Its not a matter of being entitled to success its the fact that failure is often not as fleshed out as success and often ends with a hard cut off on content. In the tabletop a failure can be just as interesting as a success because your GM is there to weave the story for you, in BG3 a failure just means you miss out on content or you need to reload a save or watch it later on youtube.
Disco Elysium is a recent example of a game doing it right, if you fail a roll in Disco the results are often more entertaining than a success and can lead to original content of its own. If you cheater your stats to maximum and/or reload every failed roll in Disco you'd actually be missing out on content because they put as much work into the failures as the successes.
>, if you fail a roll in Disco the results are often more entertaining than a success and can lead to original content of its own
Just like baldur gates 3
They have never applied to skill checks, only attacks by RAW.
In two of the groups I run with, I constantly have to remind people that critical failures on skill checks don't fricking exist, at least every second session. I don't understand why people don't get this. It IS a house rule dreamed up by redditors.
The only system that now has critical successes and failures is Pathfinder 2e, which does it amazingly with its 10 over and 10 under system.
You see, in P2e you only increase the success by one stage if you crit succeed, but on failing a check by 10 or more you decrease the success by one stage.
So if you roll a nat20 with a bonus of let's say 5 on a DC 40 check, you still fail.
Which, for example if the DC40 check is for climbing a completely smooth surface (like a glass pane) with your hands, means you have a 5% chance of not falling, there's a 5% chance you stick to a window by climbing it! But that's about all you can achieve with that.
I know Crit and crit successes for that matter are home roles for 5e, but what about older additions? I never DM'd in 3.5 only played, but I remember we were going with crit success and failures.
If you're DM makes you roll for an impossible check and it gets a 20, it deserves to pass, DONT make players roll for impossible things, just say "No, that doesn't work" Or I guess, if the DM's kinda a dick, say "Ok, do the roll, but it's not for you to succeed, its' for you not to face the consequences"
No, Nat 20 being "auto success" is a house rule. But a Nat 1 being "auto failure" has always been a thing so that the chance of failure is never lower than 5%.
Correct, but if you have no chance of failure, why are you rolling dice? You roll dice when there's a chance of failure or success. Without one or the other, there's no point in the dice. If you would be quick to label a range of negative outcomes as "degrees of failure," then the most favorable form of failure would be a success.
>Correct, but if you have no chance of failure, why are you rolling dice?
No dm will require a master thief to roll for lockpicking a mundane door lock.
The modern board game does. The old board game just has you do stuff and the DM only makes up a roll if he's unsure. Hell, even good DMs of the modern style will fricking write books about "how to be a good DM" which basically amount to "Don't use the skill system as much."
Wrong. Rolling a 1 will make you miss any attack in combat. That's it. When it comes to literally anything else, it does not guarantee failure. A thief with +30 to sleight of hand can't fail to open a DC20 lock even if he rolls a 1. A barbarian with +1000 to intimidation can't fail to intimidate a random hobo. Larian decided to make it so it applies to EVERYTHING because they're fricking morons.
Wrong, in the board game it's up to the DM to find a way around that. Also, most checks can be attempted multiple times/by all characters or by the best character for the situation, which Bald Ass Gays doesn't always offer
>BG3 makes you choose between content or no content.
Disingenuous and not even remotely true. Failed checks more often than not result in something just as interesting as a pass.
Never because I'm not a Black person and can deal with a failure. >use inspiration
Wow, that was hard. What content do you even "lose" for failing a dice roll" it always leads to another outcome, it's not like anything just vanishes.
You're locked out BUT the game has a reroll system called "inspiration" you earn "inspiration points" from doing things that would fit your chosen backstory (the chargen has a tab for picking your backstory) ie the archeologist character solving a puzzle in an ancient ruin, or the street urchin pickpocketing (and returning) a locket from a wealthy noble who had previously taken the locket off an orphan. These points can be used to reroll those skill check dice. You can only have 4 max points so you're incentivised to use them, and for skill checks like lock picking nothing happens on failure but the lock pick breaks so there's no stakes for that as long as you're stocked up.
Sometimes. But there are also a lot of times where there's no alternative. Sure, killing a lot of the npcs turns out to be inconsequential most of the time, but it's not an outcome most people want when playing blind.
>If you fail a roll, does it just lock you out?
You're locked out of whatever dialogue you were supposed to get for succeeding, but it never locks your out of actual things to do. If you fail an arcana check the game just doesn't give you flavor text over whatever you were looking into. You can't never get a quest for failing a dice roll.
at what point do you just say frick it and savescum? the third playthrough? the fifth? have a nice day.
>fail dice roll >content stolen
bro... but if you succeed in the roll you are "locked out of" the content you would have experienced if you failed.
i dont see what the fricking issue is.
They think they need to win every roll for content and don't know that the game still gives you content even if you fail a check. Basically, they're moronic.
What roll? The statues? There's a lot of greae bottles lying around the area that you can throw at the statues to lubricate them so you don't need to do a check anymore. The grease spell itself also works and so does hitting them a few times.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You mean the stuck statue in the basement of the creche? Just throw grease at it, dumbass.
8 months ago
Anonymous
There's even a note elsewhere in the ruin that explains this. Do some people just not read notes?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Most gamers nowadays have absolutely obliterated attention spans. They would never survive something along the likes of Myst or Zork.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>They would never survive something along the likes of Myst or Zork.
I tripped across a youtube video of some no-name video essayist from 3 months ago talking about Myst, and he said the game didn't stand the test of time...because it was too hard.
Like...fricking what mate? That game was and still is ridiculed as an adult babysitter because it was too damn easy, and you got fricking stuck on ALL the puzzles? Not just the submarine one? How the frick is someone able to operate a camera, edit a video, and upload it to youtube just to post that they couldn't put a square block into the hole? What??
8 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't find that but figured that out anyway because i paid attention to the basic elements the game has >water can be frozen >oil can be set on fire >there's a quest where this statue related to a puzzle is stuck and the narration tells you the gears are old and won't move, maybe grease will work. cool, it did.
Basically, they have no critical thinking skills.
>Baldur's Gate 3 takes around 52-100 hours to complete acording to goygle
This isnt a 10 hours sony template cinematic exprience game... Normalgays will barely finnish it and jump for the next shit, you need to be some dedicated frick to spend that much time to replay it at least twice.
And the people who actually play board stuff will end up finding the flaws and limitations pretty fast so they will power through a rushed run if not abandoning the whole deal half way and returining to the board.
Cry all you want but this isnt different than fallout (i would say skyrim but that shit has really no difference in your choices so it has no point in savescumming your way through dialoge... gee i wonder why and wonder why its so SUCCessfull)
You sound as moronic and blind as the fricks complaining about bikini armor.
Disco Elysium did it better, as you unlocked content of failing rolls
In BG3, you are straight locked out of content if you fail rolls or go evil playthrough
this would be fine except literally no one plays this way. not even you. tell me how many times you quicksaved and reloaded when you lost a roll. actually don't. just admit it to yourself.
>need to roll 99 >add no bonuses because they make rolling 1/20 less possible >have 4inspirations + initial attempt so its 1 in 4 roll >easily roll critical success
skill issue
points didn't matter
Critical fails/success aren't even a core rule. I have no fricking idea why they implemented this homebrew rule, it's just fricking moronic. Inherent 5% chance to win/fail any role is just stupid
If it encouraged failure in the same way Disco Elysium did it wouldn’t be so bad, usually if you fail a dice roll it means you now have to fight someone to the death or just go do a dice roll somewhere else instead. No meaningful failure, just win/lose
I’ve learnt that 90% of this board isn’t North American and it’s mainly sub 105 IQ people. It helps explain all the terrible terrible takes on this board like OP.
Yeah it's kind of fricked that Larian decided to include the LE FUNNY NAT 1 MEME in skill checks. It's not like you can fail forwards with humorous results, either, most of them are just straight up "You missed the content, buh bye"
Well there's ONE time, I guess, and it's when a passive insight is rolled and if you fail it said character gets mad at you for not kissing her on the spot.
Things OP could've done >use potions >invest in skills >use spells to increase success chances >use party members who are procificent with the said skill >use scrolls >literally anything rather than b***h like a toddler
OP is a crying b***h Black person but crit fail on skill checks is also b***h Black person behavior >none of what you said can help beyond rolling with advantage
>just get advantage lol
The majority of checks don't have quick access to advantage, if any at all. >play halfling!
yeah just lock out 99% of the racial selections, maybe you should apply for WotC to help with 6ed.
what does war cleric have to help avoid 1's on skill/attribute checks?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I turned Shart into a war cleric and she got a spell that can force you to have advantage on any attribute check you want.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If you say guidance then I'm going to guide my fist up your ass
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's not guidance, dumbass. I said advantage, not a 1d4 bonus.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Enhance Ability? >Level 2 spell >concentration (will be replace in 5 seconds) >ability checks only >only one ability
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah that, not war cleric specifically but it does exactly what you people are complaining about, you have as many as you need because it's only a level 2 spell and you can upcast it if you don't have any level 2 spell slots >but that does nothing extra?
So what? It gives you advantage on whatever check you want. >no i need the game to let me pass all my survival checks despite the fact that failing the survival check means absolutely fricking nothing
morons don't understand that, while checks work in actual campaigns, in-game they just arbitrarily restrict content.
It's one thing to choose a different route for replayability, and it's another to frick you out of interesting dialogue or gameplay just because.
It does do that and it is indeed very dumb. It's an infamous houserule that new players use because they either didn't read the handbook correctly or because it's "fun".
Who gives a frick about failing a lockpicking check? You can screw those up all day long and it won't matter because swinging a hammer at a chest gets you what's inside just the same.
the only game I've seen do this right is fricking disco elysium
if you crit fail a roll you usually get a unique failure state that causes an entirely different chain of events, sometimes one that's even more beneficial than the success state
one such example is when the player character gets invited to play with some large marbles
if you succeed the strength check you chuck it into the horizon like a moron and get a quest to get it back, but if you fail you end up making a great shot by complete accident and you win the game
Disco Elysium also uses a 2d6 system instead of a 1d20. That makes it so that you're much more likely to roll averages and critical successes and failures are much more rare.
>critical success >just as good as regular success
why? just reduce the amount of work to do?
from what I understand if you crit on a charm for instance, not only do they tell you the location of their treasure but fall in love with you, or something to that effect.
>specifically only go for rolls where I have bonuses >succeed more than i fail
Damn. that was hard >rolling on checks where you have disadvantage and no bonuses and he needs a high number
To be fair, you don't lose out that much from the Great Hollow. You have a covenant that you won't use, a bad dragon tail weapon, and Siegmeyer's end quest if you let him take too much damage.
There isn't any game worth content, but the view is nice
Because From-Soft fricking sucks at giving any sort of visual cue toward invisible walls, and they operate on old game dev logic of "make random, unknowable secrets because frick you". If you dislike this, you'd HATE La-Mulana.
The cue is other players leaving very obvious notes
or in many cases other than the great hollow seeing the hidden path from another angle and trying to find a way to get there
If you're that worried about rolls just play Halfling. Or never use Inspiration re-rolls, unless it's a 1, so you always have 4 in the bank. Or take the Lucky feat.
>have someone who is good at intimidating people in my party >get option to intimidate >no option for them to butt in the conversation to intimidate, it's only whoever initiated the conversation that does the roll
why? isn't this the point of a party? isn't this how conversations go irl? or did I miss something
Divinity had the same problem with that, even if it wasn't smooth it'd be preferable if you had an option for party members to switch who's talking mid-conversation
This is one of my main concerns with the game. I felt like I was actively cucking myself by having my main character have 8 Charisma. I lost Astarion from my party because I couldn't convince him that doing the ritual was a horrible idea so he screeched, killed all the Gur prisoners then told me to frick myself. I had Wyll in my party with 20 Charisma that could have saved that if this was like Pathfinder.
Respect you didn’t save scum. I agree with you, my biggest piss off too. Still, though it must of been shitty it made the game interesting and you overcame.
They try to push that you are killing thousands of people when you do it, but those people are already dead. They are all vampires, and it would be for the best to "kill" them all anyway. The only bad about the ritual is giving Astarion way too much power.
Make Astarion a bard. If your PC does all the talking anyway then spec him into sneak and sleight of hand and he will become a bard who can do all your lockpicking and pickpocket for you as well. Bard class also fits his character.
Anyone who missed this trick is missing out. Bards are a great and it means you get to make the best out of Astarion who is one the most enjoyable companions.
[...]
There is a mod that fixes this, but it is genuinely one of the biggest flaws of the game.
Not being able to pass off a conversation or something to your party's highest CHA character is bad for simulating the tabletop, and is bad for staying on par with other similar titles like WOTR.
Now this is imo what I consider to be the games biggest flaw. Why is my dumb ass 8 Cha barbarian being the parties faces? You can't say it's because he's the "plan guy" because he's also fricking retarted.
I really can't say why.
The game lets you control companions and initiate dialog with them already. You can play an entire campaign with Tav or Durge as basically elaborate side characters.
So that you can't just swap characters with some token 'excuse me' line is annoying. Some dialog scenes already have the companions significantly interject, too.
Yeah, I don't understand why the devs didn't fix this shit in EA when people have been pointing it out from the day the game became publicly playable. I remember reading something about spaghetti code kind of breaking dialogue swapping between characters but all the devs would need to do is allow players to pick which party characters stats to be used for rolls every time a skill check pops up and then flag specific checks as "single character check only" to balance shit like the necromancy tome being piss easy to solve if it was a group effort.
I hope that this is coming in a patch or that the devs release some proper modding tools with maybe mod list support so that you can enable and disable any mod you want for specific save files without having to uninstall and reinstall mods constantly
Like Dispel Magic, it's likely part spaghetti code and part it doubling their workload. There are more than a few skill checks that result in the person who's in the conversation doing some animation, like you punching Aradin/Zevlor or you reaching into the hole in Moonrise Tower. If they allowed party members to help you they would have had to animate all of that stuff and do an entire extra pass on all checks in the game. Like the strength check where you yank your arm out of the hole would require an ally stepping in and helping you do it, but how do you animate that when your strength guy is a gnome? Or worse, a bear, a bird or a Slayer Form Durge? Larian has made absolutely everything in the game take a million times more work because of the perspective the game takes. They could abstract it all away of course but they're very stubborn about their cutscenes.
Dispell Magic, I get.
That is a frick to deal with for a DM IRL, and even more so in a video game.
But Larian already gives the PC tons of different options for your Avatar or lets you pick any of the origin characters to play as. That is to say, that they're already accounted for basically all of those issues with scaling or animating to the unique bodyplan of the PC.
They did. But animating people helping is still more extra hours of motion capture. Some things can be scaled for the midget races and taller characters which will help, but some just can't and will need separate animations, which is why they made a big deal of romance companions carrying small PCs for a kiss. I can see a feature like this being a Definitive Edition addition but who knows if they're taking the complaints about it seriously enough to do so.
This is one of my main concerns with the game. I felt like I was actively cucking myself by having my main character have 8 Charisma. I lost Astarion from my party because I couldn't convince him that doing the ritual was a horrible idea so he screeched, killed all the Gur prisoners then told me to frick myself. I had Wyll in my party with 20 Charisma that could have saved that if this was like Pathfinder.
There is a mod that fixes this, but it is genuinely one of the biggest flaws of the game.
Not being able to pass off a conversation or something to your party's highest CHA character is bad for simulating the tabletop, and is bad for staying on par with other similar titles like WOTR.
I never save-scummed in this and I'm glad for it, I would have hated having to constantly reload some scenario 15 times in a row just to force the game to give me what I want instead of just dealing with it. I don't know how people can tolerate going that, it seems mind numbingly tedious.
It's not the dice problem, it's larian don't understand how they should work.
Larian just like some new and inexperienced DM are shoving this shit everywhere. Also 5e sucks with all those advantages and shit.
If you specialise in persuasion you should have no problem with success in all these skills checks. Failure should be rare because it's your fricking expertise.
I’ve learnt that 90% of this board isn’t North American and it’s mainly sub 105 IQ people. It helps explain all the terrible terrible takes on this board like OP.
The only truly rewarding way to play BG3 is on Normal difficulty with Ironman rules. That means no saving at all except between sessions and a TPK means restarting the run. Unless you glitch out or get wiped by Larian jank, then you can reload.
It's not really possible without Withers unless you're cheating/glitching or have the whole game memorized. Withers is the only reason an Ironman works. Random bullshit deaths are fine because you can always bring people back as long as you don't full wipe, and there are only a few ways that happens outside of you sucking.
It's not really possible without Withers unless you're cheating/glitching or have the whole game memorized. Withers is the only reason an Ironman works. Random bullshit deaths are fine because you can always bring people back as long as you don't full wipe, and there are only a few ways that happens outside of you sucking.
>he needs to play on baby difficulty for his ironmans
Yeah that, not war cleric specifically but it does exactly what you people are complaining about, you have as many as you need because it's only a level 2 spell and you can upcast it if you don't have any level 2 spell slots >but that does nothing extra?
So what? It gives you advantage on whatever check you want. >no i need the game to let me pass all my survival checks despite the fact that failing the survival check means absolutely fricking nothing
ability checks (saves aren't the same thing) aren't even that common, 95% of checks are skills.
The original post was >just roll with advantage to not get auto-failed! which most skills can't even get. >immediately cherry picking the most useless skill
>he needs to play on baby difficulty for his ironmans
It's possible to Ironman on Tactician sure but it's also not going to be fun. Tactician is balanced around save and load, big fights are just too likely to gib someone important off the bat and make a fight impossible.
it really isn't that bad after act 1 >one character who can eat complete shit turn 1 but survive regardless to pull aggro >divine caster >dex gay >free space
The game gives you the ability to force yourself to have advantage on any check you want >no but what about the skills!?
Skills are worthless, Black person. I fricking knew it, you're complaining about shit like survival and perception when failing those doesn't do anything. Checks are the only thing you would even need advantage for. >BUT NOW I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DIRT MOUND IS!!!!
Seriously, how the frick are they not aware of this? Even if you fail a perception check you can still interact with the thing that you failed to find, you just have to look for it. The point part where this isn't true is things like traps, but you can still see the pressure plates, you just can't interact with it (stupid, but it is what it is). so you can just manually avoid it to not set it off.
Some things don't show up at all unless you pass the perception check like the button in the barricaded room in the Tollhouse in Reithwin. Trapped chests are also pretty inconsistent. If you fail the perception check, fine. But destroying the chest sometimes gets around the trap harmlessly or sometimes still sets it off, which can be very deadly if it's a chain lightning trap or other high level trap. But yeah, for the most part they did a good job of allowing you to find things on your own or do alternatives even when you fail those checks, with the roll just being a way to alert you to look around more closely.
Because you can't always do that.
I remember the traps in Ethel's swamp don't even appear unless you pass a check for them.
And floor vent traps sometimes are impossible to interact with if you fail the perception check.
>The game gives you the ability to force yourself to have advantage on any check you want >>no but what about the skills!?
nice job contradicting yourself in the next sentence >skills are worthless
the only thing worthless here is you, since you keep laser-focusing on piles of dirt.
>nice job contradicting yourself in the next sentence
You said it yourself, skills and ability checks are not the same thing. There is no contradiction there, and I already guessed you were going to complain about it beforehand in another post. Unless you got confused about me just saying "check" when we both fricking know what ENHANCE ABILITY does, moron.
>I already guessed you were going to complain about it beforehand in another post
good job, seeing as that was part of the original point I was making in the reply chain. >C-cope!
sneethe
8 months ago
Anonymous
No argument? Typical.
Concession accepted.
8 months ago
Anonymous
there was never an argument to begin with, it's just been you saying "it doesn't matter!" over and over like a 5 year old.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>you can't force advantage on checks >Yes you can >NO NOT LIKE THAT
Cope and seethe. >duhh you just say it doesn't matter
Yeah, because failing skill checks actually doesn't matter at all. You haven't even disproven this claim, you just b***hed and moaned about it being stated.
8 months ago
Anonymous
here anon since you seem to not have your glasses on, I'll just shove it in your face
OP is a crying b***h Black person but crit fail on skill checks is also b***h Black person behavior >none of what you said can help beyond rolling with advantage
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah I saw that. It doesn't change the point that it's moronic because you're complaining about something inconsequential. The only checks to worry about are ability checks, not skill checks. And you can force advantage on any ability check you want. Failing a skill check means frick all because the skill check even existing tells you everything you need to know >fail survival check - just start digging because the game just told you there's hidden treasure around >fail perception check - just look for an obscured valve to interact with because 99% of the time it won't be invisible and you can still touch it
8 months ago
Anonymous
>he's STILL hyperfocused on passive perception checks
There are 16 skills, and of those only SoH, Stealth, and Perception can get advantage before act 3.
Now, would you care to answer myself as well as
Not him, but if they don't matter, why include them? Isn't that just admitting that time is being wasted?
on why you think the skills are "worthless"?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I never said skills were worthless, I said failing the skill check doesn't matter because the game lets you circumvent the failure in light of it happening. If you weren't a moronic ESL you would have seen that I said this repeatedly.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I never said skills were worthless
The game gives you the ability to force yourself to have advantage on any check you want >no but what about the skills!?
Skills are worthless, Black person. I fricking knew it, you're complaining about shit like survival and perception when failing those doesn't do anything. Checks are the only thing you would even need advantage for. >BUT NOW I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DIRT MOUND IS!!!!
>Skills are worthless, Black person.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>reading comprehension
If you even bothered reading that you would clearly see it's referencing the failure of a skill check, and this was all in response to someone complaining about skill checks, dumbass, not the skills existing. This entire conversation, from the very start, was always about ability checks and skill checks. You're just trying to move the goalpost onto something else because you're starting to see how moronic you are. >no but you didn't specify that here despite the fact that it's obviously what was being discussed and I was fully aware of it at the time, but that's different now
8 months ago
Anonymous
You got blown the frick out with every post you made.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You can keep telling yourself that but that won't make it true. The funniest part is that you never actually disproved anything that I said, you ignored them just to shitpost. >(you)
8 months ago
Anonymous
let's take the entire quote then, shall we? >Skills are worthless, Black person. I fricking knew it, you're complaining about shit like survival and perception when failing those doesn't do anything. Checks are the only thing you would even need advantage for.
the "context" is you going on a schizo rant about passive perception before moving the goalpost back to ability checks.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>This entire conversation, from the very start, was always about ability checks and skill checks
no, that's what you keep trying to move it to, when it was originally about critfails on non-attacks. >You're just trying to move the goalpost onto something else because you're starting to see how moronic you are. >verbatim what you posted >that's not what I meant
holy frick anon just give up.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>no, that's what you keep trying to move it to
That's literally what this entire shit started with, moron. I'd tell you to read the quote chain but I doubt you'd even be able to handle that given how illiterate you seem to be.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>That's literally what this entire shit started with, moron. I'd tell you to read the quote chain but I doubt you'd even be able to handle that given how illiterate you seem to be.
it "started" (4 posts in the chain) with someone (presumably (You)) saying to use cleric's enhance ability to give advantage on SKILL CHECKS
8 months ago
Anonymous
>>have to help avoid 1's on skill/attribute checks? >skill/attribute checks >attribute
Can clerics help avoid crit failures on attribute, i.e. ability, checks? Yes, they can. Then someone tried focusing on nothing but skill check failures by saying those are more prominent, and i kept saying those don't matter because failing the skill check means frick all at the end of the day for obvious reasons. >inb4 ability and attribute are not the same thing
Shut the frick up. I'm seriously tired of this stupid shit.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>>>have to help avoid 1's on skill/attribute checks?
checks
Can clerics help avoid crit failures on skill checks? No, they can't. Then someone tried focusing on nothing buy ability check failures by saying those are the only ones that matter and that skills are worthless.
Quit dropping the half of the post because it doesn't make you correct.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not even going to humor you anymore because it's obvious you didn't pay attention to anything in the game. Enjoy the last (you).
8 months ago
Anonymous
Not him, but if they don't matter, why include them? Isn't that just admitting that time is being wasted?
I savescummed the frick out of my first playthrough to control the outcomes I wanted. On subsequent playthroughs I let go and let things happen how they play out and found it to be a lot more enjoyable. I think most games aren't worth replaying so I try to squeeze every drop of blood from the stone on my first playthrough but since BG3 actually had real RPG elements it makes sense to focus on roleplaying first rather than running through the completionist checklist.
Turn-based combat and RNG diceroll mechanics are an antiquated holdover from PnP RPGs and 90s CRPGs. There is literally no reason for them to exist in the 21st century.
RTWP sucks.
Encourages the devs to put in way too many extraneous fluff fights against mooks and weak mobs. Wrath of the Righteous is a good game and it suffers from this especially. Same with the older Baldur's Gates.
One of BG3's best aspects is that there aren't a lot of pointless fights and that followed because of the turn-based focus.
And larian's "few fights" approach makes them craft an intended route through the act which in practice results in player running around all over the map like a moron looking for fights with mobs that don't overlevel them. Was especially terrible in OS2.
It's almost like what matters is execution. I'll take BG2 and a couple of fast, easy fights to live out the power fantasy thank you very much.
I don't think that really is ever an issue.
The very early game is the part where levels matter the most, and even then you can beat the Gnolls at level 2 if you're smart.
You're given a lot of tools to beat any given problem, from the start.
Otherwise, being overleveled is a more common issue. Especially if you do some kind of in-act 'sequence break'. Like leaving the Goblin Camp for the very end in Act 1 after doing the Underdark and Ethel.
If anything the game could be more stingy with levels granted to the player.
It's nowhere near as bad as in Original Sin 2, but I had this issue in act I - I assumed that going into the absolute camp is supposed to be the done at the very end of the act so I was running around trying to do everything else and was constantly running into enemies who overleveled me.
Personally, I always leave 'story' missions for last in my RPGs, so I went out of my way to go after all the reasonable 'side content' first before I messed with the gobbos.
Mostly because I didn't know if the game was going to railroad me into a bunch of story cutscenes and shit right afterwards.
People really be reading all about the game before they play it, huh. Like how do you even know there is Act 1, Act 2 if you don't overread on Ganker first?
And people whine that they don't enjoy video games anymore. Ofc they don't, since you you don't play them blind.
You are right. Till I beat the goblin camp and the 3 bosses(one being that drow character everyone posts about) I had a really hard game with lots of party wipes till I became level 4. I am not at the Moontower area and none of the fights have been that difficult. Might have been that I finally began understanding the game(I don't read anything online for a more pure experience).
The earliest period is definitely the toughest.
My first run I underestimated that one adventurer party you find at the church very early on and got wiped because I didn't expect the game to actually treat them as equal to me.
But once I got an understanding for the system it became a lot easier. BG3 is very generous with what it gives you. And the maps are laid out so that the player can definitely get the terrain advantage on most battles if they scout ahead for what is coming their way.
If anything, they could have extended that Lv1-Lv5 section for longer.
It is shit for casters, but for martial classes it is the peak of the game because you have enough tools to play well, but the game doesn't give you enough to do too well.
you basically never fail rolls with all the boosts you get from all sorts of sources. you should have 4 inspirations since theyre rarely needed, use them. also most deck rolls have minor consequences to your game.
Sure you'll likely to miss a small handful of important rolls each playthough and thats fine you should be able to deal with the consequences its a dnd game after all.
>I HAVE to be able to experience ALL the content on one save! I should be able to do EVERYTHING my first run, and if I’m not then that’s called bad game design!!!! Why? It…It just IS, okay??!??
>>I HAVE to be able to experience ALL the content on one save! I should be able to do EVERYTHING my first run, and if I’m not then that’s called bad game design!!!! Why? It…It just IS, okay??!??
"Replayability" features are a meme. I don't replay a game because it has "replayability". I replay it because the game is just fricking good. I've replayed Super Mario Bros 1 millions of times. I still occasionally pop in Zelda 64. I play the shit out of Majesty 1. Those games all play exactly the same, but they're just good. I've replayed shit like Deus Ex 0 times, cause 1 boring run was enough.
the only time it's backfired on me is using it on one of the guards in moonlight tower, so I think it only matters on characters in a crowded area or near guards.
Are your dopamine receptors permanently broken or something? Why does failure in a video game haunt you so much that you would resort to save scumming just to succeed? The only time reloading a quicksave is justifiable is when you run into a game breaking bug.
>inb4 you probably save scummed too
I play ironman rules first playthrough always. In subsequent runs, I do quicksave/quickload but only after I've beaten the game once. I don't look up shit online either my first go. If I miss it, I miss it. Really feels rewarding when I get to it in my next go, like how I missed the entire painted world in DS1 during my first save.
BECAUSE I FRICKING PAID FOR IT AND THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE
I PAY YOU FOR A SERVICE, I EXPECT TO BE SATISFIED. IF I DON'T GET 100% OF EVERYTHING THAT I WANT, THEN IT'S SHIT. OH, NOT REFILLING MY WATER, WAGIE? ZERO TIP FOR YOU. OH, I GET LOCKED OUT OF CONTENT? THEN I'M CREATING 50 SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNTS AND LEAVING NEGATIVE REVIEWS AND WON'T STOP UNTIL I GET MY MONEY BACK. THIS IS CAPITALISM. I'M THE ONE IN CHARGE HERE, homosexual. THE CUSTOMER.
>Why does failure in a video game haunt you so much that you would resort to save scumming just to succeed?
1. Disrespect to the video game. If the game does not have the balls to auto-save after every single choice I make, then I have no need to respect them in the first place, and will rape their corpse as I please.
2. Because I just simply value my time. Most games will never be good enough that I will want to play them more than once ever. So if I run into something that's going in a direction I don't want, and the game has provided me the convenient tools necessary to undo that instantaneously and at will, then I'm going to use them and there is nothing the game or morons like you can do to stop me.
>auto-save after every single choice I make
Horrible game design >Because I just simply value my time
And yet you are here in this shitpost thread >then I'm going to use them and there is nothing the game or morons like you can do to stop me.
I don't really care, gay. This is a disservice to yourself. You couldn't see a whole CYOA book path to it's finish as a child, and now your completionist mindset persists as a teenager.
>Horrible game design
Literally the opposite. Why design a bad choice/roll/decision in a game but then just give the player the magic button to undo it? It's like you're telling me directly to erase bad decisions. What's the point?
>That dumb bullshit analogy about the CYOA
I'm going to obey the rules of the game, but if the built-in rules and tools of said game provide me with a method of doing the task, I'm going to do the task.
>What's the point?
I would be completely against quickloading if it wasn't for the unavoidable fact that it may be necessary to avoid game breaking bugs. I think people should stick with the decisions they make and all the consequences that follow. Resident Evil does this the best imo with it's save system tied to limited in-game items. Of course RE is also much more stable than BG3 but I digress.
>I'm going to obey the rules of the game, but if the built-in rules and tools of said game provide me with a method of doing the task, I'm going to do the task.
And with CYOA, you have fingers which can turn back the pages every time you make a bad decision. Not doing that and sticking with your story is a matter of simple willpower. If you can't even refrain from savescumming just because the tools are available, then there's nothing stopping me from assuming that you won't do the same with books like that.
Don't get me wrong. I can't change who you are, nor will I go through more effort than posting this, but who you are is a moron with a short attention span and a weak will.
>I would be completely against quickloading if it wasn't for the unavoidable fact that it may be necessary to avoid game breaking bugs.
But even still, the game provides it. Also, we shouldn't excuse poor game design because the designers might just be bad at programming video games. Hold them to a higher standard.
>And with CYOA, you have fingers which can turn back the pages every time you make a bad decision.
But that's not in the rules of the game. The game didn't provide that tool to me, the game told me specifically what pages to choose and how to choose them. So that analogy still fails on its face. It's also getting into a moronic area of non-video game cheating and the philosophy behind human self-imposed difficulty, but again that doesn't apply here because I just follow the rules of the game as a tacit agreement and understanding of the game. But the game itself gives me the power to undo. It's in the game. Also there is unironically CYOA games that are impossible to complete until you start flipping through the pages and basically cheating. Two of which I remember were a space war of some sort that "rewarded" you for thinking outside of the box, and the other one was a Batman comic where he was going up against the Riddler.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But that's not in the rules of the game. The game didn't provide that tool to me, the game told me specifically what pages to choose and how to choose them.
There are no rules to CYOA beyond that which is self-imposed. The book expects you to turn to a given page, but nothing explicitly stops you from turning back to a previous choice and taking another route, but this isn't seen as the proper way to read these kinds of books as it is generally expected that you follow the story in one unbroken chain till you reach an ending.
This is the same thing with these kinds of games. Sure you have the tools available to savescum, but that isn't the proper way to complete the game as quickloading a save gone wrong is the vidya equivalent of flipping back the pages of a CYOA whenever you hit a scenario that is less than golden.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>There are no rules to CYOA beyond that which is self-imposed.
Which I just stated I am obeying. It is within the rules of the game. It is in the rules of any video game that I may open the menu to do things like save, load, adjust options, and exit. This is within the rules because a video game only exists in its rules. Otherwise, games like Dark Souls or Resident Evil would do things like restrict my save ability. It would only be save scumming if I exited the game, found the save file, copy and pasted that to a different folder, and replaced it. You know, the classical definition of savescumming relative to the origin of the term: Roguelikes.
Fricking up a fight in act 2 kind of trashed the game for me, so yes I savescummed it.
I knew the stakes were high, but the uncontrollable NPC acted like a moron and I couldn't waste all my time healing them. So I had a second go and it went perfectly fine, purely due to NPCs deciding to use different actions.
That's acceptable I guess. I was mainly talking about those who reload saves just because they didn't win at a diceroll, or realized the consequences of their actions after taking them.
Agreed that she's cute, overall friendly too. I've kept her alive as I prefer it and my intention from the start was a Dark Urge that was inconsistent--sometimes kill (like that Tiefling) and sometimes do not kill. They're so far chaotic.
There are some interactions that are better. You can convince a few people to neck themselves and get their allies to do the same--you get all the XP and loot still as well.
Passing the Persuasion check on Ketheric in the Mind Flayer Colony makes him awkwardly skip to the second phase of the fight, which actually makes it harder because Aylin will still be making the Avatar of Myrkul invincible if she's still alive and you haven't had the chance to kill the Mind Flayer and the Necromites yet.
Nuke them with AoE spells and grenades. Finish the survivors off with multi-attacks. Fight can be over in under 5 minutes provided the allied NPCs don't frick up somehow.
All right looks like you'd be right. Used fire wall on a lot of them and then extended it with grease and those not in the fire wall walk into it. The AI in this game is moronic sometimes--was worried over nothing it seems.
People are saying that Act 1 is huge and it takes them over 50 hours or so to do it. I'm almost done with the druid camp and only 18 hours in. Did I miss something? I have all companions you can get and almost all of the map explored.
Played it straight, then watched 6 hours worth of videos on youtube with missing from my playthrough cutscenes. It is not that good of a game that you should play through it twice.
I played the third act without saving scumming because the game decided to ruin my save, the best 10 hours of BG3 I could get.
You win and lose sometimes dude, thats what makes it great
In older DnD setting, including Pathfinder, you aren't suposed to automatically fail a skill test on 1. 20 don't mean an automatic win either.
Those are only for battles or tense situations, same for the take ten rule.
It's a D&D game you mong. If you don't like it, they let you save scum. Posts like this make me wish they'd take away save files, just to piss off morons like you.
>in dnd if you miss a dice it's just new and different content
This is literally what happens dumb Black person. Easy example: Fail the skill check against the tentacles in moonrise? You get to meet the Absolute early.
You never played D&D as intended you fricking moron.
Show me where it says in the player manual that a nat 1 should fail skill checks. Any edition.
Besides that, the argument was a D&D game. The older games not only didn't fail on a nat 1, they let you take 20 on out of combat/dialogue skill checks to not waste your time.
nah frick you and your opinion
the difference between actual dnd and this garbage game is that in the game you miss a dice and content is gone, in dnd if you miss a dice it's just new and different content
They could add side switch for failing. But you and me both know players would companion about that as well. >"what do you mean I have to do bad to get this side quest?"
so what if idiots complain?
There should be satisfying paths for every success and failure, be they positive or negative.
It shouldn't just be "lmao u failed locked out of 30% of this chapter"
Does BG3 have any fail skill check the locks you out of 30% of a chapter? I'd argue failing an important skill missing out on 3% IF the game gives you a second, perhaps harder chance, and doesn't replace it with something else entirely.
you can miss companions which is a lot of fricking content, also >and doesn't replace it with something else entirely.
the problem is it doesnt do this, which makes it not like an actual dnd game but a shitty vidya instead
8 months ago
Anonymous
Companions is a fair. They do try to fix it a little by through you an "Only evil" companion. But I wouldn't mind if he had a few more cases of that.
8 months ago
Anonymous
nah you don't get it.
in a dnd campaing if you fail a skillcheck it leads down another path of content
if you fail a skill check in bg3 you lose content
it's that fricking simple
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's not always true in Dnd. My last campaign of CoS the players fricked with the anti magic tower and arguably "lost" content. A DM doing nothing nothing but homebrew, or more of a free form campaign could "write" out of that. But that's not always the case.
8 months ago
Anonymous
that's just a bad dm, but you alluded to the difference between dnd and the game yourself.
In tabletop it can happen, in the game it either will or wont.
that's the problem with all "dnd" games, they can't emulate the freedom of an actual dnd game and honestly they don't even fricking try
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's a hard thing to fix. For a game to "feel" like dnd it has to have those choices, but filling out those choices in a meaningful way is, depending on the scope of the game, impossible maybe someday we'll have a game that can do it fully right, but right now I'm able to live with the faults to drink the illusion.
8 months ago
Anonymous
bg3 took 6 years and they couldn't even do proper ending slides despite being privately owned and a company focused on Crpgs.
it won't be fix'd until we get AI at the level where it can literally make the games for them
>finally use fireball
God damn, a modern game where fireball is actually fricking strong and sounds great. That's a first for me. Tired of fireball being the most basic-b***h weakest thing when it comes to spells.
Agreed. I remember loving fireball in BG1 or 2 (I forget which, been so many years) as it's great there too as far as I remember. So good to see--as it should be. A lot of other spells reserved appropriately for low level, damage or otherwise.
Crit fails/succeeds on skill checks was the dumbest thing they did in the game >be me >+17 to investigation >DC 5 investigation roll >roll a 1 >"Teehee you don't get it :3"
Fricking dumb
Lmao and people wonder why Bethesda games are so successful, turns out that the competition just arbitrarily locks you out of content you PAID FOR based on random chance. Could you imagine if you couldn't join the Companions in Skyrim and miss on the entirety of the questline and the werewolf mechanics just because you rolled poorly on the check to see if Kodlak likes you or not?
Looks like Todd's career is safe if that's the best Yuropoor designers can come up with, but after all "eurojank" is a term that exists for a reason.
>>fail a dice roll >>miss out on content
Just as often you miss out on content for succeeding on a roll.
The roll just decides which of the two outcomes you get. Both are content.
It works in tabletop since failed dice rolls will lead to emergent moments in the collaborative story telling but not in vidya where you can just quick save quick load
The game literally allows you to re-roll any skill check outside of combat as long as you have "inspiration". You'd know this if you had actually played the game instead of shitposted about it, the chance of rolling a 1 on every single re-roll is so astronomically low that it might as well be impossible.
The only problems with the system currently is that you aren't allowed to re-roll perception checks outside of dialogues and you can only hold 4 inspiration at a time, with that said, most of the perception checks can still be done since you can force the action (dig for example) regardless if you just click on the spot you rolled for in the world, if the devs changed both of these things the game would become almost completely deterministic as everything would turn into a player knowledge check instead which would lead to players playing "optimally" and complaining about that instead.
Playing games like BG3 without dice rolls is like playing TBOI without any of the rouge-like elements which would quickly make the game fall apart and lose it's replay value and probably also its gameplay fun factor for a lot of people.
TLDR: Never design a game since you'd be fricking terrible at it anon
>The role-playing game makes you choose a ROLE to PLAY so that you're not just generically good at everything >The ROLE you PLAY is generally formed by your characters personal backstory and formation of their abilities
My only problem with rolls like this in a video game are that you're prone to just save scum them if you REALLY don't like the outcome of a roll instead of it just being a flat stat check like in New Vegas. Skyrim being introduced to you morons was a massive mistake.
It's an rpg homie. If you fail the dice roll there's other ways of proceeding. Like if you can't convince someone to give you something you can just kill them and loot it.
Or pickpocket them, pick whatever lock you need to get past, find another route to get past the obstacles, charm them or complete the quest in a different way. The game is kind of suffering from the amount of stuff players are able to experience but up until about halfway through act3, the game always give players at least 2-3 different ways of completing content.
I has the opposite problem to bethesda games where their games are as wide as oceans and as deep as puddles, BG3 is about the size of a swimming pool but twice as deep
Pickpocketing is one bit that I savescum for because it is utterly fricking bullshit and seems to rely more on the alignment of the planets than my Rogue's skill bonuses.
When does he have his moment to shine with that orb? The story keeps going to it over and over and he gets more depressed and every time it seems imminent but just never happens.
Just commit to it. I think the paradox of shit like this happening is even though it sucks because you're "losing content", you're much more emotionally invested because you know it's your authentic role play. Makes subsequent playthroughs that much more interesting too/
IDK, I just started savescumming all the dice rolls when I found out that Larian's "TRUST LE DICE" meant that the game will always just punish you for failing a roll.
What is it with moronic zoom zooms and their need to able to access all "content" in a single playthrough?
God forbid a video game campaign, particularly a D&D one, have any uniqueness.
>BG3 >unique playthroughs
You either be Talk no Jutsu your way through a situation and see more shit or murderhobo your way through a situation and see nothing. There is no unique content.
The problem is 5e and critical fails/successes. Successes encourage save scumming to beat rolls normally impossible for your build (8 cha barbarian persuading the local lord to give up his title), while fails are just a frustrating mechanic that invalidate your character's skill (20 Cha bard fails DC5 persuasion roll).
You don't lose out on things most of the time in my experience. There are different approaches. Fail a persuasion check to have the goblin guard let you through? Just sneak in or fly over a canyon. Or collapse the ruins on his face.
Sometimes there's even unique content that you wouldn't get to see otherwise, like the goblin priestess taking you prisoner.
>save scumming
Which is why it will never be a good TTRPG-turned-vidja and only ever a mediocre RPG at best. If a game compels you to savescum, it's a shit game or at least that mechanic is designed poorly, like Skyrim pickpocketing.
F8, there solved the game for you if you're a lucklet. You win like 90% of rolls in BG3 because the dice are in your favour the vast majority of the time, if not turn off karmic dice it's a shit mechanic.
>Why would you design your game like this?
Because in a tabletop RPG, there's a game master who can make sure to passively railroad the party, ensuring that the events that need to happen occur and that the important things aren't missed. DMs also are allowed to fudge rolls if they feel the actual outcome would be boring, frustrating, or unfun, which is one of the reasons there's a screen hiding their dice.
That doesn't translate well into the format of a video game, which is for all intents and purposes a choose your own adventure story you can't cheat. You are on rails the whole time, and sometimes get the ability to select a branching path.
Directly porting a tabletop style of system into video games will always produce subpar results, until such a time that we develop an AI advanced enough that it can work as a stand-in game master, and fudge rolls and do soft railroading of events.
Realistically, you'd need a reactive AI that's smart enough to occasionally fudge bad rolls, can check against a list of plot points to make sure things that need to be happening are happening, and also recognize certain player inputs as being attempts to reach a given outcome, and gradually give the players better odds of achieving what they're aiming for the more they try to get it.
This will happen eventually in the industry, but for now, it's just an invitation to savescum.
Because that's how the board game it's based on does it
A DM can at least improvise and play off the failed dice roll, BG3 just says "nuh uh" and the game proceeds as if you didn't select the option at all
The DM is Larian and improvized ahead of time
Get with the times zoomer
>A DM can at least improvise and play off the failed dice roll
they can also tell you to deal with your shitty roll. You're not entitled to success.
Its not a matter of being entitled to success its the fact that failure is often not as fleshed out as success and often ends with a hard cut off on content. In the tabletop a failure can be just as interesting as a success because your GM is there to weave the story for you, in BG3 a failure just means you miss out on content or you need to reload a save or watch it later on youtube.
Disco Elysium is a recent example of a game doing it right, if you fail a roll in Disco the results are often more entertaining than a success and can lead to original content of its own. If you cheater your stats to maximum and/or reload every failed roll in Disco you'd actually be missing out on content because they put as much work into the failures as the successes.
Shouldn't have failed your roll.
>, if you fail a roll in Disco the results are often more entertaining than a success and can lead to original content of its own
Just like baldur gates 3
Objection! Critical failures are a house rule dreamed up by redditors and don't represent the real RPG experience.
>a house rule dreamed up by redditors
Stupid fricking comment. Both critical roles, and critical failures have been discussed in D&D circles since the late 70s.
They have never applied to skill checks, only attacks by RAW.
Literally just
In two of the groups I run with, I constantly have to remind people that critical failures on skill checks don't fricking exist, at least every second session. I don't understand why people don't get this. It IS a house rule dreamed up by redditors.
The only system that now has critical successes and failures is Pathfinder 2e, which does it amazingly with its 10 over and 10 under system.
Man i can't believe Reddit is 50 years old.
Better start believing then, b***h
Look, buddy. My character jumps and flies. I roll and have 5% chance to succeed. Deal.
You see, in P2e you only increase the success by one stage if you crit succeed, but on failing a check by 10 or more you decrease the success by one stage.
So if you roll a nat20 with a bonus of let's say 5 on a DC 40 check, you still fail.
Which, for example if the DC40 check is for climbing a completely smooth surface (like a glass pane) with your hands, means you have a 5% chance of not falling, there's a 5% chance you stick to a window by climbing it! But that's about all you can achieve with that.
No.
I fly now.
Thanks, larian.
I know Crit and crit successes for that matter are home roles for 5e, but what about older additions? I never DM'd in 3.5 only played, but I remember we were going with crit success and failures.
If you're DM makes you roll for an impossible check and it gets a 20, it deserves to pass, DONT make players roll for impossible things, just say "No, that doesn't work" Or I guess, if the DM's kinda a dick, say "Ok, do the roll, but it's not for you to succeed, its' for you not to face the consequences"
No, Nat 20 being "auto success" is a house rule. But a Nat 1 being "auto failure" has always been a thing so that the chance of failure is never lower than 5%.
and where in the PHB is that stated?
Correct, but if you have no chance of failure, why are you rolling dice? You roll dice when there's a chance of failure or success. Without one or the other, there's no point in the dice. If you would be quick to label a range of negative outcomes as "degrees of failure," then the most favorable form of failure would be a success.
>Correct, but if you have no chance of failure, why are you rolling dice?
No dm will require a master thief to roll for lockpicking a mundane door lock.
The modern board game does. The old board game just has you do stuff and the DM only makes up a roll if he's unsure. Hell, even good DMs of the modern style will fricking write books about "how to be a good DM" which basically amount to "Don't use the skill system as much."
And the old board game was liquid shit.
Have you tried it?
Unfortunately yes. One of my groups had a guy who bought into the OSR meme and ran some pre-AD&D shit for us.
What happened that made it shit for you?
If you're an unimaginative rube, sure.
Video games were invented to make non-moronic versions of board games
Wrong. Rolling a 1 will make you miss any attack in combat. That's it. When it comes to literally anything else, it does not guarantee failure. A thief with +30 to sleight of hand can't fail to open a DC20 lock even if he rolls a 1. A barbarian with +1000 to intimidation can't fail to intimidate a random hobo. Larian decided to make it so it applies to EVERYTHING because they're fricking morons.
But you don't miss out on content if you fail a dice roll, the DM makes sure you don't. moron.
>Because that's how the board game it's based on does it
No, it doesn't.
Wrong, in the board game it's up to the DM to find a way around that. Also, most checks can be attempted multiple times/by all characters or by the best character for the situation, which Bald Ass Gays doesn't always offer
Laziness.
>zoomer doesn't know what replayability is
at what point do you just say frick it and savescum? the third playthrough? the fifth? have a nice day.
aw boohoo things didn't go your way
things can go wrong, grow up.
You cannot get all the content in one playthrough. This is by design. Choice without consequence is meanginless
You can't maybe. I can. Skill issue.
>I chose to roll a 1
It seems like you are afraid of failing in video games out of all things. Just how insecure you are?
why are you attributing failure to the player when the game is what did the failing?
>Invest in a skill
>Roll a 1 on a difficult skill check
>Expected to play through the entire with the same skill to access the content
Every other game makes you choose which content you want to see. BG3 makes you choose between content or no content.
>BG3 makes you choose between content or no content.
Disingenuous and not even remotely true. Failed checks more often than not result in something just as interesting as a pass.
Never because I'm not a Black person and can deal with a failure.
>use inspiration
Wow, that was hard. What content do you even "lose" for failing a dice roll" it always leads to another outcome, it's not like anything just vanishes.
By missing content it changes the story and thus opens up different content.
Either way you roll you miss content. Just go with it you sodomite
Depends
If you fail a roll, does it just lock you out? Or can you roll something else?
If so that just screams PLEASE SAVESCUM
You're locked out BUT the game has a reroll system called "inspiration" you earn "inspiration points" from doing things that would fit your chosen backstory (the chargen has a tab for picking your backstory) ie the archeologist character solving a puzzle in an ancient ruin, or the street urchin pickpocketing (and returning) a locket from a wealthy noble who had previously taken the locket off an orphan. These points can be used to reroll those skill check dice. You can only have 4 max points so you're incentivised to use them, and for skill checks like lock picking nothing happens on failure but the lock pick breaks so there's no stakes for that as long as you're stocked up.
Sometimes. But there are also a lot of times where there's no alternative. Sure, killing a lot of the npcs turns out to be inconsequential most of the time, but it's not an outcome most people want when playing blind.
>If you fail a roll, does it just lock you out?
You're locked out of whatever dialogue you were supposed to get for succeeding, but it never locks your out of actual things to do. If you fail an arcana check the game just doesn't give you flavor text over whatever you were looking into. You can't never get a quest for failing a dice roll.
bro... but if you succeed in the roll you are "locked out of" the content you would have experienced if you failed.
i dont see what the fricking issue is.
They think they need to win every roll for content and don't know that the game still gives you content even if you fail a check. Basically, they're moronic.
there is no content when you fail moron
Act 2 says hi.
You can't name a single instance where failing a dice roll locks you out of whatever quest or content you're trying to shitpost about.
Lathanders light
What roll? The statues? There's a lot of greae bottles lying around the area that you can throw at the statues to lubricate them so you don't need to do a check anymore. The grease spell itself also works and so does hitting them a few times.
You mean the stuck statue in the basement of the creche? Just throw grease at it, dumbass.
There's even a note elsewhere in the ruin that explains this. Do some people just not read notes?
Most gamers nowadays have absolutely obliterated attention spans. They would never survive something along the likes of Myst or Zork.
>They would never survive something along the likes of Myst or Zork.
I tripped across a youtube video of some no-name video essayist from 3 months ago talking about Myst, and he said the game didn't stand the test of time...because it was too hard.
Like...fricking what mate? That game was and still is ridiculed as an adult babysitter because it was too damn easy, and you got fricking stuck on ALL the puzzles? Not just the submarine one? How the frick is someone able to operate a camera, edit a video, and upload it to youtube just to post that they couldn't put a square block into the hole? What??
I didn't find that but figured that out anyway because i paid attention to the basic elements the game has
>water can be frozen
>oil can be set on fire
>there's a quest where this statue related to a puzzle is stuck and the narration tells you the gears are old and won't move, maybe grease will work. cool, it did.
Basically, they have no critical thinking skills.
>when you fail the dice roll, the game just gives you a "Game Over" instantly
What game does this?
Lone Wolf.
Fear and Hunger
What if you had branching paths based on choice over chance?
Then you would buy a different game
>roll a 1 first playthrough
>"ok i'll play it again"
>roll a 1
>"ok maybe a 3rd"
>roll a 1
>...
>roll a 1
>...
>roll a 1
>...
>roll a 1
>...
skill issue
>Baldur's Gate 3 takes around 52-100 hours to complete acording to goygle
This isnt a 10 hours sony template cinematic exprience game... Normalgays will barely finnish it and jump for the next shit, you need to be some dedicated frick to spend that much time to replay it at least twice.
And the people who actually play board stuff will end up finding the flaws and limitations pretty fast so they will power through a rushed run if not abandoning the whole deal half way and returining to the board.
Cry all you want but this isnt different than fallout (i would say skyrim but that shit has really no difference in your choices so it has no point in savescumming your way through dialoge... gee i wonder why and wonder why its so SUCCessfull)
You sound as moronic and blind as the fricks complaining about bikini armor.
Disco Elysium did it better, as you unlocked content of failing rolls
In BG3, you are straight locked out of content if you fail rolls or go evil playthrough
I have about 60 hours in the game and I swear a good 20 of them is just save scumming
Because it's suppose to be -your- character's adventure. Which is made unique by what you get and what you don't get.
That's what makes it unique.
this would be fine except literally no one plays this way. not even you. tell me how many times you quicksaved and reloaded when you lost a roll. actually don't. just admit it to yourself.
You sound dangerously insecure about cheating in a video game.
>need to roll 5
>have 4 bonus points
>ha ha i can't lose
>roll 1
>critical fail
>bonus points didn't matter
>need to roll 99
>add no bonuses because they make rolling 1/20 less possible
>have 4inspirations + initial attempt so its 1 in 4 roll
>easily roll critical success
skill issue
What happens?
Nothing. I rolled a crit the first time too, and I was so excited because I assumed it unlocks a new path/ending. But nope, it didn't matter
Final boss has 20% less hp if you succeed
Haha, what a joke. Thanks for answering.
points didn't matter
Critical fails/success aren't even a core rule. I have no fricking idea why they implemented this homebrew rule, it's just fricking moronic. Inherent 5% chance to win/fail any role is just stupid
>bonus points didn't matter
On one of the patches having a -1 with the core modifying stat underlowed nat 1 to 20s
>Why would you design your troony subversion game like this?
Does it matter?
If it encouraged failure in the same way Disco Elysium did it wouldn’t be so bad, usually if you fail a dice roll it means you now have to fight someone to the death or just go do a dice roll somewhere else instead. No meaningful failure, just win/lose
>fail dice roll
>content stolen
gotta play the whole game then start over and get back to this very point to see that homosexual! thanks for the next 50 hours!
>succeed in dice roll
>content gained
I just keep reloading and succeeding same check again and again to get infinite content
D&D gays don't have standards.
>play halfling
>"what's a critical failure?"
>want to fail a roll
>keep rolling critical successes
frick you
I’ve learnt that 90% of this board isn’t North American and it’s mainly sub 105 IQ people. It helps explain all the terrible terrible takes on this board like OP.
Shouldnt you be dying in israel, foreskinlet?
Never heard that one
Yeah it's kind of fricked that Larian decided to include the LE FUNNY NAT 1 MEME in skill checks. It's not like you can fail forwards with humorous results, either, most of them are just straight up "You missed the content, buh bye"
Well there's ONE time, I guess, and it's when a passive insight is rolled and if you fail it said character gets mad at you for not kissing her on the spot.
Things OP could've done
>use potions
>invest in skills
>use spells to increase success chances
>use party members who are procificent with the said skill
>use scrolls
>literally anything rather than b***h like a toddler
OP is a crying b***h Black person but crit fail on skill checks is also b***h Black person behavior
>none of what you said can help beyond rolling with advantage
Then roll with advantage, you moron
>just get advantage lol
The majority of checks don't have quick access to advantage, if any at all.
>play halfling!
yeah just lock out 99% of the racial selections, maybe you should apply for WotC to help with 6ed.
Sister, your war cleric?
what does war cleric have to help avoid 1's on skill/attribute checks?
I turned Shart into a war cleric and she got a spell that can force you to have advantage on any attribute check you want.
If you say guidance then I'm going to guide my fist up your ass
It's not guidance, dumbass. I said advantage, not a 1d4 bonus.
Enhance Ability?
>Level 2 spell
>concentration (will be replace in 5 seconds)
>ability checks only
>only one ability
Yeah that, not war cleric specifically but it does exactly what you people are complaining about, you have as many as you need because it's only a level 2 spell and you can upcast it if you don't have any level 2 spell slots
>but that does nothing extra?
So what? It gives you advantage on whatever check you want.
>no i need the game to let me pass all my survival checks despite the fact that failing the survival check means absolutely fricking nothing
>DC 0
>rolls a 1
>still fails
Uhh... am I missing something here???
TTRPGs have to live on "Yes and"ing the game and video games are always going to be dogshit at that, especially ones with "bad DMs"
morons don't understand that, while checks work in actual campaigns, in-game they just arbitrarily restrict content.
It's one thing to choose a different route for replayability, and it's another to frick you out of interesting dialogue or gameplay just because.
haven't played 5e or bg3, are nat-1s and nat-20s auto-fails and auto-success regardless of modifiers? that seems dumb
It does do that and it is indeed very dumb. It's an infamous houserule that new players use because they either didn't read the handbook correctly or because it's "fun".
Two things:
That is the point of actual RPGs, to have different experiences depending on your build and RNG, encouraging multiple runs and unique scenarios.
Your party members should be covering your weaknesses.
Just play Yahtzee you stupid homosexuals this is supposed to be a video game.
Not my problem.
Who gives a frick about failing a lockpicking check? You can screw those up all day long and it won't matter because swinging a hammer at a chest gets you what's inside just the same.
Also works for pickpocketing, I love rolling a dc 35 after bonuses against a 29 and taking all their money.
the only game I've seen do this right is fricking disco elysium
if you crit fail a roll you usually get a unique failure state that causes an entirely different chain of events, sometimes one that's even more beneficial than the success state
one such example is when the player character gets invited to play with some large marbles
if you succeed the strength check you chuck it into the horizon like a moron and get a quest to get it back, but if you fail you end up making a great shot by complete accident and you win the game
Disco Elysium also uses a 2d6 system instead of a 1d20. That makes it so that you're much more likely to roll averages and critical successes and failures are much more rare.
>critical success
>just as good as regular success
why? just reduce the amount of work to do?
from what I understand if you crit on a charm for instance, not only do they tell you the location of their treasure but fall in love with you, or something to that effect.
>specifically only go for rolls where I have bonuses
>succeed more than i fail
Damn. that was hard
>rolling on checks where you have disadvantage and no bonuses and he needs a high number
>Don't hit wall again
>lose out on an entire area
Why would you design your game like this?
because it's designed around online soapstone messages spoiling every secrets
God I hate this aspect of Souls games, might as well use a guide at that point.
Play offline.
To be fair, you don't lose out that much from the Great Hollow. You have a covenant that you won't use, a bad dragon tail weapon, and Siegmeyer's end quest if you let him take too much damage.
There isn't any game worth content, but the view is nice
Because From-Soft fricking sucks at giving any sort of visual cue toward invisible walls, and they operate on old game dev logic of "make random, unknowable secrets because frick you". If you dislike this, you'd HATE La-Mulana.
The cue is other players leaving very obvious notes
or in many cases other than the great hollow seeing the hidden path from another angle and trying to find a way to get there
F8
As always, RNG is the antithesis of ludo
If you're that worried about rolls just play Halfling. Or never use Inspiration re-rolls, unless it's a 1, so you always have 4 in the bank. Or take the Lucky feat.
>have someone who is good at intimidating people in my party
>get option to intimidate
>no option for them to butt in the conversation to intimidate, it's only whoever initiated the conversation that does the roll
why? isn't this the point of a party? isn't this how conversations go irl? or did I miss something
Divinity had the same problem with that, even if it wasn't smooth it'd be preferable if you had an option for party members to switch who's talking mid-conversation
This is one of my main concerns with the game. I felt like I was actively cucking myself by having my main character have 8 Charisma. I lost Astarion from my party because I couldn't convince him that doing the ritual was a horrible idea so he screeched, killed all the Gur prisoners then told me to frick myself. I had Wyll in my party with 20 Charisma that could have saved that if this was like Pathfinder.
Respect you didn’t save scum. I agree with you, my biggest piss off too. Still, though it must of been shitty it made the game interesting and you overcame.
Good because doing ritual was a great idea
They try to push that you are killing thousands of people when you do it, but those people are already dead. They are all vampires, and it would be for the best to "kill" them all anyway. The only bad about the ritual is giving Astarion way too much power.
>having Astarion in your party to begin with
>Not taking him with you to kill Cazador
What's even the point of doing it if not to help him get revenge?
Make Astarion a bard. If your PC does all the talking anyway then spec him into sneak and sleight of hand and he will become a bard who can do all your lockpicking and pickpocket for you as well. Bard class also fits his character.
Anyone who missed this trick is missing out. Bards are a great and it means you get to make the best out of Astarion who is one the most enjoyable companions.
Now this is imo what I consider to be the games biggest flaw. Why is my dumb ass 8 Cha barbarian being the parties faces? You can't say it's because he's the "plan guy" because he's also fricking retarted.
I really can't say why.
The game lets you control companions and initiate dialog with them already. You can play an entire campaign with Tav or Durge as basically elaborate side characters.
So that you can't just swap characters with some token 'excuse me' line is annoying. Some dialog scenes already have the companions significantly interject, too.
Yeah, I don't understand why the devs didn't fix this shit in EA when people have been pointing it out from the day the game became publicly playable. I remember reading something about spaghetti code kind of breaking dialogue swapping between characters but all the devs would need to do is allow players to pick which party characters stats to be used for rolls every time a skill check pops up and then flag specific checks as "single character check only" to balance shit like the necromancy tome being piss easy to solve if it was a group effort.
I hope that this is coming in a patch or that the devs release some proper modding tools with maybe mod list support so that you can enable and disable any mod you want for specific save files without having to uninstall and reinstall mods constantly
Like Dispel Magic, it's likely part spaghetti code and part it doubling their workload. There are more than a few skill checks that result in the person who's in the conversation doing some animation, like you punching Aradin/Zevlor or you reaching into the hole in Moonrise Tower. If they allowed party members to help you they would have had to animate all of that stuff and do an entire extra pass on all checks in the game. Like the strength check where you yank your arm out of the hole would require an ally stepping in and helping you do it, but how do you animate that when your strength guy is a gnome? Or worse, a bear, a bird or a Slayer Form Durge? Larian has made absolutely everything in the game take a million times more work because of the perspective the game takes. They could abstract it all away of course but they're very stubborn about their cutscenes.
Dispell Magic, I get.
That is a frick to deal with for a DM IRL, and even more so in a video game.
But Larian already gives the PC tons of different options for your Avatar or lets you pick any of the origin characters to play as. That is to say, that they're already accounted for basically all of those issues with scaling or animating to the unique bodyplan of the PC.
They did. But animating people helping is still more extra hours of motion capture. Some things can be scaled for the midget races and taller characters which will help, but some just can't and will need separate animations, which is why they made a big deal of romance companions carrying small PCs for a kiss. I can see a feature like this being a Definitive Edition addition but who knows if they're taking the complaints about it seriously enough to do so.
There is a mod that fixes this, but it is genuinely one of the biggest flaws of the game.
Not being able to pass off a conversation or something to your party's highest CHA character is bad for simulating the tabletop, and is bad for staying on par with other similar titles like WOTR.
When did videogames stopped being games and became "content" you need to consume?
remember oblivion's horse armor dlc? around that time
>you can't use the word content anymore because it triggers me
When the "1 dollar per hour to beat the game" "rule" was established
I never save-scummed in this and I'm glad for it, I would have hated having to constantly reload some scenario 15 times in a row just to force the game to give me what I want instead of just dealing with it. I don't know how people can tolerate going that, it seems mind numbingly tedious.
It's not the dice problem, it's larian don't understand how they should work.
Larian just like some new and inexperienced DM are shoving this shit everywhere. Also 5e sucks with all those advantages and shit.
If you specialise in persuasion you should have no problem with success in all these skills checks. Failure should be rare because it's your fricking expertise.
You guys find the most stupid thing possible to nitpick and make threads about, every thread is like a competition to do the most moronic take.
Yes
Seething shill.
The only truly rewarding way to play BG3 is on Normal difficulty with Ironman rules. That means no saving at all except between sessions and a TPK means restarting the run. Unless you glitch out or get wiped by Larian jank, then you can reload.
I might do that next run. without withers though it would suck so hard, given how enemies (especially bosses) can crit
It's not really possible without Withers unless you're cheating/glitching or have the whole game memorized. Withers is the only reason an Ironman works. Random bullshit deaths are fine because you can always bring people back as long as you don't full wipe, and there are only a few ways that happens outside of you sucking.
your revivify scrolls?
>he needs to play on baby difficulty for his ironmans
ability checks (saves aren't the same thing) aren't even that common, 95% of checks are skills.
The original post was >just roll with advantage to not get auto-failed! which most skills can't even get.
>immediately cherry picking the most useless skill
>he needs to play on baby difficulty for his ironmans
It's possible to Ironman on Tactician sure but it's also not going to be fun. Tactician is balanced around save and load, big fights are just too likely to gib someone important off the bat and make a fight impossible.
it really isn't that bad after act 1
>one character who can eat complete shit turn 1 but survive regardless to pull aggro
>divine caster
>dex gay
>free space
The game gives you the ability to force yourself to have advantage on any check you want
>no but what about the skills!?
Skills are worthless, Black person. I fricking knew it, you're complaining about shit like survival and perception when failing those doesn't do anything. Checks are the only thing you would even need advantage for.
>BUT NOW I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DIRT MOUND IS!!!!
Most people don't know that even if you fail the Survival Check for dirt mounds, you can still use the shovel on the area and dig the thing up anyway
Seriously, how the frick are they not aware of this? Even if you fail a perception check you can still interact with the thing that you failed to find, you just have to look for it. The point part where this isn't true is things like traps, but you can still see the pressure plates, you just can't interact with it (stupid, but it is what it is). so you can just manually avoid it to not set it off.
Some things don't show up at all unless you pass the perception check like the button in the barricaded room in the Tollhouse in Reithwin. Trapped chests are also pretty inconsistent. If you fail the perception check, fine. But destroying the chest sometimes gets around the trap harmlessly or sometimes still sets it off, which can be very deadly if it's a chain lightning trap or other high level trap. But yeah, for the most part they did a good job of allowing you to find things on your own or do alternatives even when you fail those checks, with the roll just being a way to alert you to look around more closely.
Because you can't always do that.
I remember the traps in Ethel's swamp don't even appear unless you pass a check for them.
And floor vent traps sometimes are impossible to interact with if you fail the perception check.
>The game gives you the ability to force yourself to have advantage on any check you want
>>no but what about the skills!?
nice job contradicting yourself in the next sentence
>skills are worthless
the only thing worthless here is you, since you keep laser-focusing on piles of dirt.
>nice job contradicting yourself in the next sentence
You said it yourself, skills and ability checks are not the same thing. There is no contradiction there, and I already guessed you were going to complain about it beforehand in another post. Unless you got confused about me just saying "check" when we both fricking know what ENHANCE ABILITY does, moron.
Stop coping.
>I already guessed you were going to complain about it beforehand in another post
good job, seeing as that was part of the original point I was making in the reply chain.
>C-cope!
sneethe
No argument? Typical.
Concession accepted.
there was never an argument to begin with, it's just been you saying "it doesn't matter!" over and over like a 5 year old.
>you can't force advantage on checks
>Yes you can
>NO NOT LIKE THAT
Cope and seethe.
>duhh you just say it doesn't matter
Yeah, because failing skill checks actually doesn't matter at all. You haven't even disproven this claim, you just b***hed and moaned about it being stated.
here anon since you seem to not have your glasses on, I'll just shove it in your face
Yeah I saw that. It doesn't change the point that it's moronic because you're complaining about something inconsequential. The only checks to worry about are ability checks, not skill checks. And you can force advantage on any ability check you want. Failing a skill check means frick all because the skill check even existing tells you everything you need to know
>fail survival check - just start digging because the game just told you there's hidden treasure around
>fail perception check - just look for an obscured valve to interact with because 99% of the time it won't be invisible and you can still touch it
>he's STILL hyperfocused on passive perception checks
There are 16 skills, and of those only SoH, Stealth, and Perception can get advantage before act 3.
Now, would you care to answer myself as well as
on why you think the skills are "worthless"?
I never said skills were worthless, I said failing the skill check doesn't matter because the game lets you circumvent the failure in light of it happening. If you weren't a moronic ESL you would have seen that I said this repeatedly.
>I never said skills were worthless
>Skills are worthless, Black person.
>reading comprehension
If you even bothered reading that you would clearly see it's referencing the failure of a skill check, and this was all in response to someone complaining about skill checks, dumbass, not the skills existing. This entire conversation, from the very start, was always about ability checks and skill checks. You're just trying to move the goalpost onto something else because you're starting to see how moronic you are.
>no but you didn't specify that here despite the fact that it's obviously what was being discussed and I was fully aware of it at the time, but that's different now
You got blown the frick out with every post you made.
You can keep telling yourself that but that won't make it true. The funniest part is that you never actually disproved anything that I said, you ignored them just to shitpost.
>(you)
let's take the entire quote then, shall we?
>Skills are worthless, Black person. I fricking knew it, you're complaining about shit like survival and perception when failing those doesn't do anything. Checks are the only thing you would even need advantage for.
the "context" is you going on a schizo rant about passive perception before moving the goalpost back to ability checks.
>This entire conversation, from the very start, was always about ability checks and skill checks
no, that's what you keep trying to move it to, when it was originally about critfails on non-attacks.
>You're just trying to move the goalpost onto something else because you're starting to see how moronic you are.
>verbatim what you posted
>that's not what I meant
holy frick anon just give up.
>no, that's what you keep trying to move it to
That's literally what this entire shit started with, moron. I'd tell you to read the quote chain but I doubt you'd even be able to handle that given how illiterate you seem to be.
>That's literally what this entire shit started with, moron. I'd tell you to read the quote chain but I doubt you'd even be able to handle that given how illiterate you seem to be.
it "started" (4 posts in the chain) with someone (presumably (You)) saying to use cleric's enhance ability to give advantage on SKILL CHECKS
>>have to help avoid 1's on skill/attribute checks?
>skill/attribute checks
>attribute
Can clerics help avoid crit failures on attribute, i.e. ability, checks? Yes, they can. Then someone tried focusing on nothing but skill check failures by saying those are more prominent, and i kept saying those don't matter because failing the skill check means frick all at the end of the day for obvious reasons.
>inb4 ability and attribute are not the same thing
Shut the frick up. I'm seriously tired of this stupid shit.
>>>have to help avoid 1's on skill/attribute checks?
checks
Can clerics help avoid crit failures on skill checks? No, they can't. Then someone tried focusing on nothing buy ability check failures by saying those are the only ones that matter and that skills are worthless.
Quit dropping the half of the post because it doesn't make you correct.
I'm not even going to humor you anymore because it's obvious you didn't pay attention to anything in the game. Enjoy the last (you).
Not him, but if they don't matter, why include them? Isn't that just admitting that time is being wasted?
I did for my first playthrough because >Larian but I did a second playthrough full ironman.
If the game is bullshit hard and offers me no ropes I can pull to turn the odds in my favor, then yes. Otherwise I don't.
I do generally think RNG in speech checks doesn't belong in videogames
I savescummed the frick out of my first playthrough to control the outcomes I wanted. On subsequent playthroughs I let go and let things happen how they play out and found it to be a lot more enjoyable. I think most games aren't worth replaying so I try to squeeze every drop of blood from the stone on my first playthrough but since BG3 actually had real RPG elements it makes sense to focus on roleplaying first rather than running through the completionist checklist.
Crit failures can be funny, like in Arcanum.
Turn-based combat and RNG diceroll mechanics are an antiquated holdover from PnP RPGs and 90s CRPGs. There is literally no reason for them to exist in the 21st century.
>There is literally no reason for them to exist
Other than people enjoying them
which is the only reason that matters
turn based combat is only shit in things like bog-standard jrpg's. Tactical rpg's are turn based and those are good.
RTWP sucks.
Encourages the devs to put in way too many extraneous fluff fights against mooks and weak mobs. Wrath of the Righteous is a good game and it suffers from this especially. Same with the older Baldur's Gates.
One of BG3's best aspects is that there aren't a lot of pointless fights and that followed because of the turn-based focus.
And larian's "few fights" approach makes them craft an intended route through the act which in practice results in player running around all over the map like a moron looking for fights with mobs that don't overlevel them. Was especially terrible in OS2.
It's almost like what matters is execution. I'll take BG2 and a couple of fast, easy fights to live out the power fantasy thank you very much.
Power fantasies are problematic toxic masculinity capitalist fascism.
I don't think that really is ever an issue.
The very early game is the part where levels matter the most, and even then you can beat the Gnolls at level 2 if you're smart.
You're given a lot of tools to beat any given problem, from the start.
Otherwise, being overleveled is a more common issue. Especially if you do some kind of in-act 'sequence break'. Like leaving the Goblin Camp for the very end in Act 1 after doing the Underdark and Ethel.
If anything the game could be more stingy with levels granted to the player.
It's nowhere near as bad as in Original Sin 2, but I had this issue in act I - I assumed that going into the absolute camp is supposed to be the done at the very end of the act so I was running around trying to do everything else and was constantly running into enemies who overleveled me.
Personally, I always leave 'story' missions for last in my RPGs, so I went out of my way to go after all the reasonable 'side content' first before I messed with the gobbos.
Mostly because I didn't know if the game was going to railroad me into a bunch of story cutscenes and shit right afterwards.
People really be reading all about the game before they play it, huh. Like how do you even know there is Act 1, Act 2 if you don't overread on Ganker first?
And people whine that they don't enjoy video games anymore. Ofc they don't, since you you don't play them blind.
You are right. Till I beat the goblin camp and the 3 bosses(one being that drow character everyone posts about) I had a really hard game with lots of party wipes till I became level 4. I am not at the Moontower area and none of the fights have been that difficult. Might have been that I finally began understanding the game(I don't read anything online for a more pure experience).
The earliest period is definitely the toughest.
My first run I underestimated that one adventurer party you find at the church very early on and got wiped because I didn't expect the game to actually treat them as equal to me.
But once I got an understanding for the system it became a lot easier. BG3 is very generous with what it gives you. And the maps are laid out so that the player can definitely get the terrain advantage on most battles if they scout ahead for what is coming their way.
If anything, they could have extended that Lv1-Lv5 section for longer.
It is shit for casters, but for martial classes it is the peak of the game because you have enough tools to play well, but the game doesn't give you enough to do too well.
You're more likely to skip content by succeeding a skill check than you're going to miss by failing at one.
you basically never fail rolls with all the boosts you get from all sorts of sources. you should have 4 inspirations since theyre rarely needed, use them. also most deck rolls have minor consequences to your game.
Sure you'll likely to miss a small handful of important rolls each playthough and thats fine you should be able to deal with the consequences its a dnd game after all.
does this game have critical failure results or is that just a pipe dream?
Skill issue.
>I HAVE to be able to experience ALL the content on one save! I should be able to do EVERYTHING my first run, and if I’m not then that’s called bad game design!!!! Why? It…It just IS, okay??!??
>>I HAVE to be able to experience ALL the content on one save! I should be able to do EVERYTHING my first run, and if I’m not then that’s called bad game design!!!! Why? It…It just IS, okay??!??
"Replayability" features are a meme. I don't replay a game because it has "replayability". I replay it because the game is just fricking good. I've replayed Super Mario Bros 1 millions of times. I still occasionally pop in Zelda 64. I play the shit out of Majesty 1. Those games all play exactly the same, but they're just good. I've replayed shit like Deus Ex 0 times, cause 1 boring run was enough.
bro your inspiration rerolls?
Do NPCs ever actually give a negative reaction to using the Friends spell on them?
the only time it's backfired on me is using it on one of the guards in moonlight tower, so I think it only matters on characters in a crowded area or near guards.
Are your dopamine receptors permanently broken or something? Why does failure in a video game haunt you so much that you would resort to save scumming just to succeed? The only time reloading a quicksave is justifiable is when you run into a game breaking bug.
>inb4 you probably save scummed too
I play ironman rules first playthrough always. In subsequent runs, I do quicksave/quickload but only after I've beaten the game once. I don't look up shit online either my first go. If I miss it, I miss it. Really feels rewarding when I get to it in my next go, like how I missed the entire painted world in DS1 during my first save.
BECAUSE I FRICKING PAID FOR IT AND THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE
I PAY YOU FOR A SERVICE, I EXPECT TO BE SATISFIED. IF I DON'T GET 100% OF EVERYTHING THAT I WANT, THEN IT'S SHIT. OH, NOT REFILLING MY WATER, WAGIE? ZERO TIP FOR YOU. OH, I GET LOCKED OUT OF CONTENT? THEN I'M CREATING 50 SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNTS AND LEAVING NEGATIVE REVIEWS AND WON'T STOP UNTIL I GET MY MONEY BACK. THIS IS CAPITALISM. I'M THE ONE IN CHARGE HERE, homosexual. THE CUSTOMER.
>THIS IS CAPITALISM. I'M THE ONE IN CHARGE HERE, homosexual. THE CUSTOMER.
Neither Larian nor the customers are in charge.
>Why does failure in a video game haunt you so much that you would resort to save scumming just to succeed?
1. Disrespect to the video game. If the game does not have the balls to auto-save after every single choice I make, then I have no need to respect them in the first place, and will rape their corpse as I please.
2. Because I just simply value my time. Most games will never be good enough that I will want to play them more than once ever. So if I run into something that's going in a direction I don't want, and the game has provided me the convenient tools necessary to undo that instantaneously and at will, then I'm going to use them and there is nothing the game or morons like you can do to stop me.
>auto-save after every single choice I make
Horrible game design
>Because I just simply value my time
And yet you are here in this shitpost thread
>then I'm going to use them and there is nothing the game or morons like you can do to stop me.
I don't really care, gay. This is a disservice to yourself. You couldn't see a whole CYOA book path to it's finish as a child, and now your completionist mindset persists as a teenager.
>Horrible game design
Literally the opposite. Why design a bad choice/roll/decision in a game but then just give the player the magic button to undo it? It's like you're telling me directly to erase bad decisions. What's the point?
>That dumb bullshit analogy about the CYOA
I'm going to obey the rules of the game, but if the built-in rules and tools of said game provide me with a method of doing the task, I'm going to do the task.
>What's the point?
I would be completely against quickloading if it wasn't for the unavoidable fact that it may be necessary to avoid game breaking bugs. I think people should stick with the decisions they make and all the consequences that follow. Resident Evil does this the best imo with it's save system tied to limited in-game items. Of course RE is also much more stable than BG3 but I digress.
>I'm going to obey the rules of the game, but if the built-in rules and tools of said game provide me with a method of doing the task, I'm going to do the task.
And with CYOA, you have fingers which can turn back the pages every time you make a bad decision. Not doing that and sticking with your story is a matter of simple willpower. If you can't even refrain from savescumming just because the tools are available, then there's nothing stopping me from assuming that you won't do the same with books like that.
Don't get me wrong. I can't change who you are, nor will I go through more effort than posting this, but who you are is a moron with a short attention span and a weak will.
>I would be completely against quickloading if it wasn't for the unavoidable fact that it may be necessary to avoid game breaking bugs.
But even still, the game provides it. Also, we shouldn't excuse poor game design because the designers might just be bad at programming video games. Hold them to a higher standard.
>And with CYOA, you have fingers which can turn back the pages every time you make a bad decision.
But that's not in the rules of the game. The game didn't provide that tool to me, the game told me specifically what pages to choose and how to choose them. So that analogy still fails on its face. It's also getting into a moronic area of non-video game cheating and the philosophy behind human self-imposed difficulty, but again that doesn't apply here because I just follow the rules of the game as a tacit agreement and understanding of the game. But the game itself gives me the power to undo. It's in the game.
Also there is unironically CYOA games that are impossible to complete until you start flipping through the pages and basically cheating. Two of which I remember were a space war of some sort that "rewarded" you for thinking outside of the box, and the other one was a Batman comic where he was going up against the Riddler.
>But that's not in the rules of the game. The game didn't provide that tool to me, the game told me specifically what pages to choose and how to choose them.
There are no rules to CYOA beyond that which is self-imposed. The book expects you to turn to a given page, but nothing explicitly stops you from turning back to a previous choice and taking another route, but this isn't seen as the proper way to read these kinds of books as it is generally expected that you follow the story in one unbroken chain till you reach an ending.
This is the same thing with these kinds of games. Sure you have the tools available to savescum, but that isn't the proper way to complete the game as quickloading a save gone wrong is the vidya equivalent of flipping back the pages of a CYOA whenever you hit a scenario that is less than golden.
>There are no rules to CYOA beyond that which is self-imposed.
Which I just stated I am obeying. It is within the rules of the game. It is in the rules of any video game that I may open the menu to do things like save, load, adjust options, and exit. This is within the rules because a video game only exists in its rules. Otherwise, games like Dark Souls or Resident Evil would do things like restrict my save ability. It would only be save scumming if I exited the game, found the save file, copy and pasted that to a different folder, and replaced it. You know, the classical definition of savescumming relative to the origin of the term: Roguelikes.
Fricking up a fight in act 2 kind of trashed the game for me, so yes I savescummed it.
I knew the stakes were high, but the uncontrollable NPC acted like a moron and I couldn't waste all my time healing them. So I had a second go and it went perfectly fine, purely due to NPCs deciding to use different actions.
That's acceptable I guess. I was mainly talking about those who reload saves just because they didn't win at a diceroll, or realized the consequences of their actions after taking them.
>5% change to fail everting you do
>5% to succeed everting you do
D100>D20
Guys, I've rescued Nightsong and the Dark Urge demands I kill Isobel. Do I? She seems kinda nice though.
Do it even if you aren't Durge, Nightsong is the most blatant gay pandering in the game.
Nah, she cute. Depends if you're going for an evil or good ending though, be warned the good end dark urge is kino as frick.
Agreed that she's cute, overall friendly too. I've kept her alive as I prefer it and my intention from the start was a Dark Urge that was inconsistent--sometimes kill (like that Tiefling) and sometimes do not kill. They're so far chaotic.
>win a dice roll in a persuasion check
>NPC doesn't want to fight you anymore
>gameplay successfully avoided
There are some interactions that are better. You can convince a few people to neck themselves and get their allies to do the same--you get all the XP and loot still as well.
Passing the Persuasion check on Ketheric in the Mind Flayer Colony makes him awkwardly skip to the second phase of the fight, which actually makes it harder because Aylin will still be making the Avatar of Myrkul invincible if she's still alive and you haven't had the chance to kill the Mind Flayer and the Necromites yet.
Because it`s fun on the tabletop, but not on a videogame
It's only a good feature if the game doesn't allow savescumming.
its player choice to cheat
And the game should prevent cheating.
>start attack on moontowers
>billion buttholes involved
Fricking hell this is going to be a slog isn't it.
Nuke them with AoE spells and grenades. Finish the survivors off with multi-attacks. Fight can be over in under 5 minutes provided the allied NPCs don't frick up somehow.
All right looks like you'd be right. Used fire wall on a lot of them and then extended it with grease and those not in the fire wall walk into it. The AI in this game is moronic sometimes--was worried over nothing it seems.
On subsequent playthroughs, I genocide them all beforehand. Allows me to knock out Roah and Tarv safely so I can steal their shit.
People are saying that Act 1 is huge and it takes them over 50 hours or so to do it. I'm almost done with the druid camp and only 18 hours in. Did I miss something? I have all companions you can get and almost all of the map explored.
act 1 also includes three areas outside the sword coast, but they'll be about 2 hours each.
people are slow.
They include the time spent afk and tabbed out in that 50 hours
Have you done the Underdark and the Creche?
The Druid Camp is a pretty limited slice of the act.
Everything else will probably double your time.
Played it straight, then watched 6 hours worth of videos on youtube with missing from my playthrough cutscenes. It is not that good of a game that you should play through it twice.
I played the third act without saving scumming because the game decided to ruin my save, the best 10 hours of BG3 I could get.
You win and lose sometimes dude, thats what makes it great
>people keep talking up casters
>get a full party of fighter hirelings and arm them with hand crossbows
>game becomes way easier
In older DnD setting, including Pathfinder, you aren't suposed to automatically fail a skill test on 1. 20 don't mean an automatic win either.
Those are only for battles or tense situations, same for the take ten rule.
It's a D&D game you mong. If you don't like it, they let you save scum. Posts like this make me wish they'd take away save files, just to piss off morons like you.
There's no dnd ever in which you can crit for fricking skill checks.
You never played D&D you fricking moron.
>in dnd if you miss a dice it's just new and different content
This is literally what happens dumb Black person. Easy example: Fail the skill check against the tentacles in moonrise? You get to meet the Absolute early.
You never played D&D as intended you fricking moron.
Show me where it says in the player manual that a nat 1 should fail skill checks. Any edition.
Besides that, the argument was a D&D game. The older games not only didn't fail on a nat 1, they let you take 20 on out of combat/dialogue skill checks to not waste your time.
nah frick you and your opinion
the difference between actual dnd and this garbage game is that in the game you miss a dice and content is gone, in dnd if you miss a dice it's just new and different content
They could add side switch for failing. But you and me both know players would companion about that as well.
>"what do you mean I have to do bad to get this side quest?"
so what if idiots complain?
There should be satisfying paths for every success and failure, be they positive or negative.
It shouldn't just be "lmao u failed locked out of 30% of this chapter"
Does BG3 have any fail skill check the locks you out of 30% of a chapter? I'd argue failing an important skill missing out on 3% IF the game gives you a second, perhaps harder chance, and doesn't replace it with something else entirely.
the only large content loss/shift I can think of is losing out on LL inn, but that's a combat encounter rather than a single die roll.
you can miss companions which is a lot of fricking content, also
>and doesn't replace it with something else entirely.
the problem is it doesnt do this, which makes it not like an actual dnd game but a shitty vidya instead
Companions is a fair. They do try to fix it a little by through you an "Only evil" companion. But I wouldn't mind if he had a few more cases of that.
nah you don't get it.
in a dnd campaing if you fail a skillcheck it leads down another path of content
if you fail a skill check in bg3 you lose content
it's that fricking simple
That's not always true in Dnd. My last campaign of CoS the players fricked with the anti magic tower and arguably "lost" content. A DM doing nothing nothing but homebrew, or more of a free form campaign could "write" out of that. But that's not always the case.
that's just a bad dm, but you alluded to the difference between dnd and the game yourself.
In tabletop it can happen, in the game it either will or wont.
that's the problem with all "dnd" games, they can't emulate the freedom of an actual dnd game and honestly they don't even fricking try
It's a hard thing to fix. For a game to "feel" like dnd it has to have those choices, but filling out those choices in a meaningful way is, depending on the scope of the game, impossible maybe someday we'll have a game that can do it fully right, but right now I'm able to live with the faults to drink the illusion.
bg3 took 6 years and they couldn't even do proper ending slides despite being privately owned and a company focused on Crpgs.
it won't be fix'd until we get AI at the level where it can literally make the games for them
Yeah, it's a fairly idiotic concept in a video game.
>finally use fireball
God damn, a modern game where fireball is actually fricking strong and sounds great. That's a first for me. Tired of fireball being the most basic-b***h weakest thing when it comes to spells.
That's dnd for you. Funny enough BG3's weird distancing makes it seem to small to me.
Agreed. I remember loving fireball in BG1 or 2 (I forget which, been so many years) as it's great there too as far as I remember. So good to see--as it should be. A lot of other spells reserved appropriately for low level, damage or otherwise.
Crit fails/succeeds on skill checks was the dumbest thing they did in the game
>be me
>+17 to investigation
>DC 5 investigation roll
>roll a 1
>"Teehee you don't get it :3"
Fricking dumb
Stop acting like everyone doesn't savescum
>fail a dice roll
>get access to alternative content
such as?
Every side boss in act 2 being a boss fight if you either refuse to do what they want or fail their dialogue dice rolls.
Lmao and people wonder why Bethesda games are so successful, turns out that the competition just arbitrarily locks you out of content you PAID FOR based on random chance. Could you imagine if you couldn't join the Companions in Skyrim and miss on the entirety of the questline and the werewolf mechanics just because you rolled poorly on the check to see if Kodlak likes you or not?
Looks like Todd's career is safe if that's the best Yuropoor designers can come up with, but after all "eurojank" is a term that exists for a reason.
You got content that resulted from failing the dice roll that you wouldn't get if you succeded.
>roll history/arcana/religion/nature/etc
>fail the check
>"you don't know"
wow great content
Oh no, not the missed out flavor text which basically always amounts to "you don't really know x but you feel like it's weird".
There is no content you get frok failing rolls, you are just cucked out of content you paid for with your hard earned money you stupid Black person.
If you fail a roll to control your urges as durge you murder your companion and the rest turns on you. That's content you wouldn't get otherwise.
>a random material item
>content
Did you frickers really not know that you can get advantage on skill checks through enhance ability? For real?
That's what makes the whole argument above hilarious
>>fail a dice roll
>>miss out on content
Just as often you miss out on content for succeeding on a roll.
The roll just decides which of the two outcomes you get. Both are content.
It works in tabletop since failed dice rolls will lead to emergent moments in the collaborative story telling but not in vidya where you can just quick save quick load
I save chadded every single roll. I will get the content I deserve because I am the infallible amazing hero of the story.
The game literally allows you to re-roll any skill check outside of combat as long as you have "inspiration". You'd know this if you had actually played the game instead of shitposted about it, the chance of rolling a 1 on every single re-roll is so astronomically low that it might as well be impossible.
The only problems with the system currently is that you aren't allowed to re-roll perception checks outside of dialogues and you can only hold 4 inspiration at a time, with that said, most of the perception checks can still be done since you can force the action (dig for example) regardless if you just click on the spot you rolled for in the world, if the devs changed both of these things the game would become almost completely deterministic as everything would turn into a player knowledge check instead which would lead to players playing "optimally" and complaining about that instead.
Playing games like BG3 without dice rolls is like playing TBOI without any of the rouge-like elements which would quickly make the game fall apart and lose it's replay value and probably also its gameplay fun factor for a lot of people.
TLDR: Never design a game since you'd be fricking terrible at it anon
There is also Shadowhearts guidance and cantrips that buff every single dialogue
Which accent does Jaheira have? It's kinda hot.
>fail a dice roll
>get additional content
The only game to do random rolls in dialogues right.
>game
Visual novel.
>The role-playing game makes you choose a ROLE to PLAY so that you're not just generically good at everything
>The ROLE you PLAY is generally formed by your characters personal backstory and formation of their abilities
My only problem with rolls like this in a video game are that you're prone to just save scum them if you REALLY don't like the outcome of a roll instead of it just being a flat stat check like in New Vegas. Skyrim being introduced to you morons was a massive mistake.
It's an rpg homie. If you fail the dice roll there's other ways of proceeding. Like if you can't convince someone to give you something you can just kill them and loot it.
Or pickpocket them, pick whatever lock you need to get past, find another route to get past the obstacles, charm them or complete the quest in a different way. The game is kind of suffering from the amount of stuff players are able to experience but up until about halfway through act3, the game always give players at least 2-3 different ways of completing content.
I has the opposite problem to bethesda games where their games are as wide as oceans and as deep as puddles, BG3 is about the size of a swimming pool but twice as deep
Pickpocketing is one bit that I savescum for because it is utterly fricking bullshit and seems to rely more on the alignment of the planets than my Rogue's skill bonuses.
the numerical preview it gives you in the pickpocket screen is after bonuses, i.e. the actual die roll needed.
>tell myself I am going to do a proper playthrough with no save scumming this time
>immediately fail the roll to save Gale twice and he dies permanently
Gale's effect on the story is extremely inconsequential. There's really no need to have all of the companions.
>Oh no, not my gay wizardrino!
When does he have his moment to shine with that orb? The story keeps going to it over and over and he gets more depressed and every time it seems imminent but just never happens.
Just commit to it. I think the paradox of shit like this happening is even though it sucks because you're "losing content", you're much more emotionally invested because you know it's your authentic role play. Makes subsequent playthroughs that much more interesting too/
IDK, I just started savescumming all the dice rolls when I found out that Larian's "TRUST LE DICE" meant that the game will always just punish you for failing a roll.
What is it with moronic zoom zooms and their need to able to access all "content" in a single playthrough?
God forbid a video game campaign, particularly a D&D one, have any uniqueness.
>BG3
>unique playthroughs
You either be Talk no Jutsu your way through a situation and see more shit or murderhobo your way through a situation and see nothing. There is no unique content.
>have any uniqueness.
Such as, weeblet?
The problem is 5e and critical fails/successes. Successes encourage save scumming to beat rolls normally impossible for your build (8 cha barbarian persuading the local lord to give up his title), while fails are just a frustrating mechanic that invalidate your character's skill (20 Cha bard fails DC5 persuasion roll).
homieh you can try a roll with each of your four characters, who can reroll with inspiration like 4 times each, shut the frick up
Failure is also content.
And bg3 is full of content
You don't lose out on things most of the time in my experience. There are different approaches. Fail a persuasion check to have the goblin guard let you through? Just sneak in or fly over a canyon. Or collapse the ruins on his face.
Sometimes there's even unique content that you wouldn't get to see otherwise, like the goblin priestess taking you prisoner.
>play this shit
1 hour turns into 2 from save scumming
>play this shit with trainer
1 fricking hour
frick this game
>save scumming
Which is why it will never be a good TTRPG-turned-vidja and only ever a mediocre RPG at best. If a game compels you to savescum, it's a shit game or at least that mechanic is designed poorly, like Skyrim pickpocketing.
Yeah there was a check I failed 8 times with +5 modifier, using up all my inspiration
guess I'll just replay the game 3 times to see that event
Shouldn't every character in bg3 have a 5% chance to drop dead every 6 seconds from forgetting how to breathe, heart failure etc?
Should have went the Disco Elysium route where failing the dice throw also leads to interesting exclusive content
Why would I care about getting "all content"? If you really want to, you can do a run with quicksave/quickload yo get everything there is
>Save before dice roll
>Fail
>Reload
Problem solved
F8, there solved the game for you if you're a lucklet. You win like 90% of rolls in BG3 because the dice are in your favour the vast majority of the time, if not turn off karmic dice it's a shit mechanic.
You're already unlucky in life and miss out on plenty of content.
>NPCs can't handle consequences for their actions
fortune is a big part of human life
>Why would you design your game like this?
Because in a tabletop RPG, there's a game master who can make sure to passively railroad the party, ensuring that the events that need to happen occur and that the important things aren't missed. DMs also are allowed to fudge rolls if they feel the actual outcome would be boring, frustrating, or unfun, which is one of the reasons there's a screen hiding their dice.
That doesn't translate well into the format of a video game, which is for all intents and purposes a choose your own adventure story you can't cheat. You are on rails the whole time, and sometimes get the ability to select a branching path.
Directly porting a tabletop style of system into video games will always produce subpar results, until such a time that we develop an AI advanced enough that it can work as a stand-in game master, and fudge rolls and do soft railroading of events.
Realistically, you'd need a reactive AI that's smart enough to occasionally fudge bad rolls, can check against a list of plot points to make sure things that need to be happening are happening, and also recognize certain player inputs as being attempts to reach a given outcome, and gradually give the players better odds of achieving what they're aiming for the more they try to get it.
This will happen eventually in the industry, but for now, it's just an invitation to savescum.
You want journalist mode.
>Fail a dice roll
>Game gives you the best interaction in the entire playthrough
Eat less AAA slop.