Skill checks in this game could have been handled much better

[Sylvadine]

I was surprised to see that in this game only the skills of the currently controlled character matter. The other party members might as well not be there at all. For example when the MC finds a magical contraption in a cutscene, for some reason they can't ask Gale to handle it, even if he is standing right behind them. Likewise, Wyll doesn't see the need to help you persuade someone, so they won't murder another person. As someone who has been playing Pen&Paper herself, as well as quite a few games that are based on it, I can't really understand the reason for this. Usually, when a group is confronted with a problem, they can choose which person should handle it, regardless of who is currently the group's leader. Anything else wouldn't make any sense. This problem is especially bad when it comes to skill checks that require charisma, since they are so commonplace, often have fairly, if not ridiculously high difficulty and there are almost never any alternative checks that require different stats. Sometimes you don't even have the option to switch to a different character, but are obligated to roll these checks with the MC. The developers might have just as well given you a warning to better choose a charisma-based MC, because if you don't, you are going to suffer. The best example for this is the Yenna situation. (CAUTION, SPOILERS BELOW)


Orin (disguised as La'zael) is about to kill Yenna and to save her you have to either pass a whopping difficulty 25 persuasion check, or an even worse difficulty 30 intimidation check. You can only roll with the MC and if you fail, she dies. Just WHY? To begin with, the persuasion check doesn't even make any sense. Orin is a raving lunatic, so why would she suddenly decide to be a good girl, just because you throw some pretty words at her? It would have made much more sense to give you a dex check that let's you grab the dagger, if you pass, or the option to use a spell (e.g. misty step, mage hand, etc.), if your MC is a magic user, or you have the right scroll, but nope, of course it had to be charisma only and of course, Wyll who was also there couldn't be bothered to help either. It honestly felt like: „Oh, so you didn't choose a charisma-based MC? Oopsie-poo. Here, have a dead child as punishment.“ I eventually solved this by reloading and respeccing my Ranger into a Warlock with 20 charisma and a spell that can buff it, then turning them back into a Ranger after I saved Yenna, but doing things like that is neither fun, nor immersive. The same naturally goes for constantly reloading in the middle of conversations/cutscenes, so I can restart them with a character who is proficient with the required skill, because my allies would rather just stand there, digging in their noses than support me with their skills. I don't expect to pass all checks, but I also don't want to end up with dead children, evil companions and overpowered optional boss fights, just because my MC isn't a sparkly paladin, bard or ranger.

[Sylvadine]

Sorry, I meant Paladin, Bard or Warlock

[Ruffio]

sometimes your saving grace is a nat 20 if Tymora wills it... -)

That is how the dice tumble in D&D...

[Quillithe]

I dunno, on the one hand yes

On the other hand if it weren't handled that way you'd be proficient in every skill all the time pretty much - I can't help but think of the Pathfinder games where your party is absolutely lousy with skill points and it really hinders the value of skill-rich classes

[Sylvadine]

Personally, I prefer Pathfinder, because at least it won't lock me out of certain important things like the one mentioned above, just because of my class. I'd rather have a generally higher chance to lose checks than that. Yes, I know, I can still do it with a natural 20, but how likely is it, that I can pull that off without an endless amounts of reloading.

[Zsrai]

So play your next run as a Paladin, Bard, or other "face" class?

[Filthy Peasant]

I also prefer how Pathfinder handles it. In the end, it's a quality of live improvement that saves time (reloading, character switching). You still need to distribute your skills across the party, so I don't see any negative.

[Quillithe]

What I'm getting at with my criticism of the Pathfinder approach is that being able to pass ALL the skill checks because you have every skill maxed in your party no matter what basically removes the point of skill checks.

If they're going to be in the game you should be encountering situations where you are skilled and situations where you aren't. And the Pathfinder games never get there so the entire skill system is basically just busywork to keep track of who has what rather than actual decisions

[アンジェル]

Originally posted by Sylvadine:

Skill checks in this game could have been handled much better
I was surprised to see that in this game only the skills of the currently controlled character matter. The other party members might as well not be there at all. For example when the MC finds a magical contraption in a cutscene, for some reason they can't ask Gale to handle it, even if he is standing right behind them. Likewise, Wyll doesn't see the need to help you persuade someone, so they won't murder another person. As someone who has been playing Pen&Paper herself, as well as quite a few games that are based on it, I can't really understand the reason for this. Usually, when a group is confronted with a problem, they can choose which person should handle it, regardless of who is currently the group's leader. Anything else wouldn't make any sense. This problem is especially bad when it comes to skill checks that require charisma, since they are so commonplace, often have fairly, if not ridiculously high difficulty and there are almost never any alternative checks that require different stats. Sometimes you don't even have the option to switch to a different character, but are obligated to roll these checks with the MC. The developers might have just as well given you a warning to better choose a charisma-based MC, because if you don't, you are going to suffer. The best example for this is the Yenna situation. (CAUTION, SPOILERS BELOW)


Orin (disguised as La'zael) is about to kill Yenna and to save her you have to either pass a whopping difficulty 25 persuasion check, or an even worse difficulty 30 intimidation check. You can only roll with the MC and if you fail, she dies. Just WHY? To begin with, the persuasion check doesn't even make any sense. Orin is a raving lunatic, so why would she suddenly decide to be a good girl, just because you throw some pretty words at her? It would have made much more sense to give you a dex check that let's you grab the dagger, if you pass, or the option to use a spell (e.g. misty step, mage hand, etc.), if your MC is a magic user, or you have the right scroll, but nope, of course it had to be charisma only and of course, Wyll who was also there couldn't be bothered to help either. It honestly felt like: „Oh, so you didn't choose a charisma-based MC? Oopsie-poo. Here, have a dead child as punishment.“ I eventually solved this by reloading and respeccing my Ranger into a Warlock with 20 charisma and a spell that can buff it, then turning them back into a Ranger after I saved Yenna, but doing things like that is neither fun, nor immersive. The same naturally goes for constantly reloading in the middle of conversations/cutscenes, so I can restart them with a character who is proficient with the required skill, because my allies would rather just stand there, digging in their noses than support me with their skills. I don't expect to pass all checks, but I also don't want to end up with dead children, evil companions and overpowered optional boss fights, just because my MC isn't a sparkly paladin, bard or ranger.

The moment you made a false claim in your statement, your entire statement became invalid.

[Vis]

Originally posted by アンジェル:

The moment you made a false claim in your statement, your entire statement became invalid.

Seems like the op triggered a troll. Don't take such people serious, dear. The Baldurs Gate 3 community here seems to have a lot of them.

About your complains, I can understand that. It felt a bit strange, especially with charisma checks, to have so many people but only one is allowed to speak or act. Some situations make more sense than others though. The Orin example is a perfect one for a missed opportunity. Like you said, "sweet talk" makes absolutly no sense with her.
But at the end, I liked the game, despite all flaws. Isn't a masterpiece, but a good one imo.

[WeirdWizardDave]

You sound like my IRL players. What's that low charisma Barbarian player you want to sweet talk the NPC, sure roll persuasion. "Oh wait no, the Bard actually said that didn't you Pete".. Um no, if you wanted the bard to lead the conversation then the bard should have been leading the conversation. Rolling checks in things you're not great at is as much a part of the fun and narrative as rolling your specialist skills. Lean into the RP and accept that sometime "failing" a roll is as interesting as "passing" it.

The one thing I would like is the ability to switch characters in a conversation at the start as sometimes the wrong character triggers a cut scene.

[bibron]

Originally posted by Sylvadine:

Personally, I prefer Pathfinder, because at least it won't lock me out of certain important things like the one mentioned above, just because of my class. I'd rather have a generally higher chance to lose checks than that. Yes, I know, I can still do it with a natural 20, but how likely is it, that I can pull that off without an endless amounts of reloading.

That's the reason why you go around in a party, not alone. To help each other out.

It's really dumb that only one character can do the skill checks.
Why do we have a party in the first place? Only for fights and sex?

[bibron]

Originally posted by Quillithe:

What I'm getting at with my criticism of the Pathfinder approach is that being able to pass ALL the skill checks because you have every skill maxed in your party no matter what basically removes the point of skill checks.

If they're going to be in the game you should be encountering situations where you are skilled and situations where you aren't. And the Pathfinder games never get there so the entire skill system is basically just busywork to keep track of who has what rather than actual decisions

That's the reason why you have a party. Because you can't be good in everything ...
If you would walk around with your friends, and you encounter someone with a broken tire or something, and you decide to help since you have a car mechanic in your group, but you yourself have no idea about that ♥♥♥♥ ... would you still go and do it by yourself?
Even though there is a mechanic right next to you?

[Quacksalber]

The game has a lot of instances where you can only get the desired result by passing a skill check or save scumming. It's one of my least favourite aspects. I guess playing without save scummning is this game's version of iron man mode. *shrug* At least we can save any time, and don't have to slog through everything again, like in most games.

[LArc7thHeaven]

Originally posted by Sylvadine:

Orin (disguised as La'zael) is about to kill Yenna and to save her you have to either pass a whopping difficulty 25 persuasion check, or an even worse difficulty 30 intimidation check.

Reeee OP doesn't know that you can goad her and humiliate her if you know what to look

[Vis]

Originally posted by LArc7thHeaven:

Reeee OP doesn't know that you can goad her and humiliate her if you know what to look

Really? How can you do that? I didn't know it either. So you can humiliate her to let Yenna go?