Die Rolls have honestly overstayed their welcome

[Great Grand Soap]

Okay. Yeah- I get it. It's based off of 5th e DND and you roll die all the time. But it honestly doesn't translate well to a video game. Like when you have a dialogue that requires an insight check, persuasion, deception, etc- and these dialogue checks influence companion approval most of the time. It gets really annoying when you are proficient in persuasion with a +5 bonus and still may have to reload a save 5 times just because you get unlucky and keep rolling low.

I'd say either keep the companion approval from dialogue limited and make approval based more off your actions around the world- or switch the die to a fixed system. Like your character needs to have "x" charisma to pass this check. Or maybe give advantage to a check if you're proficient in it. It works well in Dnd, but I really don't think it translates well to this game.

**to be clear, I am mostly complaining about dialogue, perception checks, etc. Combat die rolls don't really bother me because I don't need to reload the game if I miss an enemy in combat.

[Hobocop]

Fendelphi eredeti hozzászólása:

That requires the player to know that threshold from before they build their character. Because otherwise you will still end up in situations where you expect to succeed, except that the DC threshold is 1 higher than your current value.
Example. An "auto check" requires 14 to succeed. Your "take 10" check only allows you 13. You will now automatically lose that option, instead of having a go at it.

Similarly, it also means that a "balanced" character will never ever be able to succeed in most of such checks, unless the bar is so low that "any" character could do it(and in that case, why even bother with a check).
That would force players much more into min-maxing characters, if they dont want a proportionally high amount of content to be predetermined at character creation.

A deterministic system does not allow for more player agency, because the results are already determined before the player is even presented with the options. If you do not meet the requirements, you only have a few available options. You do not get to gamble on less likely, but potentially more profitable/interesting options.
So by definition, you will have less options.

What a deterministic system provides is transparency, because there is no RNG invovled.

One would also need to consider if such an option would be freely toggleable mid-campaign. Folks like to go on about savescumming, but that would be tame by comparison if you were able to take 10 on everything for free, and then be able to roll on anything beyond your ability to meet.

Ideally, it's something you would set at the start of the campaign and never be able to change. Which would mean they would have to go over every check in the game to make sure nothing breaks.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Brimcon eredeti hozzászólása:

Pan Darius Kairos eredeti hozzászólása:

What do you mean "shove it in our face"? I'm trying to convince Larian to add it to BG3 as an option, that's it. Where'd you get the impression I'm "shoving" anything in anyone's "face"?

How could it possibly change the balance of the entire game for those that simply choose to ignore the option and not use it?

You haven't really been trying to convince Larian. You've been trying to convince the Steam Forums that your idea is a good idea on the off chance that Larian Studios will read this forum (To which, I don't think they do).

Whether or not thats how you intend it, thats how I as an individual interpret your words, especially with how forceful you've been with it, but regardless, on to the next question.

Take Diviniation Wizard's Portent, or Reliable Talent. Two things that become absolutely useless in conversations. A level 2 Ability for Wizards that gets its use cut in half and Reliable Talent, A level 11 Rogue ability that becomes completely useless.

You've just changed the balance of these two KEY abilities just to remove RNG from skill checks.

First, you're wrong about Larian not reading the forums. They (Swen) constantly tell us they do.

Second, I don't care whether you're convinced or not - only that Larian adds the option.

I only argue with people like you because you won't stop making fallacious arguments against the idea.

As far as those abilities becoming "useless", do you mean how like everyone getting Hide as a bonus action makes Thieves Cunning Action completely "useless"? Same thing?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Hobocop eredeti hozzászólása:

Fendelphi eredeti hozzászólása:

That requires the player to know that threshold from before they build their character. Because otherwise you will still end up in situations where you expect to succeed, except that the DC threshold is 1 higher than your current value.
Example. An "auto check" requires 14 to succeed. Your "take 10" check only allows you 13. You will now automatically lose that option, instead of having a go at it.

Similarly, it also means that a "balanced" character will never ever be able to succeed in most of such checks, unless the bar is so low that "any" character could do it(and in that case, why even bother with a check).
That would force players much more into min-maxing characters, if they dont want a proportionally high amount of content to be predetermined at character creation.

A deterministic system does not allow for more player agency, because the results are already determined before the player is even presented with the options. If you do not meet the requirements, you only have a few available options. You do not get to gamble on less likely, but potentially more profitable/interesting options.
So by definition, you will have less options.

What a deterministic system provides is transparency, because there is no RNG invovled.

One would also need to consider if such an option would be freely toggleable mid-campaign. Folks like to go on about savescumming, but that would be tame by comparison if you were able to take 10 on everything for free, and then be able to roll on anything beyond your ability to meet.

Ideally, it's something you would set at the start of the campaign and never be able to change. Which would mean they would have to go over every check in the game to make sure nothing breaks.

Personally, I wouldn't care either way how it was implemented. I'd be fine with both.

[RealDealBreaker]

duplicate thread is duplicate. Over 200 posts wasn't enough for people to see that the vast majority of people think it is stupid to remove dice rolls from any portion of a D&D game? Folks need to stop trying to change a core component of d&d that has always been a part of d&d (including the cRPGs).

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

RealDealBreaker eredeti hozzászólása:

duplicate thread is duplicate. Over 200 posts wasn't enough for people to see that the vast majority of people think it is stupid to remove dice rolls from any portion of a D&D game? Folks need to stop trying to change a core component of d&d that has always been a part of d&d (including the cRPGs).

It's only a "vast majority" in your mind.

Actually, the "vast majority" want a Take 10 system.

[RealDealBreaker]

Pan Darius Kairos eredeti hozzászólása:

RealDealBreaker eredeti hozzászólása:

duplicate thread is duplicate. Over 200 posts wasn't enough for people to see that the vast majority of people think it is stupid to remove dice rolls from any portion of a D&D game? Folks need to stop trying to change a core component of d&d that has always been a part of d&d (including the cRPGs).

It's only a "vast majority" in your mind.

Actually, the "vast majority" want a Take 10 system.

You clearly read a different 200+ post thread. Unless you are counting each of YOUR posts as a separate person....

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

RealDealBreaker eredeti hozzászólása:

Pan Darius Kairos eredeti hozzászólása:

It's only a "vast majority" in your mind.

Actually, the "vast majority" want a Take 10 system.

You clearly read a different 200+ post thread. Unless you are counting each of YOUR posts as a separate person....

I just think you're one of those people who credit your own opinion with the "vast majority" while having no clue...

[Dragon Master]

Brimcon eredeti hozzászólása:

Pan Darius Kairos eredeti hozzászólása:

What do you mean "shove it in our face"? I'm trying to convince Larian to add it to BG3 as an option, that's it. Where'd you get the impression I'm "shoving" anything in anyone's "face"?

How could it possibly change the balance of the entire game for those that simply choose to ignore the option and not use it?

You haven't really been trying to convince Larian. You've been trying to convince the Steam Forums that your idea is a good idea on the off chance that Larian Studios will read this forum (To which, I don't think they do).

Whether or not thats how you intend it, thats how I as an individual interpret your words, especially with how forceful you've been with it, but regardless, on to the next question.

Take Diviniation Wizard's Portent, or Reliable Talent. Two things that become absolutely useless in conversations. A level 2 Ability for Wizards that gets its use cut in half and Reliable Talent, A level 11 Rogue ability that becomes completely useless.

You've just changed the balance of these two KEY abilities just to remove RNG from skill checks.

Or the College of Eloquence Bard, who upon reaching a high enough level simply can't roll below a 10 for all dialogue options. They roll the dice and if it is 9 or lower it is an automatic 10, but they can still roll higher than 10.

[Freak4Leeks]

GREΛŦ GЯΛND SOΛP eredeti hozzászólása:

It gets really annoying when you are proficient in persuasion with a +5 bonus and still may have to reload a save 5 times just because you get unlucky and keep rolling low.

??? nothing is forcing you to reload, deal with the punches. That is the fun (imo) sometimes you make a build around an item but then you can't get that item because of it, then you have to improvise, not to mention alot of dice check have other ways around them.

[Aphex]

You know what else is trash? Traps. I mean it was fine in the divinity games because you could just bedroll through them in 2 or have unlimited heals in 1 and 2 but this time arround with 2 garbage heals per rest they are a major pita.

[Alealexi]

Go play DOS if you want static checks.

[Alealexi]

Pan Darius Kairos eredeti hozzászólása:

Brimcon eredeti hozzászólása:

But you have been trying to shove this "Option" in our face for the past who knows how long and trying to pass it off as "My game my choice." When there's much more to it than that. I've personally tried to tell you why its a bad idea and what goes behind it but you disregard it as "Its an option!" or "Its easy! Just make all Dice a 10 in conversation!" when it really isn't.

Your 'option' very much does have bearing on our games because it includes something that will absolutely change the balance of the entire game for both those who take it and those who don't.

What do you mean "shove it in our face"? I'm trying to convince Larian to add it to BG3 as an option, that's it. Where'd you get the impression I'm "shoving" anything in anyone's "face"?

How could it possibly change the balance of the entire game for those that simply choose to ignore the option and not use it?

I would rather it be left as an option made from a mod.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Dragon Master eredeti hozzászólása:

Brimcon eredeti hozzászólása:

You haven't really been trying to convince Larian. You've been trying to convince the Steam Forums that your idea is a good idea on the off chance that Larian Studios will read this forum (To which, I don't think they do).

Whether or not thats how you intend it, thats how I as an individual interpret your words, especially with how forceful you've been with it, but regardless, on to the next question.

Take Diviniation Wizard's Portent, or Reliable Talent. Two things that become absolutely useless in conversations. A level 2 Ability for Wizards that gets its use cut in half and Reliable Talent, A level 11 Rogue ability that becomes completely useless.

You've just changed the balance of these two KEY abilities just to remove RNG from skill checks.

Or the College of Eloquence Bard, who upon reaching a high enough level simply can't roll below a 10 for all dialogue options. They roll the dice and if it is 9 or lower it is an automatic 10, but they can still roll higher than 10.

Persuasion and Deception only, and is College of Eloquence in the PHB?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Freak4Leeks eredeti hozzászólása:

GREΛŦ GЯΛND SOΛP eredeti hozzászólása:

It gets really annoying when you are proficient in persuasion with a +5 bonus and still may have to reload a save 5 times just because you get unlucky and keep rolling low.

??? nothing is forcing you to reload, deal with the punches. That is the fun (imo) sometimes you make a build around an item but then you can't get that item because of it, then you have to improvise, not to mention alot of dice check have other ways around them.

Nothing would be forcing you to use the option of Take 10, either.

[Freak4Leeks]

Pan Darius Kairos eredeti hozzászólása:

Nothing would be forcing you to use the option of Take 10, either.

Where did that come from? i was replying to OP about his reloading habits when faced with failure.

i don't have any preference on take 10.