I'm sorry but the Die Roll is a failure as a concept.

[Xenon]

This was an experiment, and it failed, as far as I'm concerned. What may work just fine for a tabletop game, may not translate as well into a computer RPG. It especially does not translate well into this kind of RPG, where every character is fully voiced and the story is heavily based on systematic interactions. I see 2 major issues here:

1. The die roll mini game interrupts the organic flow of NPC conversations. Remember how everyone hated the rock/paper/scissors mini game in DOS1? Well this is much worse because this mini game pops up every minute. It takes the player out of the illusion having a conversation with a person.

2. It encourages save-scumming. I can't recall another RPG I reloaded so much. And the reason for that is that the die roll system is at the foundation of everything in the game, including combat, which means your success in combat is largely dependent on luck, not your strategic thinking. And for those of us who are complitionists, there is no reason not to save-scum. Failed a die roll? Reload, nothing easier!

[RocketMan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dragon Master:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Example, not my actual opinion on it. Devs can easily find a solution that's better than take 10.

Good luck to them finding one that doesn’t need nerf 11 rogues or make bardic inspiration, expertise, spells like ability boost and guidance completely useless.

5E has so many ways to buff yourself and stack the odds in your favor that Take10 would either negate it all or just remove all chance from ability checks altogether.

On bardic inspiration, just add it to the take 10. There's no reason why you can't have a DC higher than a take 10 would allow.

Where there's a will, there's a way. And where there's a way there's a debbie downer who can't handle new ideas.

[Hobocop]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dragon Master:

Good luck to them finding one that doesn’t need nerf 11 rogues or make bardic inspiration, expertise, spells like ability boost and guidance completely useless.

5E has so many ways to buff yourself and stack the odds in your favor that Take10 would either negate it all or just remove all chance from ability checks altogether.

On bardic inspiration, just add it to the take 10. There's no reason why you can't have a DC higher than a take 10 would allow.

Where there's a will, there's a way. And where there's a way there's a debbie downer who can't handle new ideas.

The problem here is that this makes said features a requirement to even make the attempt rather than a nice thing to have.

And this will absolutely require a balancing pass to do properly, since many of these features also have combat applications.

[RocketMan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hobocop:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

On bardic inspiration, just add it to the take 10. There's no reason why you can't have a DC higher than a take 10 would allow.

Where there's a will, there's a way. And where there's a way there's a debbie downer who can't handle new ideas.

The problem here is that this makes said features a requirement to even make the attempt rather than a nice thing to have.

And this will absolutely require a balancing pass to do properly, since many of these features also have combat applications.

Yep, which is why we should leave the specifics to the devs instead of fearmongering about whatifs.

If it's wanted, and it works, it'll be included. If not, so sad. Move on.

[Dragon Master]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dragon Master:

Good luck to them finding one that doesn’t need nerf 11 rogues or make bardic inspiration, expertise, spells like ability boost and guidance completely useless.

5E has so many ways to buff yourself and stack the odds in your favor that Take10 would either negate it all or just remove all chance from ability checks altogether.

On bardic inspiration, just add it to the take 10. There's no reason why you can't have a DC higher than a take 10 would allow.

Where there's a will, there's a way. And where there's a way there's a debbie downer who can't handle new ideas.

So you want unique class features to become requirements then because the DC is so high with Take10?

That's one of the major criticisms of the pathfinder games, where all the buffing becomes a requirement rather than a feature.

[no one at all]

Dice roll is amazing. I play d&d though so i love having a face character with a backup guidance roll and spells to amp it even further

[Hobocop]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hobocop:

The problem here is that this makes said features a requirement to even make the attempt rather than a nice thing to have.

And this will absolutely require a balancing pass to do properly, since many of these features also have combat applications.

Yep, which is why we should leave the specifics to the devs instead of fearmongering about whatifs.

If it's wanted, and it works, it'll be included. If not, so sad. Move on.

That sounds like a lot of extra work for an 'optional' feature which is going to distract from the main body of work.

If it is going to be included as some claim with no provided evidence, it's more likely going to be in a post-launch update or left to modders and folded in as a gift bag update with appropriate credits like D:OS2.

[RocketMan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dragon Master:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

On bardic inspiration, just add it to the take 10. There's no reason why you can't have a DC higher than a take 10 would allow.

Where there's a will, there's a way. And where there's a way there's a debbie downer who can't handle new ideas.

So you want unique class features to become requirements then because the DC is so high with Take10?

That's one of the major criticisms of the pathfinder games, where all the buffing becomes a requirement rather than a feature.

And the main reason why it's a complaint is because it's not nigh-automatic like how buffs are applied in BG3.

Imagine if you had to use the cantrip that gave you a D4 on skill checks manually each and every time you wanted to use it in dialogue. Nobody would use it at all in game.

[RocketMan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hobocop:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Yep, which is why we should leave the specifics to the devs instead of fearmongering about whatifs.

If it's wanted, and it works, it'll be included. If not, so sad. Move on.

That sounds like a lot of extra work for an 'optional' feature which is going to distract from the main body of work.

If it is going to be included as some claim with no provided evidence, it's more likely going to be in a post-launch update or left to modders and folded in as a gift bag update with appropriate credits like D:OS2.

And that's for the devs to gauge on whether it is or not. Not for you to guesstimate and fearmonger on my dude.

If it's a lot of work, then sure. Go without but that's definitely not on you to decide, it's only on us to advocate for a feature if it's wanted.

Also, if it's so easy that a modder can add it in, then it surely isn't a ton of extra work that's going to distract from the main body of the game.

[Hobocop]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hobocop:

That sounds like a lot of extra work for an 'optional' feature which is going to distract from the main body of work.

If it is going to be included as some claim with no provided evidence, it's more likely going to be in a post-launch update or left to modders and folded in as a gift bag update with appropriate credits like D:OS2.

And that's for the devs to gauge on whether it is or not. Not for you to guesstimate and fearmonger on my dude.

If it's a lot of work, then sure. Go without but that's definitely not on you to decide, it's only on us to advocate for a feature if it's wanted.

Nah, I'm going to state my misgivings as much as I want based on my experience with the ruleset, and it's not for you to decide whether or not I'm allowed to do that.

[RocketMan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hobocop:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

And that's for the devs to gauge on whether it is or not. Not for you to guesstimate and fearmonger on my dude.

If it's a lot of work, then sure. Go without but that's definitely not on you to decide, it's only on us to advocate for a feature if it's wanted.

Nah, I'm going to state my misgivings as much as I want based on my experience with the ruleset, and it's not for you to decide whether or not I'm allowed to do that.

Not saying you aren't, but it's not going to have any impact.

Whereas advocating for things will. Again, up for the devs to decide instead of delusional gamers. (love how you lost the substance in your argument though)

[RhodosGuard]

Dude is actually going
"No you are not allowed to disagree with me, or state possible problems with my idea because that is fearmongering that may keep the devs from doing my bidding"

as if it was an argument

[Dragon Master]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dragon Master:

So you want unique class features to become requirements then because the DC is so high with Take10?

That's one of the major criticisms of the pathfinder games, where all the buffing becomes a requirement rather than a feature.

And the main reason why it's a complaint is because it's not nigh-automatic like how buffs are applied in BG3.

Imagine if you had to use the cantrip that gave you a D4 on skill checks manually each and every time you wanted to use it in dialogue. Nobody would use it at all in game.

The pathfinder games also allow unlimited buffs because concentration isn't a thing like it is in D&D 5e (thus BG3).

No, adding Take10 when we have all the buffing abilities in-game just doesn't work in 5E. Some people want it, but it seems to be that people just want an "I always win" option.

Failing can be a lot of fun in D&D, and a lot of situations become hilarious or even more awesome when you fail a check and still overcome the situation.

Embrace failing checks, let the dice roll, accept what happens. That is how the game is designed to be played.

[RocketMan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

Dude is actually going
"No you are not allowed to disagree with me, or state possible problems with my idea because that is fearmongering that may keep the devs from doing my bidding"

as if it was an argument

Nah, I'm saying that the devs will do what they will. And they're far more knowledgeable than you or I on how to implement a feature.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on an idea isn't going to stop it from being developed.
Devs listen to ideas. No-one's going to listen to you all getting triggered by an optional feature. Dems the facts mate.

[Dragon Master]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

Dude is actually going
"No you are not allowed to disagree with me, or state possible problems with my idea because that is fearmongering that may keep the devs from doing my bidding"

as if it was an argument

Nah, I'm saying that the devs will do what they will.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on an idea isn't going to stop it from being developed.
Devs listen to ideas. No-one's going to listen to you all getting triggered by an optional feature. Dems the facts mate.

And so far there are no hints whatsoever that the devs will implement Take10 at all.

[RhodosGuard]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mail me to the Moon:

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

Dude is actually going
"No you are not allowed to disagree with me, or state possible problems with my idea because that is fearmongering that may keep the devs from doing my bidding"

as if it was an argument

Nah, I'm saying that the devs will do what they will.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on an idea isn't going to stop it from being developed.
Devs listen to ideas. No-one's going to listen to you all getting triggered by an optional feature. Dems the facts mate.

Yes, the Devs do what they will do, that is semantically correct, but the idea that "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on an idea", aka pointing out it's flaws and potential problems, is not gonna stop them is wrong.
Negative Feedback, even on ideas that are not the devs ideas, is still feedback that they can listen to, and use to make their decisions.

DEMS the facts "mate".
You literally just confirmed exactly what I said.

Of course it is down to the Devs to do what they want, but we can still tell them that we think it's a stupid idea.
And you trying to stop people from voicing their opinions on your idea, because you think it's "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on it", is the most toxic self centered narcissistic garbage attitude you can have,