Originally Posted by crashdaddy
I don't understand why people don't get this:

Take a goblin, 10 base ac, 14 dex and leather armor. 13 ac in total. The most cookie cutter foe in Act 1 as far as ac goes. You're Joe Bloggs on the xbox. You've built your character right, a race with a bonus to strength. You have a 3 bonus and are using a weapon you are proficient in. This gives you 5 to hit against an ac of 13. This means you will miss the easiest foe well over 1/4 of the time, closer to 1/2. This does not sound like a good start to a mass market big seller. And this is the market Larian obviously hopes to hit, just look at all the percentages instead of numbers to roll. And this is with an optimised character, mind you.
When talking about AC it's increments of 5% (1/20). So far an enemy with 10 AC, without proficiency or modifiers your attack would succeed to hit 55% of the time (11 opportunities to succeed out of 20). A plus 3 to AC would reduce by 15% and a bump of 5 (prof+2 mod+3) would raise the success rate by 25%. The player should have a 65% chance to hit against 13 AC (13 to 25, 13 opportunities to succeed), that's a lot closer to two thirds than one half. The player would miss about a third of the time.

If this really is an issue, Larian can always homebrew the proficiency table to be +3 for levels 1-4.
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
There's already threads complaining that the game is too hard, even with easy to obtain advantage. Can you imagine how many party wipes the three intellect devourers will cause at the start of act 1 without advantage?
The fight is easier now, in patch 4 there's a minimum threshold of verticality to impose disadvantage. The player can now use the descending ground behind them to zone the intellect devourers without being punished for doing so. In patch 3 ranged attacks would be at disadvantage in that situation. It's great to actually be able to use some open space in Patch 4, instead of being forced to go for the high ground.
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
No, the game is balanced already... balanced for those who don't know or don't want to learn the various ways to gain advantage. The question is, will they allow an option to switch off these systems for those who want a more core experience? I hope they do, because that's the sort of experience I'm looking for.
Interesting take, I still feel it's balanced with fighter and ranger in mind. I'm glad you're open to a more core experience.
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
Advantage is pretty much baked into dnd, obtaining it via various spells or class abilities tends to be crucial to the game. I read a physicist who said his publisher once told him that every maths equation in a book was worth roughly 10% less sales. I have a feeling it's the same with manuals and videogames. I definitely don't think simplifying advantage is unbalancing, I just agree that that makes the game lose a lot of its flavour. It will however make the game easier for a lot of people and I have a feeling that is their primary motivation.
Advantage is a mechanic in 5e, but it isn't baked into the game. Baldur's Gate 3 has more superfluous advantage/disadvantage than I can stomach. I haven't experienced that feeling in tabletop.
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
btw elevation clearly provides cover and allows you to see the whole body of your target in turn, offering an easier hit. An archer only exposes his head and the top of his body and bow, while below all is exposed. Obviously the higher the elevation the better the cover.

The game already has collision detection to see if a ranged attack could collide with the target. That's infinitely more valuable than cover. The player can also move out of sight and stealth. Both of these already bring immense value to terrain.