I like this game but it has too much rolling. It makes your investment into skills and ability points feel less meaningful, you can be a wizard who puts everything into INT and then fail all of your Arcana checks because of some bad rolls and the barbarian with 8 INT can succeed because he gets lucky. It makes no sense at all. Inspiration helps but there's a cap to how much you can have and you have no idea which skill checks are actually important and which ones just give you a bit more lore so you'll end up savescumming anyways
I like the NV-style flat checks more. Granted they aren't perfect, they show you the exact number you need to fulfill the check so there is no reason to do it if you don't pass, and there's no reason to not click it if you do pass. But the reason why they do this is because there are consumables in the game that give you temporary bonuses to checks so you can pass certain ones at the cost of an item, if they didn't show you the number you needed to pass then you could end up just wasting magazines
That's true to the tabletop game, 5e D&D is a bad system where you have a 50% chance of failing at things your character is supposed to be good at.
In tabletop you have a DM there who can arbitrate bullshit RNG. Maybe you've been having a bad run that session, so he goes
>oh hey your goddess saw that you're about to get fricked and she gave you a boon, roll with advantage on this attack
Not the mention the classic "dm rolls behind the screen and says you hit, even though you didn't, because he thinks you deserve it"
Videogames don't have that, so they feel worse.
>Videogames don't have that, so they feel worse.
It's only a matter of time before AI advancements will allow things like that, and it will change vidya forever.
Absolutely disgusting. Fudging rolls is cheating.
Fudging rolls is pretty much part of 5e, it leaves a lot of the rule work up to DMs. You don't even need to fudge, you can just have a floor like passive perception.
DM fudging rolls is aids
>be bard
>give my friend a bonus to his speech check or whatever
>teehee closed roll
>no idea if it mattered or not
So that's worse than
>be bard
>give friend a bonus to his speech check
>woops he rolled a one get fricked
>no you don't get that spell slot back
?
Skill check crit fails aren’t supposed to be a thing it is an unfortunate house rule that became popular via morons
Skill checks without showing numbers is the way. People who defend critical failure and critical success on anything other than attack rolls are fricking idiots whose only defense of it is "just play through the results it's more interesting that way" while failing to realize the impact CHOICE has on a fricking RPG. I want to choose to take an option and succeed or fail at it based upon the merits of my character's stats, not because a random number generator tossed me a "frick you have a nice day fgt".
It's a good house rule for a very specific style of game, which is to say one that relies on ridiculous outcomes over beer and pretzels instead of a more coherent narrative experience.
Even without crit fails, if there was a chance of it failing, rolling a 1 fails. If there was no chance of failing, the DM had no reason to fudge the roll. Pay attention, anon.
>current DM has become more attached to our characters than we are and there's next to no danger in our game anymore
The hidden pitfall of long term games
>the classic "dm rolls behind the screen and says you hit, even though you didn't, because he thinks you deserve it"
>Videogames don't have that, so they feel worse
>I had a +9 on a 10 INT check and still failed it three times in a row.
This is every problem I've had with any rpg adapted from a tabletop system lately.
I don't remember getting fricked this hard in fallout 1 and 2 and that runs on 'I can't believe it's not GURPS'
d20-based TTRPGs would do better if they put more emphasis on the fact that if a challenge does not have a significant chance of failure or severe consequences for said failure, then NO ROLL SHOULD BE REQUIRED. People get into the mindset that just because you have a certain bonus to a skill, that means you constantly need to roll to do anything even remotely related to it.
I got sick of my players asking to roll Perception and Investigation every two goddamn seconds in the dungeons I was running, so I just flat out told them that I'd let them know when I wanted one. Shit's been working out great so far.
>put more emphasis on the fact that if a challenge does not have a significant chance of failure or severe consequences for said failure, then NO ROLL SHOULD BE REQUIRED
This, thank you.
>Pathfinder
>Roll some kind of int swordfighter
>First skill check is knowledge world to know how to use a stick as a lever to get a rock off of someone
>Class skill
>Fail
>"You try to help but your crippling mental moronation does nothing"
>Guy is fine either way
First dice roll of the game and already it's time to savescum for roleplaying reasons, oh fricking joy.
They should reduce half these checks from a dice roll to "is anyone in your party trained in this skill?"
>d20-based TTRPGs would do better if they put more emphasis on the fact that if a challenge does not have a significant chance of failure or severe consequences for said failure, then NO ROLL SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
morons do not read the manuals
>Videogames don't have that, so they feel worse.
Video games have save scumming if you want to be a homosexual who can't handle losing a roll.
>what are karmic dice
>game is designed in a way so that you will naturally have more successful rolls that failed ones
>karmic dice: ayo... you've succeeded too many rolls, time for reparations blud
Karmic dice do the opposite since it fricks with all rolls not just dialogue checks
>Rolled natural 20 during the 99 save in the final battle
I thought it was scripted. Like you defied the odds but the future refused to change, only later find out it just worked out perfectly. Pretty cool
First time I rolled a 20 in that was after save scumming a lot, just to see what happens.
In my next run after that I rolled a natural 20 in the first roll (cause I had the cat's grace clothing which means all dex checks are with an advantage)
It does something actually. Grants them a debuff
Dices in videogames will never make sense. Imagine you are playing a tabletop game and some homosexual keeps rerolling every time until he gets what he needs. That's bg3. Pointless system, they should find a better way to adapt the rules to the format
>I don't like DnD
No one's forcing you morons to play Baldur's Gate 3. If you don't like the mechanics, don't play it.
>some homosexual keeps rerolling every time until he gets what he needs
You're responsible for buttons you press. Nobody makes you save scum. Also pretty much every rpg game has some kind of dice rolling, they just don't show it to you.
This is the issue with d20 games. You have a huge chance of failing things your class is good at because there's only 1 die and a huge margin for error. 3d6 systems are much better because every roll is uniform and basically a bell curve where you will usually get the average, but characters who are better at stuff will always get a good roll. D100 is also superior to d20. D20 is just what 5e has always used so it will never change because thats what normies are familiar with.
>rev up cheat engine
>check "always succeed rolls"
>play the game stress-free
>It has too much rolling
Bg3 is a soulslike??
underrated quip
That's the point of the system though
You aren't locked from outcomes if you didn't invest, and you aren't guaranteed if you did. Even a total moron 8 int barbarian can have an idea that coincidentally is brilliant in the moment, and even the 20 int wizard can make a bad judgment from time to time.
You are building for consistency. Over the course of dozens of rolls, a character that invested heavily in a stat will receive better outcomes on checks that involve it.
If you want consistency nothing can beat rogue. Because at some level they get that ability that they never roll lower than 10 in skills they are proficient in.
I agree 100% with you, OP. The added bonuses from whatever you put points into should have been greater to compensate to the point you cant even lose a roll.
Pathfinder WOTR won
i finished with underdark and got burnt out, its like it forgot it was an rpg and the party members stopped talking, things stopped happening and i was just exploring generic mmo area and finishing quests because they were there not because i had to for story reasons
>finishing quests because they were there not because i had to for story reasons
Then just go to the next main quest. ACT II is the best in the game and you're almost there.
i dunno man that shit was soul suckingly bad
i guess ill give it more hours but frick me, its so bad right now.
dragon age origins was better than this game 100%
would be cooler if it was a weighted roll system, ie a 10 roll is far more likely than a 15 roll and significant deviations from the mean are unlikely
ultimately it is a vidya implementation of a board game so some eggs have to be broken
for me the absolute worst aspect is the resting system
once you figure it out the entire game is trivialized even on the hardest difficulty
I got memed into playing this by homosexuals saying the homosexual shit isnt so bad.
I got to the Goblin town and even if you succeed a skill check you have to smear shit on your face. Wow really cant wait for the foot kissing man
You could just kill them, you know. Don't know why you chose to RP as a cuck
>play barbarian force him to eat shit instead
It was pretty funny
>Anon rps as a shit eating cuck
Lmao how are you still a loser in fricking video games
thats so avoidable though it makes me wonder wtf you are doing
I think its cool because it mixes things up a little
This, even if you fail you can keep playing. It's a problem only with people obsessed with control.
Also speech checks are used everywhere. Almost every interaction allows for persuasion/intimidation/deception so you have to fail sometimes. Flat checks are fine if they are restricted to select dialogues where they have a big impact. If BG3 let you win every persuasion there wouldnt be any stakes in anything.
What they should have added is a minimum of skill to even be able to roll in the first place.
In divinity2 they just had checks for persuasion etc during dialogue, but you weren't told if you had the minimum required proficiency until after you had picked the option.
I didn't quite like this approach either (mostly because it felt you had to max out the corresponding stat to even have a chance, and respeccing was basically available any time for free), but at least it was pretty cut throat.
>you can be a wizard who puts everything into INT and then fail all of your Arcana checks because of some bad rolls and the barbarian with 8 INT can succeed because he gets lucky. It makes no sense at all.
It actually makes more sense than the opposite. One of my friends is a doctor and I am not. His general medical knowledge far surpasses mine, but there are still medical things I know that he doesn't. In DnD terms, the roll is to determine if the piece of knowledge in question is something your character has come across.
This is my biggest problem with the game too. That and the amount of times I've had 90+% chance to hit with advantage and critical miss the enemy anyway. I know over time my average is for hits but every minimum damage roll and miss on a shockingly high chance to hit stands out because it'll happen multiple times every single time you play even on the dumbest rolls. I had a +9 on a 10 INT check and still failed it three times in a row.
That's why I added the 50 50 mod. More times you use a spell or an ability the dice roll in your favor.
rerolling is a thing
The dice shit is boring worthless dogshit because the failure states of skill checks are boring worthless dogshit.
If there was something interesting upon failing then maybe I would give a shit instead of savescumming.
>Skillchecks have a 5% chance of critical failure
Rubbish.
>not using advantage in every roll
Skill issue
>Skill check requires 10
>Have 25 from bonuses
>Can somehow still fail
Critical failure on a skillcheck is moronic, and not in the current rulebook.
>use buffs where you can roll +9
>roll a 1 on a dc6
>CRITICAL FAILURE
d10 is just better
Warhammer Fantasy would be the most popular tabletop system if humanity wasn't so full of homosexuals
It was functional in 3rd edition, but that was 20 years ago.
There's so many pointless and counterintuitive mechanics in 5e that new players get phantom-limb syndrome from it.
It wouldn't be so bad in tabletop because the DM can always play off bad rolls and make it more interesting than:
>"you fail, get fricked"
Honestly all CRPGs will be trash until we have a functioning AI Dungeon Master stand-in to act as an actual storyteller that actually facilitates a semi-believable tabletop game and not:
>"there are four roads ahead - the good road, the evil road, the noncommittal road, and the 'haha xD pooppy poop poop ppooydoododoo' road - pick one"
I'd say go play a real tabletop game but most DMs are dogshit too.
Average "everything sucks" Ganker user
I know this is going to be an insane idea, but did you know it’s okay to fail a roll? You don’t have to pass every roll in the game, and you don’t need to savescum every time you miss an attack either.
>fail roll
>sidequest is completely nuked
i play to experience the game's content, i paid tp have fun
once i'm finished with my playthrough, i won't play BG3 again for 2 or 3 years, or more, therefore "lolz better luck next time!" is not an argument
You get other dialogue for failing rolls though. If you fail a roll and then game just turned into a black screen for 30 seconds before booting you back to camp, you’d have a point, but failing a roll will still give you content.
>but failing a roll will still give you content.
what content? the player is outright denied content when failing a dialogue question roll, or history, insight and religion roll
instead of story and lore we get either completely nothing or "i'm not telling you that" and the conversation moves on
>fail roll
>your character doesn't know what is that lol
thank you miss Narrator
Thats part of the game too, but it is bad design that you can't make party members step in for knowledge checks without leaving a conversation.
any game with rng is fundamentally flawed. frick you in particular, xcom
>xcom
That didn't have any rng, 95% chance to hit is really a 0%
Disco Elysium fixed dice rolls by making you use D6.
>if you don't kill emperor in the last fight the game makes no mention of it
gay and homosexual. I had to baby him with invuln spheres and heals and sleeps to prevent him from mashing his skull against the hordes of npc summons
The fact that you can't use party members' skills in dialogue is an absolutely moronic decision. Why can my barbarian party member not intimidate a guy unless I already know that there will be an intimidation option before I talk to him? It makes investing in dialogue skills for anyone but your main character a complete waste.
Its based on DnD so you are going to have d20s, but I prefer 2d6 systems that way results are on a normal curve. It incorporates the unpredictability of rolling; but if you have to get at minimum a 5, you can reliably anticipate a success.
>you can be a wizard who puts everything into INT and then fail all of your Arcana checks
No you can't. You can roll 2 D20s for every check with like a +15 bonus and 5 inspiration rerolls. Its purely resource management at this point, like only being able to use illithid speech checks once per rest. You will never fail a check you were supposed to pass, only succeed in checks you had a small chance of being successful in.
>you will never fail a check you were supposed to pass
Until you roll a Nat 1 and none of your bonuses apply. Happened to me multiple times in my honor mode playthrough, such BS
That's Larian's moronic homebrew, though. Actual tabletop rules say critical failures/successes don't apply to anything but attack rolls.
>Until you roll a Nat 1
Did they ever fix that ine skill check near the start of the game?
>dc 1 skill check
>roll a 1
>interaction tree breaks
>task failed successfully
Probably, the lowest DC I've ever seen in the game is 2, which is most likely to fix this problem specifically.
Yes you have discovered why bounded accuracy is a moronic system designed to appeal to uneducated normalgays who count using their fingers and toes (why do you think 5e is the most popular D&D edition and its not even close?).
Now that normalgays are experiencing the mathematical consequences of bounded accuracy by playing a game where their DM doesnt secretly change the DCs of checks after seeing the results of your roll to make sure people actually pass things they should pass and fail things they should fail I'm beginning to see a lot of posts complaining about this previously much-praised system of "streamlining."
Yes 3e and pathfinder are objectively better. There is no argument. 5e only works as a roleplaying system when your DM ignores your roll and just tells you if you can or can't do something. Rolling in a 5e tabletop game serves the same purpose as bringing a fidget spinner or some other autistic tactile toy. An 8 INT 0 arcana proficiency character being able to pass a 19 DC check that a level 20 wizard can fail just shouldn't happen.
>5e is shit
Yes, could not agree more, you definitely know what you're talking abou-
>3.PF is objectively better
Aaaaaaaaand you just went full moron.
Skill proficiency and attribute modifiers are handled better in 3e and PF than 5e. This is objective fact. There is no argument to be had about this. Bounded accuracy is worse in every way except for how quickly you can do math in your head in combat or for skill checks.
Congrats! You just realized why TTRPG's are trash.
> you can be a wizard who puts everything into INT and then fail all of your Arcana checks because of some bad rolls and the barbarian with 8 INT can succeed because he gets lucky
You’re just being pedantic, the fact is if you do that with your wizard you’re going to succeed those checks almost all the time when you’d fail them with a dumb barb. Your “what if” “it could happen” bs is just that, bs.
here's an idea, it should be a flat check unless you can't pass, then you get to roll to see if you can make it for it. Now you've either satisified everyone or no one.
Is it weird I kind of miss the tencent schizo guy? Haven’t seen him in a thread or two.