You tellin' me this **** ain't rigged??

[EroticOnion23]

https://imgur.com/Ec5ef8Q

[Dryad]

It ain't rigged. That's a natural possible result of truly random possibilities. You can get the inverse of that too fyi. And it happens on real physical dice. Done it before with dice that I had just bought the day before...

[Adeptus Stark]

I made 5 Attacks in a row with Lann the other day. I needed to roll a 4 or better to hit. Missed all 5. I should have taken a screen shot lol.

[Martialis]

Must as the fanbois might like to say there isn't anything wrong, it is simply a fact that the RNG is f---ed up. You see it in this game and the previous one in to hit rolls, saving throws, damage rolls, and skill checks.

[Raikon]

I am a fanboi of this game. I think you guys are overreacting not because i want to defend this game to the death, no, but because I think the issue isn't all that significant. Take the mythic feat that prevents 1 rolls a failure, voila done.

Not to mention I think this game spoils us on rolls. Even instant death stuff (wierd/pK) has 2 rolls you have to fail consequetively (and I have rolled 1 on both before). If your game play cant survive having an encounter be extended by 1 round due to some bad rolls, you may want to lower the difficulty.

All of this STILL doesnt even compare to games where I think rolling is toxic (blood bowl)

[RACHMANOVSKI]

5 attacks:

12 vs 13 Miss
15 vs 17 Miss
12 vs 20 Miss
10 vs 20 Miss
3 vs 20 Miss

happens everyday.

I made a collection of everytime dice rolled just -1 away from hitting (e.g. 9 vs 10, 30 vs 31 etc)

[Balekai]

Originally posted by Iron Knights:

How do you roll a 4 if your first attack AB is +14 ? I've seen this in other games too, flawed math engines.

Spitballing here but I think It's because the +14 is actually the BAB+Modifiers and is not the final attack roll.

Attack Roll=(D20+Modifiers) against AC Modifiers.

So 14+4=18 attack roll. If he needs to roll 4 to beat an AC of 17, that means he still has a 15% chance to miss out of a dice of 20 each hit. Or if he does roll 4-19, he still may be facing concealment bonuses ranging from a 20%-50% miss chance (natural 20 ignores concealment I think). Basically there's two steps that have to be passed. Put simply, he has a 15% chance to miss with his attack roll and if his roll is successful, he has to overcome a flat 20%-50% chance to miss anyways without any concealment counters.

It's something as easy as light sources that can mess up peoples "math" or make them feel as if the game is rolling unfairly due to concealment. This is why in DnD games where it's implemented, you always cast light cantrip on your tank vs. enemies that have low light vision/dark vision etc. in dark areas. Especially at low levels. Sometimes if the enemy has light sensitivity the light bonus will actually give your tank concealment vs. those enemies. Or if your tank has low light vision/dark vision vs. normals and are in low light, then pass on light cantrip so he gets the concealment advantage in dark places for tanking.

Blindness can also mess up your day giving enemies 50% concealment.

Anyways, unless you have ways of defeating concealment (Feats like blind fight line, see invis line, glitterdust, using light sources etc.), then concealment can easily add to your misconceptions about how much you should be hitting an enemy.

[Balekai]

I never even use that "x vs. y" info. I go by the combat log in the bottom right by right clicking an attack or a save and expanding all the info into an info box. That gives me all the details, buffs, equations, concealment and modifiers listed and involved and why it hit or missed. Much easier to figure out what's going on (or wrong) with your attacks and plan/troubleshoot attacks/feats/spells.

[Uzkin]

Three critical misses in a row?

If we assume around 80 000 attack rolls / playthrough then a string of 3 successive critical misses occurs about 10 times during each playthrough on the average. It's a bit more rare for the entire crit-miss string to be rolled by the same character like in your screenshot (as opposed to, say, character A first crit-missing twice followed by another character B crit-missing once) but it should still happen a couple of times each playthrough.

[Dryad]

Originally posted by Uzkin:

Three critical misses in a row?

If we assume around 80 000 attack rolls / playthrough then a string of 3 successive critical misses occurs about 10 times during each playthrough on the average. It's a bit more rare for the entire crit-miss string to be rolled by the same character like in your screenshot (as opposed to, say, character A first crit-missing twice followed by another character B crit-missing once) but it should still happen a couple of times each playthrough.

To help with the math, I count 50 battles throughout the Siege of Drezen alone. That's a minimum of 7 initiative rolls per battle if you have a party of 6, which is 350 rolls before attacking or saving vs. spells. Throw in at least 1 attack per character and that doubles to 700. You've probably had the game engine roll 2 nat 1's in a row at least once in all of that chaos. And that's just one part of one act in the game


As an FYI for people who think that physical dice are any better: they're not. I've seen more consecutive nat 1's from physical dice than I've ever seen from the a digital dice roller.

[Balekai]

Originally posted by Iron Knights:

Yeah, but you're starting with the premise "Nothing's Wrong with the game so I am at fault." I don't.

Not sure I said that. Pretty obvious there are some things broken like why I was scratching my head when it comes to coup de gras. Which was showing the wrong info for DCs as per latest patch notes I believe. Or the many bugged spells and abilities (Greater Invis being the latest fix). There are things wrong, but the dice aren't "fixed" or the problem.

You should run a test and check the real combat log (bottom right as I mentioned) not the summary of the dice roll. More info = better, not less. I can't figure out what is wrong or right with an equation from a 9ish character popup. Look at the expanded combat log when you have a question about the miss and see why it happened.

We have already had like 12+ threads of hundreds of pages each on this matter between Kingmaker and Wotr. Not to mention the hundreds of threads from BG 1-2, NWN 1-2 etc etc. to BG 3 (the latter actually does cheat the dice, but in the player's favour from what I have read purposely lol). All have ended in the "nothing wrong with dice side" winning out in the arguments with people literally going to great lengths to prove nothing is wrong to the point of crazy math going way beyond Occam's Razor. Like really it gets to the point of "Just stop it already rocket scientist nerds, you could have published 3 papers on how dice work by this point." :p :P

All I know is that I have had very few scratch my head moments with the numbers in combat log. Most of them were due to my own ignorance of mechanics or overlooking something about an equation, feat, spell or their modifiers. Again: Don't use the vs. info. Use the expanded info by right clicking a combat action in combat log.

[Gorwe]

Perhaps there should be an option for a game to always roll 10 or 11, like Touch of Law ability. Note, enemies eould get it too. Would that be beter?

[RACHMANOVSKI]

Originally posted by Iron Knights:

No, combat showed "4 vs 15 missed", no I don't have +11 from strength and buffs, natural what the Char. sheet shows.

it's relative number.

X v. Y

both of these X,Y number are reduced so that it can showed within 1-20 range.

That's why if you have 30 modifiers against enemies with vs 39 AC the number would be:

(your roll) vs 9 (because you have to roll 9> to hit, 30+9 =39)
example:
10 vs 9 Hit
20 vs 13 (notices that the Y number increases because consecutive attack rolls less modifier)

and so on and so on

If your enemy are too OP, like having 69 AC, the Y number will be always 20, because you can only hit the enemy if you roll 20, because your modifier is too low to reduces enemy AC to within 1-20 range.

(anything you roll) vs 20.

But you should always open individual roll result to understand each of the rolls and how they came to be.

[RACHMANOVSKI]

the only thing we can honestly discussed about is the Randomness of the RNG, while the to hit calculation is pretty clear.

[Gorwe]

Originally posted by RACHMANOVSKI:

the only thing we can honestly discussed about is the Randomness of the RNG, while the to hit calculation is pretty clear.

It's actually not clear at all. Not only the "x vs y" notation, but if you look at the detailed info, a LOT is missing, especially when it comes to damage. That's why that "damage breakdown"(or whatever) mod exists.

Tooltips(and UI etc) have come FAR from Kingmaker, but there is still room for improvement.

[RACHMANOVSKI]

Originally posted by Gorwe:

Originally posted by RACHMANOVSKI:

the only thing we can honestly discussed about is the Randomness of the RNG, while the to hit calculation is pretty clear.

It's actually not clear at all. Not only the "x vs y" notation, but if you look at the detailed info, a LOT is missing, especially when it comes to damage. That's why that "damage breakdown"(or whatever) mod exists.

Tooltips(and UI etc) have come FAR from Kingmaker, but there is still room for improvement.

"It's kinda unclear", there are enough information to understand why you hit or didn't hit enemy.

Yes, damage calculation is kinda random, especially Crit threat calculation.

But it does not mean that it was unclear *at all*, because information are available.

Yes, many things can be improved.