The amount of skill checks is just ridiculous.

[Hex]

Why is every single thing a skill check in this game? Why does a Wizard need to roll a skill check to do basic Wizard things? Like does a magical lock roll for a save? Why does a Druid need a skill check to do basic Druid stuff? You literally can't have a conversation with someone without passing 5 skill checks.

Oh yeah, you tried to take a ♥♥♥♥, but failed an Athletics check and ♥♥♥♥ your pants.

[Aldain]

Pathfinder amplifies the worst parts of 3.5e to absurd degrees imo.

It's more about knowing what NOT to pick than anything else.

[Hex]

Автор сообщения: AloneInaCrowdedRoom

Автор сообщения: Hex

I see you don't know what Pathfinder is.

FYI, it's a system based on DnD 3.5, an infinitely more complex system.

so go play a dnd 3.5 game instead of a dnd e5 game.. i mean still same point :). it clean dnd 5e is not for you. and game like it you should not buy in future :). have a good life thinking things should go you way. i have grown tired of you. good day

The art of missing the point, perfected. Bye.

[Hex]

Автор сообщения: Aldain

Pathfinder amplifies the worst parts of 3.5e to absurd degrees imo.

It's more about knowing what NOT to pick than anything else.

Yes, can you imagine not being good at everything?

I can, because it makes infinitely more sense than a Thief being 5% better at picking a lock than a Druid.

[Dr4given]

Автор сообщения: Hex

Автор сообщения: AloneInaCrowdedRoom

so go play a dnd 3.5 game instead of a dnd e5 game.. i mean still same point :). it clean dnd 5e is not for you. and game like it you should not buy in future :). have a good life thinking things should go you way. i have grown tired of you. good day

The art of missing the point, perfected. Bye.

forgot to unsub. u miss the point there 16 page of people who like it. and maybe at best 2 that don't so the game fine. just not for you. go play something else and don't expect them to join it so maybe 2 ppl are happy when 20 ppl already love it. leave the form. and stop playing games you hate. mr. everything should be for me. and only my enjoyment. BOO WHOOO i am the only person that hate something CHANGE IT NOW......... now hopeful i don't forget to unsub to this self center post.. i uncheck subscribe to discussion so idk why it still told me of you bs. more. GOD you only child mindset is so annoying.

[Asgo]

still going, ok my 2 cents
Of course where you draw the line between auto success/fail and asking for a check is a somewhat fluid one and in a game at a table up to the GM.

And of course people can have different opinions if the line that Larian takes is a case of too many or too few. Personally, I think it fits the average 5e use although you can discuss the ruling of fails on 1s. And none of the named in game examples seemed really a good case of a misuse.

A lot of the issues with fails seem to stem how you frame them narratively. If you take an attack against an AC as literal "able to hit", like with the mentioned door, then you can basically toss out the AC system because in a lot of cases (mostly big and high level mobs) it just won't work. It's always an abstracted value for difficulty that you have to explain as "able to place *effective* hits" with some narrative mumbo jumbo about a combination of size and hard skin and such. For knowledge tests you get into similar territory, where you either don't recall an info you should know or don't know one you were never exposed to depending which narrative framing works best.
Just not rolling any tests for stuff they should know or be able to do isn't a solution, I mean everyone knows the situation where you cannot recall something in the moment where you need it or - I hate to bring cars into this ;) - you can crash your car accidentally even if you perfectly know how to drive. If a 1 in 20 chance is represents such things well is another question, but since it is a d20 system it is not that surprising.

There are a few problems that come into this when it is a computer representation:
- there is no GM and the adaptivity on when to ask or how to frame a skill check and its outcome is missing/limited and will reduce how well it fits into the narrative
- depending on how static the skill decisions are in the dialogs, there won't necessarily be a scaling of the check depending on when or on which level you get around to this
Both will contribute to a more static approach that will likely never approach a well run game at the table, in particular if the group has some shared understanding on their preference for a skill check density.


side note, a tad late to the numbers discussion, but since this is the season: ;)
"Why do programmers always mix up Halloween and Christmas?
Because Oct 31 equals Dec 25 "

[Hex]

Автор сообщения: Asgo

still going, ok my 2 cents
Of course where you draw the line between auto success/fail and asking for a check is a somewhat fluid one and in a game at a table up to the GM.

And of course people can have different opinions if the line that Larian takes is a case of too many or too few. Personally, I think it fits the average 5e use although you can discuss the ruling of fails on 1s. And none of the named in game examples seemed really a good case of a misuse.

A lot of the issues with fails seem to stem how you frame them narratively. If you take an attack against an AC as literal "able to hit", like with the mentioned door, then you can basically toss out the AC system because in a lot of cases (mostly big and high level mobs) it just won't work. It's always an abstracted value for difficulty that you have to explain as "able to place *effective* hits" with some narrative mumbo jumbo about a combination of size and hard skin and such. For knowledge tests you get into similar territory, where you either don't recall an info you should know or don't know one you were never exposed to depending which narrative framing works best.
Just not rolling any tests for stuff they should know or be able to do isn't a solution, I mean everyone knows the situation where you cannot recall something in the moment where you need it or - I hate to bring cars into this ;) - you can crash your car accidentally even if you perfectly know how to drive. If a 1 in 20 chance is represents such things well is another question, but since it is a d20 system it is not that surprising.

There are a few problems that come into this when it is a computer representation:
- there is no GM and the adaptivity on when to ask or how to frame a skill check and its outcome is missing/limited and will reduce how well it fits into the narrative
- depending on how static the skill decisions are in the dialogs, there won't necessarily be a scaling of the check depending on when or on which level you get around to this
Both will contribute to a more static approach that will likely never approach a well run game at the table, in particular if the group has some shared understanding on their preference for a skill check density.


side note, a tad late to the numbers discussion, but since this is the season: ;)
"Why do programmers always mix up Halloween and Christmas?
Because Oct 31 equals Dec 25 "

But you can then apply that logic to everything, including the hyperbolic example I gave in the OP about crapping your pants if you fail a skill check.

Roll to see if you can actually pull the arrow from your quiver before even attempting an attack. Roll to check if you can remember your memorized spell before even casting it. Roll to check if you can successfully pull your sword from it's sheathe before you can attack.

You see the point?

[Tiviani]

Автор сообщения: Hex

Автор сообщения: Asgo

still going, ok my 2 cents
Of course where you draw the line between auto success/fail and asking for a check is a somewhat fluid one and in a game at a table up to the GM.

And of course people can have different opinions if the line that Larian takes is a case of too many or too few. Personally, I think it fits the average 5e use although you can discuss the ruling of fails on 1s. And none of the named in game examples seemed really a good case of a misuse.

A lot of the issues with fails seem to stem how you frame them narratively. If you take an attack against an AC as literal "able to hit", like with the mentioned door, then you can basically toss out the AC system because in a lot of cases (mostly big and high level mobs) it just won't work. It's always an abstracted value for difficulty that you have to explain as "able to place *effective* hits" with some narrative mumbo jumbo about a combination of size and hard skin and such. For knowledge tests you get into similar territory, where you either don't recall an info you should know or don't know one you were never exposed to depending which narrative framing works best.
Just not rolling any tests for stuff they should know or be able to do isn't a solution, I mean everyone knows the situation where you cannot recall something in the moment where you need it or - I hate to bring cars into this ;) - you can crash your car accidentally even if you perfectly know how to drive. If a 1 in 20 chance is represents such things well is another question, but since it is a d20 system it is not that surprising.

There are a few problems that come into this when it is a computer representation:
- there is no GM and the adaptivity on when to ask or how to frame a skill check and its outcome is missing/limited and will reduce how well it fits into the narrative
- depending on how static the skill decisions are in the dialogs, there won't necessarily be a scaling of the check depending on when or on which level you get around to this
Both will contribute to a more static approach that will likely never approach a well run game at the table, in particular if the group has some shared understanding on their preference for a skill check density.


side note, a tad late to the numbers discussion, but since this is the season: ;)
"Why do programmers always mix up Halloween and Christmas?
Because Oct 31 equals Dec 25 "

But you can then apply that logic to everything, including the hyperbolic example I gave in the OP about crapping your pants if you fail a skill check.

Roll to see if you can actually pull the arrow from your quiver before even attempting an attack. Roll to check if you can remember your memorized spell before even casting it. Roll to check if you can successfully pull your sword from it's sheathe before you can attack.

You see the point?

You're trying very hard to destroy your own topic.

The skill checks never get that asinine in the game and any DM that goes that far with the skill checks will shortly find their game lacking in players.

[Asgo]

Автор сообщения: Hex

Автор сообщения: Asgo

...

But you can then apply that logic to everything, including the hyperbolic example I gave in the OP about crapping your pants if you fail a skill check.

Roll to see if you can actually pull the arrow from your quiver before even attempting an attack. Roll to check if you can remember your memorized spell before even casting it. Roll to check if you can successfully pull your sword from it's sheathe before you can attack.

You see the point?

Sure, I see your point, that is why you have to draw a line somewhere between auto fail/success so you don't run into these hyperbolic examples.

Your problem is that everyone disagrees with you where you draw the line, based on the given in game examples and the general/average 5e use that tries to reflect some of the inherent abstractions. :)

[Mathalis]

Автор сообщения: bah

I like skill checks, but wish there was a way to hide or shut off the stupid dice rolling mechanic. If I have no optional modifiers, then just show the result in the combat log, and make it instantaneous. If I have optional modifiers, then pop up a box about applying them, but that's all. If you have an inspiration and the roll fails, pop up a box asking if you'd like to reroll.

But please please find a way to make them less intrusive/annoying. Biggest decline for this genre ever.

I completely agree with your premise here. Every time that stupid dye pops up its completely un-immersive for me. I do agree with the OP that there are scenarios in the game that just simply need to happen. Like the rogue child flourish thing in the first camp. I think my adult rogue should be able to demonstrate a basic technique to a child without rolling and failing...Also when a perception check is failed, but its a giant pile of dirt...I should just see the dirt and think that's kind of weird and use the shovel, no check should be needed there. How did all four characters miss the giant pile of dirt and destroyed earth? The worst one's are strength rolls. Either I'm strong enough or not, but to fail a strength roll with my Paladin then my wizard gets a lucky roll and wins it...that is just toxic...

[Mathalis]

Автор сообщения: Asgo

Автор сообщения: Hex

But you can then apply that logic to everything, including the hyperbolic example I gave in the OP about crapping your pants if you fail a skill check.

Roll to see if you can actually pull the arrow from your quiver before even attempting an attack. Roll to check if you can remember your memorized spell before even casting it. Roll to check if you can successfully pull your sword from it's sheathe before you can attack.

You see the point?

Sure, I see your point, that is why you have to draw a line somewhere between auto fail/success so you don't run into these hyperbolic examples.

Your problem is that everyone disagrees with you where you draw the line, based on the given in game examples and the general/average 5e use that tries to reflect some of the inherent abstractions. :)

To be fair to Larion here there are a bunch of different types of people who want this game and it must be tough to balance. Take me for instance, I grew up playing BG 1 and 2. I've beaten them at least 10 times. They are the best RPG games ever made. For me, a great story and engaging game play are way, WAY higher priority than 5e rules.

I am aware though, there's an entire community that wants this game to be a 5e simulator and are really excited by it. Finally, there are a ton of people mad as hell we are talking about BG3 and hope this is really just DoS 3 with a new name.

That's gotta suck to deal with.

[Hex]

Автор сообщения: Asgo

Автор сообщения: Hex

But you can then apply that logic to everything, including the hyperbolic example I gave in the OP about crapping your pants if you fail a skill check.

Roll to see if you can actually pull the arrow from your quiver before even attempting an attack. Roll to check if you can remember your memorized spell before even casting it. Roll to check if you can successfully pull your sword from it's sheathe before you can attack.

You see the point?

Sure, I see your point, that is why you have to draw a line somewhere between auto fail/success so you don't run into these hyperbolic examples.

Your problem is that everyone disagrees with you where you draw the line, based on the given in game examples and the general/average 5e use that tries to reflect some of the inherent abstractions. :)

So you don't think a Rogue or a Bard having to roll to pass a skill check when doing a simple coin trick that a child can do is silly?

You don't think a Druid failing to calm down a Squirrel is silly?

Sure, you *COULD* theoretically fail, but you can theoretically drown in a bucket too.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Take 10 should definitely be an option.

[Mathalis]

Автор сообщения: Hex

Автор сообщения: Asgo

Sure, I see your point, that is why you have to draw a line somewhere between auto fail/success so you don't run into these hyperbolic examples.

Your problem is that everyone disagrees with you where you draw the line, based on the given in game examples and the general/average 5e use that tries to reflect some of the inherent abstractions. :)

So you don't think a Rogue or a Bard having to roll to pass a skill check when doing a simple coin trick that a child can do is silly?

You don't think a Druid failing to calm down a Squirrel is silly?

Sure, you *COULD* theoretically fail, but you can theoretically drown in a bucket too.

HAHAHAHA, man, I love your posts. Drown in a bucket...that's a perfect analogy here. I agree with this. There was a dialogue earlier about me being true to the paladin oath and there was a roll for it...Its my class dammit, its what I am. Im rolling for justice now? The game would still be 5e with some of these turned down.

[Asgo]

Автор сообщения: Mathalis

Автор сообщения: Asgo

...

To be fair to Larion here there are a bunch of different types of people who want this game and it must be tough to balance. Take me for instance, I grew up playing BG 1 and 2. I've beaten them at least 10 times. They are the best RPG games ever made. For me, a great story and engaging game play are way, WAY higher priority than 5e rules.

I am aware though, there's an entire community that wants this game to be a 5e simulator and are really excited by it. Finally, there are a ton of people mad as hell we are talking about BG3 and hope this is really just DoS 3 with a new name.

That's gotta suck to deal with.

Agreed, where to draw the line or generally how to try to please various approaches to the game without failing all in the process is a big task, in particular when you use a known rule set base. You have way more options to solve that task when you are working on your own system where you don't have to walk a thin line and people don't measure it against their history with the "original" system.

[Mathalis]

Автор сообщения: Asgo

Автор сообщения: Mathalis

To be fair to Larion here there are a bunch of different types of people who want this game and it must be tough to balance. Take me for instance, I grew up playing BG 1 and 2. I've beaten them at least 10 times. They are the best RPG games ever made. For me, a great story and engaging game play are way, WAY higher priority than 5e rules.

I am aware though, there's an entire community that wants this game to be a 5e simulator and are really excited by it. Finally, there are a ton of people mad as hell we are talking about BG3 and hope this is really just DoS 3 with a new name.

That's gotta suck to deal with.

Agreed, where to draw the line or generally how to try to please various approaches to the game without failing all in the process is a big task, in particular when you use a known rule set base. You have way more options to solve that task when you are working on your own system where you don't have to walk a thin line and people don't measure it against their history with the "original" system.

Yup. For me, since there is no dungeon master to walk me through the dice system. The game should lean to be more about fun game play. That is the entire reason BG1 and 2 moved to threshold skill checks instead of dice rolls and put the combat dice rolls behind the scenes.

Again though, I know there's a community that just really loves that stuff. I hope there is an option to turn all that stuff off or put it all in the back ground. I really don't like that dye popping up all the time.