rolls not ability checks. Sure, on pure principles they are the same I guess but my understanding of OP's request is to remove the critical 1/20 in ability checks, not attack rolls.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
On the other hand its true that rolls arent allways exactly needed ...
Even if we left out Skillchecks ... and presume that Larian will keep 20 and 1 to be autosucess/failure no matter what ...

Take Illithid powers ... why do we even roll for them, its difficiulty is -1 ... what kind of character we would have to even create and how unlucky we would need to be to fail? laugh
Wouldnt it be much better without need to watch tht completely irellevant dice? :-/

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 22/06/22 01:32 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: May 2022
E
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
E
Joined: May 2022
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
On the other hand its true that rolls arent allways exactly needed ...
Even if we left out Skillchecks ... and presume that Larian will keep 20 and 1 to be autosucess/failure no matter what ...

Take Illithid powers ... why do we even roll for them, its difficiulty is -1 ... what kind of character we would have to even create and how unlucky we would need to be to fail? laugh
Wouldnt it be much better without need to watch tht completely irellevant dice? :-/

Well we roll for them because we can fail them on nat 1. If Nat 1 wasn't a thing, then I agree, there's no need for rolling for it.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by JandK
Tommy is a master swordsman. He rolls a one and misses the enemy. "Oh, well, you can't hit them all," he thinks.

Then he rolls another one and misses again. This time he gets mad.

So we make a rule that he no longer has to roll to hit because it's beneath him.

But now you're talking about attack rolls not ability checks. Sure, on pure principles they are the same I guess but my understanding of OP's request is to remove the critical 1/20 in ability checks, not attack rolls.

The last time this came up, I suggested that there should always be a "fail state". Nobody's perfect, after all. I was met with "but a level 15 rogue", in a game that is currently capped at level 4. Regardless, there should always be a chance to fail, because nobody's perfect. I've walked to my kitchen a thousand times, if I've done it once, to get coffee, or food. Yet, I can still trip over my own feet getting there randomly. It should be beneath me, since I've lived in this apartment for almost 17 years now, and yet, it can still happen. I have fallen up, and down, stairs, despite having walked stairs for 59 years. It can happen, and that should be represented.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
On the other hand its true that rolls arent allways exactly needed ...
Even if we left out Skillchecks ... and presume that Larian will keep 20 and 1 to be autosucess/failure no matter what ...

Take Illithid powers ... why do we even roll for them, its difficiulty is -1 ... what kind of character we would have to even create and how unlucky we would need to be to fail? laugh
Wouldnt it be much better without need to watch tht completely irellevant dice? :-/

I agree with you Rag(whoah, that must be a first :P)

Especially with the Illithid powers, iirc they used to be 1 instead of -1, the lowest possible number on the dice meaning Larian don't want us to fail on them. But since a 1 in BG3 dialogue is a critical fail I guess they changed it to the current -1. I don't know if the dice roll in those dialogue options is just placeholder for now which is strange since class dialogue do not have them. Why not just code them like class dialogue instead?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Elebhra
Well we roll for them because we can fail them on nat 1. If Nat 1 wasn't a thing, then I agree, there's no need for rolling for it.
Exactly ...
And that is the scenario GM4Him was advocating ... if nat 1 would not mean autofail ... wich by RAW rules should not (as far as i understand it) there would be no reason for rolling theese low dif dices, since you will sucess no matter what anyway.

//Edit:
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
I agree with you Rag(whoah, that must be a first :P)
Nah, second at best ... i have seen this sentence before. laugh

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 22/06/22 02:07 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: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by robertthebard
because nobody's perfect.

You might not be but my sorceress is the definition of perfection. Except that she has a nasty habit of rolling herself in mud every 50 meters apparently...thanks for that one Larian :P

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
In my example, I was not talking about taking 10. I was referring to a very skilled champion soldier who has killed many big enemies... he has +10 skill and trips on the stairs twice during a very epic battle simply because he got unlucky and rolled a 1 two times. Yes. I absolutely advocate changing such rules when they make players feel like their super tough champion warriors are morons who trip on their own shoelaces and can't even ascend a staircase during a very important battle.

On the flip side, imagine being in combat and you can't ever miss an enemy no matter what you roll. How boring would that combat be? 0 chance of missing.

Or, better yet, take it to the other end. 0 chance of hitting. The enemy has 27 AC because of buffs and such, and you can't hit them because you can't even roll a 20 and hit with your bonuses. GG. Thanks for playing. You're dead, no matter what.

The point of the Nat 20/Nat 1 for combat is so that you never get stuck in a critical combat situation that you can't win or that you can't lose. The point of not having this for skill checks and other rolls is so that you CAN have situations that are impossible for characters. That's my point.

Imagine fighting a boss enemy and all your allies are incapacitated. The boss only has 5 HP remaining, but she's buffed herself so her AC is 24. Your To Hit is +3. 0% chance of winning. It's all down to you, but you can't kill her because your To Hit is only +3.

And again, imagine someone with 0 skill at picking locks. In fact, they have a -1 because their ability score is 8. Rolls a Nat 20 and succeeds in picking a lock that has a DC of 25. Meanwhile, the expert lockpicker in your party with +2 Proficiency and +2 for Expertise and +3 for ability score bonus - so a +7 in total - fails to pick a lock with DC 5 because they rolled a 1. The lock is a baby lock you can twist with a screwdriver, but - well, you know, you rolled a 1, so you stand there like a moron staring at the screwdriver lock while scratching your head. Meanwhile, your buddy with the -1 rolls a 6 and succeeds. "Um. Having an off day, Expert? Did you have a brain fart? Can't pick a screwdriver lock you could actually use your fingernail to also twist?"

Joined: May 2022
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: May 2022
I think following the P&P papers is best, so natural 20/1 being auto miss/hit in combat is fine, while it shouldn't be used for skill checks - at least not, for skill checks that are not performed under acute pressure.

Generally, I wouldn't agree that a hit chance of 0% or 100% is a bad thing in general - XCOM has 100% hit chances and combat is fine - better than almost any RPG with turn-based combat in my opinion.

Of course, you can construe a scenario where a hit chance of 0% puts you in an impossible situation, but is that really different than being an almost dead melee fighter who isn't close enough to attack the wizard who is going to cast magic missile next? Or when you start the round with a damage-over-time effect (like a burn), are almost dead and can't possibly do enough damage in one turn to end the fight? Impossible situations already exist in combat. The same scenario you describe has slight variations which are actually interesting: imagine you only win the fight because you counterspelled the boss boss. Or you manage to survive for 2 rounds and dispel the buff in the first round only to kill the boss in the 2nd. Or buff yourself, or use an ability that increases your chance to hit for one attack.

But again, this is a D&D game, the rules are fine, they should use them here.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by robertthebard
because nobody's perfect.

You might not be but my sorceress is the definition of perfection. Except that she has a nasty habit of rolling herself in mud every 50 meters apparently...thanks for that one Larian :P

Maybe she's tripping over her own feet??? crazy

Last edited by robertthebard; 22/06/22 02:55 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by robertthebard
because nobody's perfect.

You might not be but my sorceress is the definition of perfection. Except that she has a nasty habit of rolling herself in mud every 50 meters apparently...thanks for that one Larian :P
laugh up

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
As I view it, Natural 1s miss on attacks because you're trying to attack something that is actively avoiding trying to be hit, yet has a static AC. Whereas skill checks are against static things that can't fight back (lock, recalling lore, tightrope) or are contested checks. For the later, the "contested" part allows for the enemy to roll high and succeed at, e.g., dodging a grapple against an expert grappler. Similarly, a Nat 1 on an attack roll represents the (possibly unlikely) chance your opponent successfully dodges/blocks your blow.

For the same reason, I think Nat 1s and 20s should be autofails/successes for Saving Throws. You're rolling against a static DC, but you're actively trying to avoid an effect created by someone else, so it's actually a contest.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
As I view it, Natural 1s miss on attacks because you're trying to attack something that is actively avoiding trying to be hit, yet has a static AC. Whereas skill checks are against static things that can't fight back (lock, recalling lore, tightrope) or are contested checks. For the later, the "contested" part allows for the enemy to roll high and succeed at, e.g., dodging a grapple against an expert grappler. Similarly, a Nat 1 on an attack roll represents the (possibly unlikely) chance your opponent successfully dodges/blocks your blow.

For the same reason, I think Nat 1s and 20s should be autofails/successes for Saving Throws. You're rolling against a static DC, but you're actively trying to avoid an effect created by someone else, so it's actually a contest.

So, I was riding my '77 Gold Wing down the highway, and got passed by a semi going the other way, and was nearly blown off the road. I wonder, what would happen if I was walking a tightrope, and a gust of wind came up? Is it your position that a character can be so good at balance that a sudden cross wind couldn't dislodge them from a rope? I've seen people get blown off walls, walking a 3 1/2 in. wide "tightrope". I wonder how they would have faired on a 3/8 in. rope?

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
So, I was riding my '77 Gold Wing down the highway, and got passed by a semi going the other way, and was nearly blown off the road. I wonder, what would happen if I was walking a tightrope, and a gust of wind came up? Is it your position that a character can be so good at balance that a sudden cross wind couldn't dislodge them from a rope? I've seen people get blown off walls, walking a 3 1/2 in. wide "tightrope". I wonder how they would have faired on a 3/8 in. rope?
If they fell off, then 1d20+their acrobatics bonus must have been less than the DC of staying on, considering the wind and the rope width and any other factors.

If they had an acrobatics bonus of +15 (+5 Dex, expertise with a PB of +5 for an additional+10), then it would be impossible for them to have fallen off any rope with a DC of less than 16 because they are simply too skilled to fail at such a (for them) simple task. A "1" on the d20 might mean they wobble a lot, but they'd stay on.

You also can't directly translate D&D to real-world. High level D&D characters are god-like heroes. I doubt you've met anyone IRL with an acrobatics bonus of +15.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by robertthebard
So, I was riding my '77 Gold Wing down the highway, and got passed by a semi going the other way, and was nearly blown off the road. I wonder, what would happen if I was walking a tightrope, and a gust of wind came up? Is it your position that a character can be so good at balance that a sudden cross wind couldn't dislodge them from a rope? I've seen people get blown off walls, walking a 3 1/2 in. wide "tightrope". I wonder how they would have faired on a 3/8 in. rope?
If they fell off, then 1d20+their acrobatics bonus must have been less than the DC of staying on, considering the wind and the rope width and any other factors.

If they had an acrobatics bonus of +15 (+5 Dex, expertise with a PB of +5 for an additional+10), then it would be impossible for them to have fallen off any rope with a DC of less than 16 because they are simply too skilled to fail at such a (for them) simple task. A "1" on the d20 might mean they wobble a lot, but they'd stay on.

You also can't directly translate D&D to real-world. High level D&D characters are god-like heroes. I doubt you've met anyone IRL with an acrobatics bonus of +15.

This is exactly why there should always be a "fail state". So they're "godlike heroes" that can resist a 20 mph crosswind while standing on a 3/8 in diameter rope? My suspension of disbelief only goes so far. Even in DnD based novels, they didn't have this godlike ability, including one in the Dragonlance series that actually was a God.

I don't know if my acrobatics bonus was +15 or not, but I survived being blown out of the back of a pickup at 45 miles per hour, with only some road rash to show for it, thanks to my martial arts training. It's amazing the things people can do in real life, when they've trained for it. But I don't see them walking that tightrope in a 20 mph crosswind.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
This is exactly why there should always be a "fail state". So they're "godlike heroes" that can resist a 20 mph crosswind while standing on a 3/8 in diameter rope? My suspension of disbelief only goes so far. Even in DnD based novels, they didn't have this godlike ability, including one in the Dragonlance series that actually was a God.

I don't know if my acrobatics bonus was +15 or not, but I survived being blown out of the back of a pickup at 45 miles per hour, with only some road rash to show for it, thanks to my martial arts training. It's amazing the things people can do in real life, when they've trained for it. But I don't see them walking that tightrope in a 20 mph crosswind.
If you think a check should be extremely difficult, then just set the DC to higher. Your "walking across a tightrope in a 20 mph crosswind" would much more appropriately be a DC ~25 Acrobatics Check ("Very Hard"). Given that the maximum skill bonus in D&D 5e is ~20 (+6 Stat, +12 expertise, +2 magic items), even this PC would still fail such a check 20% of the time, including on a 1. Almost all PCs would fail a higher percent of the time. No need for 1 to be an auto-failure.

Edit: Similarly, then your DC to remain mostly unhurt in that situation was less than [21 plus your bonuses], allowing success on without a 20 being an auto-pass. A spread of 1-20 on the d20 is HUGE considering that most checks range from 10 (easy) to 25 (very hard). This d20 randomness helps to represent the few amazingly unlikely achievements, whether that's lucky or unlucky.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 22/06/22 10:04 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by JandK
Tommy is a master swordsman. He rolls a one and misses the enemy. "Oh, well, you can't hit them all," he thinks.

Then he rolls another one and misses again. This time he gets mad.

So we make a rule that he no longer has to roll to hit because it's beneath him.

But now you're talking about attack rolls not ability checks. Sure, on pure principles they are the same I guess but my understanding of OP's request is to remove the critical 1/20 in ability checks, not attack rolls.

I know that the post is talking about ability checks. But it is the same logic, which points out the weakness of the argument being presented.

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that some folks don't want to fail at trivial tasks. Maybe they feel better always winning at those things, or maybe they don't want to waste the time rolling. All that's fine, but that should be the argument. Not some dressed up bit of illogic.

Obviously, experts can fail at their own craft sometimes. It happens every day. This is common sense.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
It's not about "whaa! I don't like to fail.".

Several things go into the logic behind the rule. Yes. Of course even experts fail at mundane things, and in TT you are free to play however you want. You could homebrew a rule that makes an auto failure even harder. Roll a 1 and roll again. Only if you fail a second time do you legit fail. Whatever.

The point is, some things just make the game more fun and less mean. It's no fun for many players to roll a 1 and fail even if you have +10 skill. Shoot. Many players don't even like it in combat.

But again, if you don't allow for SOME form of auto-hit in combat, you can strip all ability to ever beat certain enemies, etc. Frustrating players is not being a good DM. Better to err on the side of being player friendly

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's not about "whaa! I don't like to fail.".

Several things go into the logic behind the rule. Yes. Of course even experts fail at mundane things, and in TT you are free to play however you want. You could homebrew a rule that makes an auto failure even harder. Roll a 1 and roll again. Only if you fail a second time do you legit fail. Whatever.

The point is, some things just make the game more fun and less mean. It's no fun for many players to roll a 1 and fail even if you have +10 skill. Shoot. Many players don't even like it in combat.

But again, if you don't allow for SOME form of auto-hit in combat, you can strip all ability to ever beat certain enemies, etc. Frustrating players is not being a good DM. Better to err on the side of being player friendly

So, which is it? Because in this very post you have just contradicted yourself. If it's not about "I don't like to fail", why say preventing a fail state is "less mean"? Where does that even come from? Failing, or a chance to, is part of the game. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a need for dice rolls at all. That's not "player friendly", that's "a certain kind of player friendly". The rest of us understand that a fail state isn't "being mean", but reflects that there is a chance that you fail to do something, whether that's in combat, or a skill check. Note here that's it is called a "skill check" for a reason.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
The past few posts have been focused on how even experts can occasionally fail, which has been argued to mean that Nat 1s should auto-fail. However, the opposite scenario is also important - should a Nat 20 auto succeed on all skill checks? And the answer to that is an even stronger NO, of course not.

- To take the tightrope scenario, let's walk across a 1 millimeter-width and 1 mile-long tightrope in rapidly changing 5,000 mph winds. The DM sets that DC to 300. Obviously a character shouldn't succeed on that 5% of the time.
- You can jump your strength score in 5e, but if you want to jump farther it's a DM-determined Athletics check. A player wants to jump 2 miles up and 10 miles far. Again, they obviously shouldn't succeed on that 5% of the time.
- Hoard of the Dragon Queen (an officially published 5e Adventure Module) sets a Strength Check DC to 70. Why would WotC use 70 (instead of, maybe, 30) if they wanted level-7 characters to be able to succeed without using magic?

A natural 20 on an attack roll represents the best hit a character can do, which is a lucky or skilled hard hit. They've bypassed the defenses of a fallible creature. Because HP is abstracted in 5e, you could even say that such a lucky hit is actually only doing stamina or armor damage.
A natural 20 on a skill check also represents the best a character can possibly do, but this does not allow them to do impossible things (oft-repeated example is jump to the moon). Physics, unlike creatures, aren't fallible and can't make mistakes you can exploit. If a DC 30 check is defined as "Nearly Impossible," then a DC 35 (or 40, or 70) check should be "Impossible." Not "happens 5% of the time, regardless of whether the DC is 40 or 70 or 1000"

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

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