Can't deny, at first I too was very furious when my character just didn't roll enough when I wanted to learn more about my companions or decide a situation when the roll really changes the whole attitude towards a character / a scene. Compare that to Pathfinder: Kingmaker where you just have to get to a certain threshold for a check.
The conclusion I've come to and which brought me peace is that I should treat the roll check as if the person I'm talking to needs persuasion. Eg. when someone requires 16 or more (or multiple checks in a row), it means it's really difficult to make this character talk. It's a simulation of a real-life when I would have to really try and find my words in order to make someone say something to me. So this DnD mechanic can be a game design way to tell the player: you can't just learn about X easily.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand that and just find these rolls excessive and just reload constantly.
That twitter thread is a very interesting read. I thing the issue being raised there is going to end up being the Achilles heel of BG3. Swen wanted to make a D&D game that felt like a TT D&D game, and he has definitely succeeded in doing that. The problem is I think he significantly overestimated how attractive that would be to most gamers. It's just not going to work to compare a person's experience playing D&D seated around a table with their friends, drinking beer and eating pizza and cracking questionable jokes, with a human DM seated there with you to adjudicate anything that comes up in the game, to a person's experience playing (single-player) a video game. Things that are great fun in that TT setting become horrible nightmares in a video game. There are at least a dozen threads on just this issue on the Larian forum, and again even many people who generally like the game are complaining loudly about this (along with a couple of other similar common complaints). The game is just too much a TT game rather than a video game. Many gamers are going to be turned off by that. Many others will initially find it "cool," but once its newness wears off they too will start to find it tedious and aggravating. Just imagine playing a 150+ hours cRPG constantly save-scumming and reloading your game at every turn? And often having to reload multiple times. People are going to rage-quit a lot.
Save scumming around challenges in a game is nothing new. Especially in an RPG. I mean it's been that way since Pool of Radiance at least with resting. Same thing was common in BG. You see the same thing even in modern titles with frustrating difficulty like XCOM. Those games are all time greats.
Frankly, if players feel obligated to save scum to erase difficulty, they deserve the tedious experience they end up receiving.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
You CAN'T?! That's uh, kinda lame. I'm mostly fine with having rolls, but character skills should be weighted more than a dice roll.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
You CAN'T?! That's uh, kinda lame. I'm mostly fine with having rolls, but character skills should be weighted more than a dice roll.
Unfortunately. No more skill focus feats, a brutal cap on max skill points per level, a brutal cap on max stats at character creation, it all adds up. Couple that with the fact that the rolls you have to make are very high for a first level character and you will be failing more often than not.
It would be one thing if it were just for charisma checks. But even Arcana checks get them in circumstances where they probably could have been a passive check (there is such a thing as passive skill checks in 5E, but only perception gets much use). Basically, you take 10 + your ability score bonus + any proficiency bonus. That gives you the threshold for the check.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
You CAN'T?! That's uh, kinda lame. I'm mostly fine with having rolls, but character skills should be weighted more than a dice roll.
That's not physically possible in 5e. At least, not conventionally.
With proficiency bonuses capping at +6 at level 20, and there is a hardcap of 20 (+5) on any stat (unless you are a Barbarian, they can have 24 in CON and STR, I believe).
So +11 is your maximum roll modifier. The 1d20 will always be a bigger weight than the modifier.
You can have advantage, or the lucky feat to get closer. Also could add bardic inspiration and the cantrip guidance for some additional bonuses, but unless you have one of those... you're rather stuck.
For my money - I dont see the purpose of a scenario in which the character has a 95% or 100% chance of success. When I DM, I take my character's stats/abilities in consideration. If someone is rolling with +7 on a persuade check, I'm not going to leave my persuade check DC at 8.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
You CAN'T?! That's uh, kinda lame. I'm mostly fine with having rolls, but character skills should be weighted more than a dice roll.
That's not physically possible in 5e. At least, not conventionally.
With proficiency bonuses capping at +6 at level 20, and there is a hardcap of 20 (+5) on any stat (unless you are a Barbarian, they can have 24 in CON and STR, I believe).
So +11 is your maximum roll modifier. The 1d20 will always be a bigger weight than the modifier.
You can have advantage, or the lucky feat to get closer. Also could add bardic inspiration and the cantrip guidance for some additional bonuses, but unless you have one of those... you're rather stuck.
For my money - I dont see the purpose of a scenario in which the character has a 95% or 100% chance of success. When I DM, I take my character's stats/abilities in consideration. If someone is rolling with +7 on a persuade check, I'm not going to leave my persuade check DC at 8.
I could have a +11 modifier by level 3 in earlier editions. Sure, I would have to essentially dedicate my character to that skill up to that point, but I could do it. I understand the design choices they made in 5e, making it easier to understand for people new to the system, but I detest them because they destroy all sense of power progression, discourage specialization, severely limit customization, in the end it's all very limiting.
Question: Are the dialogue rolls just straight rolls? Or roll+skill modifier. One is a definite no, and the other is not great in a video game setting, but only a minor annoyance.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
You CAN'T?! That's uh, kinda lame. I'm mostly fine with having rolls, but character skills should be weighted more than a dice roll.
That's not physically possible in 5e. At least, not conventionally.
With proficiency bonuses capping at +6 at level 20, and there is a hardcap of 20 (+5) on any stat (unless you are a Barbarian, they can have 24 in CON and STR, I believe).
So +11 is your maximum roll modifier. The 1d20 will always be a bigger weight than the modifier.
You can have advantage, or the lucky feat to get closer. Also could add bardic inspiration and the cantrip guidance for some additional bonuses, but unless you have one of those... you're rather stuck.
For my money - I dont see the purpose of a scenario in which the character has a 95% or 100% chance of success. When I DM, I take my character's stats/abilities in consideration. If someone is rolling with +7 on a persuade check, I'm not going to leave my persuade check DC at 8.
I could have a +11 modifier by level 3 in earlier editions. Sure, I would have to essentially dedicate my character to that skill up to that point, but I could do it. I understand the design choices they made in 5e, making it easier to understand for people new to the system, but I detest them because they destroy all sense of power progression, discourage specialization, severely limit customization, in the end it's all very limiting.
I get that people liked the way 3rd edition handled skills - I did myself. It was a fun system for sure, but I think 5e is still very strong in this capacity. The combination of proficiency bonus plus stat bonuses still makes an enormous difference.
My 5th level, 18 charisma Bard with proficiency in Persuasion will get a +8 on that check. Conversely, our 5th level Barbarian comrade with a 10 in Charisma without proficiency in Persuasion will not get any bonus. That's a major difference, particularly when the DC on the check is above average in difficulty (lets say, 15).
One of the reasons I like this system is my Bard is really good at that check, but he also gets to be pretty good at other Charisma based checks. He may not have proficiency in deception, but I'm still rolling a +5 there. The difference isnt massive simply because I allocated my skill proficiency differently. As the game goes on, by level 20 I wont be amazing at deception checks, but I will competent. In 3rd edition - if you didnt invest from 1st all the way to 20th level in a skill, it would fall off in its usability over time.
(For completeness's sake - in 3rd edition, you could have 23 ranks invested in a class skill by level 20. So you could have a +23 from skill proficiency alone. In 5th edition, the maximum from proficiency is +6)
I prefer 5e's game design to 3rd in that respect. I do prefer3rd's in terms of skill granularity. I dont need to assign ranks each level up, but I wouldnt mind if 5e added a half dozen or dozen new skills and doubled the number of skills you can be proficient in.
I think the higher boni of 3rd edition work better for knowledge or craft based core class abilities, e.g. something like Spellcraft or Arcana. There it makes sense for an archmage to be better by a wide margin. Same for a master thief when lockpicking.
But for persuasion and many other skills it felt over the top. Skill, I feel 5th Edition went a bit too far with how low the proficiency boni have become.
I am also skeptical that rolls instead of thresholds works well in a cRPG - people tend to reload to compare outcomes and pick the better ones. I think they should make more use of the passive skill scores (10 + boni) to decide certain outcomes.
Skill checks should be treated in a hybridity manner IMO.
A character needs a minimum stat/skill for that option to appear in a dialog, say, a 50% chance of success. Once it does show up it also gives the player a tiered response (difficult, moderate, easy) about how hard that is beside the actual dialog.
This eliminates save scumming moderately but it also doesn’t encourage it for players who really shouldn’t be attempting it in a first place. A barbarian with 6 CHR should never have the same dialog options as a bard with an 18 CHR.
When playing a game, luck should NEVER be weighted more than a player's skill or the build. Some randomization is fine, but having dice rolls ALWAYS be the deciding factor is just bad.
I've played a bit of 5e and my DM got very annoyed that my bard was passing so many checks.
My biggest gripe with it is how it discourages roleplay in favor of rollplay. Maybe I want to be an advanced scholar who can pass a lot of Knowledge checks, but who is terrible in combat. Maybe I want to do the same with a person who can talk his way out of a wide variety of situations. Such skill-based builds are not really possible to do in 5e, much to the detriment of the system.
And it also makes little sense that the brightest scholars in the Realms can regularly fail knowledge checks, or that the most wise and understanding of druids can regularly fail to handle animals successfully.
My biggest gripe with it is how it discourages roleplay in favor of rollplay. Maybe I want to be an advanced scholar who can pass a lot of Knowledge checks, but who is terrible in combat. Maybe I want to do the same with a person who can talk his way out of a wide variety of situations. Such skill-based builds are not really possible to do in 5e, much to the detriment of the system.
And it also makes little sense that the brightest scholars in the Realms can regularly fail knowledge checks, or that the most wise and understanding of druids can regularly fail to handle animals successfully.
Again - I dont think that's really how it shakes out at the table. If you're playing the foremost scholar of history, and your knowledge history check is +21... I'm not about to ask you to make knowledge history checks that only require a 15 to pass. You're going to get to look into some bizarre, arcane history that befits a DC check of 35 or something.
If we're in 5e, then I'm just going to readjust my skill check DCs. If you really, really really want to have improved skill bonii - then we're going to have a personal conversation off to the side about how to make that happen in an authentic and enjoyable way.
I guess I'm trying to say that 5e puts the pieces infront of everyone to have just about the same experience in 3rd edition. Some of that may require talking to your DM about how to get to that end point, but I see that as a serviceable workaround given all the ways 5e has positives.
Also - I really just kind of hate enormous skill checks and bonuses. I dont need your level 7 bard to roll a 1d20+27 persuasion check. It's just a bit much. So much so that I dont know how to put it in context against someone's ad20+16 check.
I've run a tabletop 5e game for 2+ years now. The highest check anyone has ever had to make was a DC 20 persuasion check to keep a plot vital character alive. It hit that sweetspot of being extremely difficult without being completely impossible.
Anyways. That's just my opinion. I dont think anyone's wrong to like previous editions more. Different strokes for different folks.
The skill checks are bugging me a lot more than I thought they would. I know the dice roll thing is cool, but I feel like if they hid that (either by removing the animation completely or at least not showing the target roll), it would be so much better and I wouldn't be so tempted to save scum ("I only have to get a six on the die?"). After all, I've never had a DM tell me the DC before I roll when playing tabletop.
Another annoying thing about the skill checks is how many you need to pass for some situations. There was one dialogue where I had to pass three skill checks in a row - all of which had the same DC and using the same skill - to get the "good" outcome. For a lot of things, I feel like a skill check should be a success or a failure. Increase the DC if you need to, but don't ask me to get three 10s in a row.
When playing a game, luck should NEVER be weighted more than a player's skill or the build. Some randomization is fine, but having dice rolls ALWAYS be the deciding factor is just bad.
I've played a bit of 5e and my DM got very annoyed that my bard was passing so many checks.
I imagine the new Eloquence bard would make them livid
(on persuasion or deception checks if you roll a 9 or lower you can treat it as a 10)
That or a 11th level rogue with reliable talent (Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your Proficiency Bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.).
The ultimate way to prevent save scumming would be to let people build for high skill numbers instead of forcing them into class templates with all sorts of arbitrary caps, but i'll stop complaining about it. I just think the 5e skill system where success can't be guaranteed or often even made common + the highest number of skill rolls out of any DnD computer game by far = a recipe for frustration for a lot of people.
I'd be curious if anyone can answer about how the leveling feels? What kind of levels are available in the EA and what's the progression time feel like? One of the most striking things to me about some of the initial announcements was the low level cap coupled with the enormous advertised amount of content.
And maybe how does that compare to the slow leveling of BG1?
I'd be curious if anyone can answer about how the leveling feels? What kind of levels are available in the EA and what's the progression time feel like? One of the most striking things to me about some of the initial announcements was the low level cap coupled with the enormous advertised amount of content.
And maybe how does that compare to the slow leveling of BG1?
You will level pretty quickly in the EA and likely hit the cap before you finish the content.
The first few levels are some of the most enjoyable since you get to make the major defining attributes of your character. Once multiclassing is a thing I plan to experiment a bit and see if 5e has any build diversity worth exploring. But it's not there yet.
My biggest gripe with it is how it discourages roleplay in favor of rollplay. Maybe I want to be an advanced scholar who can pass a lot of Knowledge checks, but who is terrible in combat. Maybe I want to do the same with a person who can talk his way out of a wide variety of situations. Such skill-based builds are not really possible to do in 5e, much to the detriment of the system.
And it also makes little sense that the brightest scholars in the Realms can regularly fail knowledge checks, or that the most wise and understanding of druids can regularly fail to handle animals successfully.
Again - I dont think that's really how it shakes out at the table. If you're playing the foremost scholar of history, and your knowledge history check is +21... I'm not about to ask you to make knowledge history checks that only require a 15 to pass. You're going to get to look into some bizarre, arcane history that befits a DC check of 35 or something.
If we're in 5e, then I'm just going to readjust my skill check DCs. If you really, really really want to have improved skill bonii - then we're going to have a personal conversation off to the side about how to make that happen in an authentic and enjoyable way.
I guess I'm trying to say that 5e puts the pieces infront of everyone to have just about the same experience in 3rd edition. Some of that may require talking to your DM about how to get to that end point, but I see that as a serviceable workaround given all the ways 5e has positives.
Also - I really just kind of hate enormous skill checks and bonuses. I dont need your level 7 bard to roll a 1d20+27 persuasion check. It's just a bit much. So much so that I dont know how to put it in context against someone's ad20+16 check.
I've run a tabletop 5e game for 2+ years now. The highest check anyone has ever had to make was a DC 20 persuasion check to keep a plot vital character alive. It hit that sweetspot of being extremely difficult without being completely impossible.
Anyways. That's just my opinion. I dont think anyone's wrong to like previous editions more. Different strokes for different folks.
I agree about 3E - with a +21 to a skill roll which is very achievable a lot of rolls become automatic successes.
But 5th edition is build up from the group so that skills do not scale as much and that even in your specialty it comes very much down to the roll. That is not only skills - you do the same with how typical ACs and +hit rolls are set to.
With the minimum proficiency bonus being +2 and the maximum being +6 it is very clear that everything skill-based an Archmage can achieve easily, a level 1 Mage can achieve with just a little bit of luck. And on everything the level 1 Mage struggles the Archmage can fail as well with just a little bit of bad luck. This can't be avoided simply be tweaking the DC since the proficiency part only just makes a 20% difference in success chance.
What 5th edition does - on purpose - is give everyone a chance at success and everyone a chance at failure. Depending on the situation this can be a good or a bad thing - specifically for knowledge based skills I feel it is a bad thing, for something like persuasion it is probably a very good thing.
The skill checks are bugging me a lot more than I thought they would. I know the dice roll thing is cool, but I feel like if they hid that (either by removing the animation completely or at least not showing the target roll), it would be so much better and I wouldn't be so tempted to save scum ("I only have to get a six on the die?"). After all, I've never had a DM tell me the DC before I roll when playing tabletop.
Another annoying thing about the skill checks is how many you need to pass for some situations. There was one dialogue where I had to pass three skill checks in a row - all of which had the same DC and using the same skill - to get the "good" outcome. For a lot of things, I feel like a skill check should be a success or a failure. Increase the DC if you need to, but don't ask me to get three 10s in a row.
Just use this mindset: if a person requires 3 skill checks it means it's really difficult to persuade them. Imagine your character spent hours and had multiple attempts at making them talk.
It doesn't change that much, but I think requiring 3 subsequent successful rolls has some minor issues, like that if the dialogue designer has no decent grasp of probability he is likely to underestimate how unlikely 3 successes in a row are with typical DCs. Unless the dialogue is really specific for each of the rolls it also adds little beyond doing a single roll with a higher DC - if the dialogue is specific it can add something though.
What I think would be good for Larian to investigate is to use best 2 out of 3 for subsequent rolls (or even best 3 out of 5) for some encounters. This is an sort of averaging, which increases the influence of skill modifiers beyond what you get with a single roll.
My biggest gripe with it is how it discourages roleplay in favor of rollplay. Maybe I want to be an advanced scholar who can pass a lot of Knowledge checks, but who is terrible in combat. Maybe I want to do the same with a person who can talk his way out of a wide variety of situations. Such skill-based builds are not really possible to do in 5e, much to the detriment of the system.
And it also makes little sense that the brightest scholars in the Realms can regularly fail knowledge checks, or that the most wise and understanding of druids can regularly fail to handle animals successfully.
Again - I dont think that's really how it shakes out at the table. If you're playing the foremost scholar of history, and your knowledge history check is +21... I'm not about to ask you to make knowledge history checks that only require a 15 to pass. You're going to get to look into some bizarre, arcane history that befits a DC check of 35 or something.
If we're in 5e, then I'm just going to readjust my skill check DCs. If you really, really really want to have improved skill bonii - then we're going to have a personal conversation off to the side about how to make that happen in an authentic and enjoyable way.
I guess I'm trying to say that 5e puts the pieces infront of everyone to have just about the same experience in 3rd edition. Some of that may require talking to your DM about how to get to that end point, but I see that as a serviceable workaround given all the ways 5e has positives.
Also - I really just kind of hate enormous skill checks and bonuses. I dont need your level 7 bard to roll a 1d20+27 persuasion check. It's just a bit much. So much so that I dont know how to put it in context against someone's ad20+16 check.
I've run a tabletop 5e game for 2+ years now. The highest check anyone has ever had to make was a DC 20 persuasion check to keep a plot vital character alive. It hit that sweetspot of being extremely difficult without being completely impossible.
Anyways. That's just my opinion. I dont think anyone's wrong to like previous editions more. Different strokes for different folks.
With the minimum proficiency bonus being +2 and the maximum being +6 it is very clear that everything skill-based an Archmage can achieve easily, a level 1 Mage can achieve with just a little bit of luck. And on everything the level 1 Mage struggles the Archmage can fail as well with just a little bit of bad luck. This can't be avoided simply be tweaking the DC since the proficiency part only just makes a 20% difference in success chance.
What 5th edition does - on purpose - is give everyone a chance at success and everyone a chance at failure. Depending on the situation this can be a good or a bad thing - specifically for knowledge based skills I feel it is a bad thing, for something like persuasion it is probably a very good thing.
Right. I agree with this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while that's true in theory, it's mostly not going to be true in practice if you have a good DM.
Lets say your level 20 archmage is trying to divine the secrets of the Nether Scrolls using an Arcana check. I'll make that check pretty challenging, relative to the importance of the task at hand (say, DC25 - or something). While it's absolutely possible that a level 1 mage could stroll in, throw a crit and read that same scroll... as the DM - I'm not going to let him. If he were to somehow be in a position to do it, I'd probably inflate the DC of the check so that he cannot possibly divine its secrets. In reality, that event will not come to pass... he wouldnt be in any position to get his hand on the Nether scroll.
So while the numbers are designed to be bounded within an acceptable range for all characters to do most things, the DM still gates those opportunities by dint of storytelling. Your level 20 Archmage is going to be diving the secrets of the universe, while my level 1 mage is going to spend a few hours reading Tasha's Guide to Making Jokes.
I think a major stumbling block here, is people are talking about things that work for tabletop that don't necessarily work in a video game. Talking about how a good DM would alter roll checks depending onthe situation isn't very helpful in a game that works on rigid programming.
I see equating "good tabletop rules" with "good video game rules" as an (unintentional) fallacy. The D&D rules with no adaptation were written specifically to work in a variable tabletop setting. Its why house rules are not only so common, but encouraged. Meanwhile, the game is rigid and can't really have the flexibility it needs to run smoothly. Adaptation of the rules is important. Its why I never compared this game to tabletop D&D, but specifically BG1 and (mostly) 2. Those games were so largely successful because they adapted the rules to suit the game. From what I've seen and read so far, Larian are trying to do the opposite, and I don't see that working as well, or being as accessible.
I think my only response to the translation of P&P rules to a working videogame can kind of be summed up like this:
The Infinity Engine games, the Shadowrun games, Pillars of Eternity, Fallout 1 and 2 - essentially either developed their own systems or took great liberties, essentially picking and choosing, cutting out a lot of fat, particularly the Shadowrun games, and the result were games I liked, or probably more accurately in Pillars case I at least found quite playable.
Pathfinder Kingmaker - Went a lot further than most of the genre generally has in trying to play out mechanically as a Pen and Paper campaign would, and I found it frustrating and that it completely ruined my enjoyment of the game.
I also don't think any games did the skill check concept better than the Shadowrun games. I mean it was extremely simple, but I have no issues with how they were done mechanically, it just made sense to me.
I think a major stumbling block here, is people are talking about things that work for tabletop that don't necessarily work in a video game. Talking about how a good DM would alter roll checks depending onthe situation isn't very helpful in a game that works on rigid programming.
I see equating "good tabletop rules" with "good video game rules" as an (unintentional) fallacy. The D&D rules with no adaptation were written specifically to work in a variable tabletop setting. Its why house rules are not only so common, but encouraged. Meanwhile, the game is rigid and can't really have the flexibility it needs to run smoothly. Adaptation of the rules is important. Its why I never compared this game to tabletop D&D, but specifically BG1 and (mostly) 2. Those games were so largely successful because they adapted the rules to suit the game. From what I've seen and read so far, Larian are trying to do the opposite, and I don't see that working as well, or being as accessible.
Well - to be fair, I've only be responding to points about 5e as a system and not its implementation into the game. So you're misapplying my point. However, presumably Larian will also functionally accomplish this by not letting you be level 1 at the very very end of the game passing DC 18 checks with a crit. Instead, you'll be level 10 and doing it, accomplishing the same thing.
I'd be curious to see what sources you have for Larian not adapting rules. From what I can see, they're adapting rules all over the place (Adjusting damage of spells to better balance in a video game. Introducing mechanics like food for healing that arent really present in 5e, etc).
Team initiative was an adaptation until people disliked it, and so it was scrapped. I dont know if we can defend the idea that Larian is being "too faithful" to the rules to make a good game.
With the minimum proficiency bonus being +2 and the maximum being +6 it is very clear that everything skill-based an Archmage can achieve easily, a level 1 Mage can achieve with just a little bit of luck. And on everything the level 1 Mage struggles the Archmage can fail as well with just a little bit of bad luck. This can't be avoided simply be tweaking the DC since the proficiency part only just makes a 20% difference in success chance.
What 5th edition does - on purpose - is give everyone a chance at success and everyone a chance at failure. Depending on the situation this can be a good or a bad thing - specifically for knowledge based skills I feel it is a bad thing, for something like persuasion it is probably a very good thing.
A difference of 4 numbers just doesn't capture the range of skill between a master of their craft and a total amateur.
Same goes for the difference between a master warrior and a baby faced soldier who can barely hold a sword.
It's just a subpar representation of what your characters skill level should be, imo.
I think a major stumbling block here, is people are talking about things that work for tabletop that don't necessarily work in a video game. Talking about how a good DM would alter roll checks depending onthe situation isn't very helpful in a game that works on rigid programming.
I see equating "good tabletop rules" with "good video game rules" as an (unintentional) fallacy. The D&D rules with no adaptation were written specifically to work in a variable tabletop setting. Its why house rules are not only so common, but encouraged. Meanwhile, the game is rigid and can't really have the flexibility it needs to run smoothly. Adaptation of the rules is important. Its why I never compared this game to tabletop D&D, but specifically BG1 and (mostly) 2. Those games were so largely successful because they adapted the rules to suit the game. From what I've seen and read so far, Larian are trying to do the opposite, and I don't see that working as well, or being as accessible.
Well - to be fair, I've only be responding to points about 5e as a system and not its implementation into the game. So you're misapplying my point. However, presumably Larian will also functionally accomplish this by not letting you be level 1 at the very very end of the game passing DC 18 checks with a crit. Instead, you'll be level 10 and doing it, accomplishing the same thing.
I'd be curious to see what sources you have for Larian not adapting rules. From what I can see, they're adapting rules all over the place (Adjusting damage of spells to better balance in a video game. Introducing mechanics like food for healing that arent really present in 5e, etc).
Team initiative was an adaptation until people disliked it, and so it was scrapped. I dont know if we can defend the idea that Larian is being "too faithful" to the rules to make a good game.
Look at the way rules were adapted in Baldur's Gate 2 as opposed to how much closer to the books Larian is sticking. There's a world of difference there, with Larian trying to make a purist sequel to a pretty free adaptation of a game.
I think a major stumbling block here, is people are talking about things that work for tabletop that don't necessarily work in a video game. Talking about how a good DM would alter roll checks depending onthe situation isn't very helpful in a game that works on rigid programming.
I see equating "good tabletop rules" with "good video game rules" as an (unintentional) fallacy. The D&D rules with no adaptation were written specifically to work in a variable tabletop setting. Its why house rules are not only so common, but encouraged. Meanwhile, the game is rigid and can't really have the flexibility it needs to run smoothly. Adaptation of the rules is important. Its why I never compared this game to tabletop D&D, but specifically BG1 and (mostly) 2. Those games were so largely successful because they adapted the rules to suit the game. From what I've seen and read so far, Larian are trying to do the opposite, and I don't see that working as well, or being as accessible.
Yeah there's some sense to this logic here. I don't agree with all your conclusions at the bottom of your post. But I do think it's a huge mistake for video game developers to lean too far into "the tabletop experience" because I think it can sacrifice what truly makes video games unique.
Actually, in contrast to what hybridial said below you, one example that I like about this is the dice-rolling. Many tabletop players seem to dislike a strict fealty to dice rolls and especially don't like constant dice rolling. But dice rolling in a video game can happen a lot faster and can also take place in hidden fashion. This is one area where I think Kingmaker excels.
The tabletop experience can permit some bending and breaking of rules, allowing for a fun, more unpredictable experience. But video game players don't want unpredictable. Maybe in a plot or quest result, yes. But not generally in a gameplay system. I can't make any specific conclusions from this about BG3, as I have yet to play or even watch much of others.
The tabletop experience can permit some bending and breaking of rules, allowing for a fun, more unpredictable experience. But video game players don't want unpredictable. Maybe in a plot or quest result, yes. But not generally in a gameplay system. I can't make any specific conclusions from this about BG3, as I have yet to play or even watch much of others.
The biggest difference between a videogame and a pen and paper game is the presence of an actual game master. A GM can actually see if the players are enjoying or being frustrated by the mechanics of the campaign and adjust accordingly, but a videogame can't do that. Some of the design decisions in Pathfinder boggle my mind that they thought would be a good idea in a videogame. Such as locating quest integral map locations via dice roll, examples of which were also very bugged for a long time apparently which would not have helped.
I'd also add that the GMs I've played with don't really emphasis travel as much as Kingmaker did where I felt most of the gameplay was on the world map because it was so tediously insistent on taking absolutely everything step by step.
Comments
Save scumming around challenges in a game is nothing new. Especially in an RPG. I mean it's been that way since Pool of Radiance at least with resting. Same thing was common in BG. You see the same thing even in modern titles with frustrating difficulty like XCOM. Those games are all time greats.
Frankly, if players feel obligated to save scum to erase difficulty, they deserve the tedious experience they end up receiving.
Roll + skill modifier. Based on how 5e skills work, another thing I really hate, is that it is basically impossible to get enough bonuses to guarantee yourself success.
You CAN'T?! That's uh, kinda lame. I'm mostly fine with having rolls, but character skills should be weighted more than a dice roll.
Unfortunately. No more skill focus feats, a brutal cap on max skill points per level, a brutal cap on max stats at character creation, it all adds up. Couple that with the fact that the rolls you have to make are very high for a first level character and you will be failing more often than not.
Edit: Corrected the value its actually 10.
That's not physically possible in 5e. At least, not conventionally.
With proficiency bonuses capping at +6 at level 20, and there is a hardcap of 20 (+5) on any stat (unless you are a Barbarian, they can have 24 in CON and STR, I believe).
So +11 is your maximum roll modifier. The 1d20 will always be a bigger weight than the modifier.
You can have advantage, or the lucky feat to get closer. Also could add bardic inspiration and the cantrip guidance for some additional bonuses, but unless you have one of those... you're rather stuck.
For my money - I dont see the purpose of a scenario in which the character has a 95% or 100% chance of success. When I DM, I take my character's stats/abilities in consideration. If someone is rolling with +7 on a persuade check, I'm not going to leave my persuade check DC at 8.
I could have a +11 modifier by level 3 in earlier editions. Sure, I would have to essentially dedicate my character to that skill up to that point, but I could do it. I understand the design choices they made in 5e, making it easier to understand for people new to the system, but I detest them because they destroy all sense of power progression, discourage specialization, severely limit customization, in the end it's all very limiting.
I get that people liked the way 3rd edition handled skills - I did myself. It was a fun system for sure, but I think 5e is still very strong in this capacity. The combination of proficiency bonus plus stat bonuses still makes an enormous difference.
My 5th level, 18 charisma Bard with proficiency in Persuasion will get a +8 on that check. Conversely, our 5th level Barbarian comrade with a 10 in Charisma without proficiency in Persuasion will not get any bonus. That's a major difference, particularly when the DC on the check is above average in difficulty (lets say, 15).
One of the reasons I like this system is my Bard is really good at that check, but he also gets to be pretty good at other Charisma based checks. He may not have proficiency in deception, but I'm still rolling a +5 there. The difference isnt massive simply because I allocated my skill proficiency differently. As the game goes on, by level 20 I wont be amazing at deception checks, but I will competent. In 3rd edition - if you didnt invest from 1st all the way to 20th level in a skill, it would fall off in its usability over time.
(For completeness's sake - in 3rd edition, you could have 23 ranks invested in a class skill by level 20. So you could have a +23 from skill proficiency alone. In 5th edition, the maximum from proficiency is +6)
I prefer 5e's game design to 3rd in that respect. I do prefer3rd's in terms of skill granularity. I dont need to assign ranks each level up, but I wouldnt mind if 5e added a half dozen or dozen new skills and doubled the number of skills you can be proficient in.
But for persuasion and many other skills it felt over the top. Skill, I feel 5th Edition went a bit too far with how low the proficiency boni have become.
I am also skeptical that rolls instead of thresholds works well in a cRPG - people tend to reload to compare outcomes and pick the better ones. I think they should make more use of the passive skill scores (10 + boni) to decide certain outcomes.
A character needs a minimum stat/skill for that option to appear in a dialog, say, a 50% chance of success. Once it does show up it also gives the player a tiered response (difficult, moderate, easy) about how hard that is beside the actual dialog.
This eliminates save scumming moderately but it also doesn’t encourage it for players who really shouldn’t be attempting it in a first place. A barbarian with 6 CHR should never have the same dialog options as a bard with an 18 CHR.
I've played a bit of 5e and my DM got very annoyed that my bard was passing so many checks.
And it also makes little sense that the brightest scholars in the Realms can regularly fail knowledge checks, or that the most wise and understanding of druids can regularly fail to handle animals successfully.
Again - I dont think that's really how it shakes out at the table. If you're playing the foremost scholar of history, and your knowledge history check is +21... I'm not about to ask you to make knowledge history checks that only require a 15 to pass. You're going to get to look into some bizarre, arcane history that befits a DC check of 35 or something.
If we're in 5e, then I'm just going to readjust my skill check DCs. If you really, really really want to have improved skill bonii - then we're going to have a personal conversation off to the side about how to make that happen in an authentic and enjoyable way.
I guess I'm trying to say that 5e puts the pieces infront of everyone to have just about the same experience in 3rd edition. Some of that may require talking to your DM about how to get to that end point, but I see that as a serviceable workaround given all the ways 5e has positives.
Also - I really just kind of hate enormous skill checks and bonuses. I dont need your level 7 bard to roll a 1d20+27 persuasion check. It's just a bit much. So much so that I dont know how to put it in context against someone's ad20+16 check.
I've run a tabletop 5e game for 2+ years now. The highest check anyone has ever had to make was a DC 20 persuasion check to keep a plot vital character alive. It hit that sweetspot of being extremely difficult without being completely impossible.
Anyways. That's just my opinion. I dont think anyone's wrong to like previous editions more. Different strokes for different folks.
Another annoying thing about the skill checks is how many you need to pass for some situations. There was one dialogue where I had to pass three skill checks in a row - all of which had the same DC and using the same skill - to get the "good" outcome. For a lot of things, I feel like a skill check should be a success or a failure. Increase the DC if you need to, but don't ask me to get three 10s in a row.
I imagine the new Eloquence bard would make them livid
(on persuasion or deception checks if you roll a 9 or lower you can treat it as a 10)
That or a 11th level rogue with reliable talent (Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your Proficiency Bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.).
And maybe how does that compare to the slow leveling of BG1?
You will level pretty quickly in the EA and likely hit the cap before you finish the content.
The first few levels are some of the most enjoyable since you get to make the major defining attributes of your character. Once multiclassing is a thing I plan to experiment a bit and see if 5e has any build diversity worth exploring. But it's not there yet.
I agree about 3E - with a +21 to a skill roll which is very achievable a lot of rolls become automatic successes.
But 5th edition is build up from the group so that skills do not scale as much and that even in your specialty it comes very much down to the roll. That is not only skills - you do the same with how typical ACs and +hit rolls are set to.
With the minimum proficiency bonus being +2 and the maximum being +6 it is very clear that everything skill-based an Archmage can achieve easily, a level 1 Mage can achieve with just a little bit of luck. And on everything the level 1 Mage struggles the Archmage can fail as well with just a little bit of bad luck. This can't be avoided simply be tweaking the DC since the proficiency part only just makes a 20% difference in success chance.
What 5th edition does - on purpose - is give everyone a chance at success and everyone a chance at failure. Depending on the situation this can be a good or a bad thing - specifically for knowledge based skills I feel it is a bad thing, for something like persuasion it is probably a very good thing.
Just use this mindset: if a person requires 3 skill checks it means it's really difficult to persuade them. Imagine your character spent hours and had multiple attempts at making them talk.
What I think would be good for Larian to investigate is to use best 2 out of 3 for subsequent rolls (or even best 3 out of 5) for some encounters. This is an sort of averaging, which increases the influence of skill modifiers beyond what you get with a single roll.
Right. I agree with this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while that's true in theory, it's mostly not going to be true in practice if you have a good DM.
Lets say your level 20 archmage is trying to divine the secrets of the Nether Scrolls using an Arcana check. I'll make that check pretty challenging, relative to the importance of the task at hand (say, DC25 - or something). While it's absolutely possible that a level 1 mage could stroll in, throw a crit and read that same scroll... as the DM - I'm not going to let him. If he were to somehow be in a position to do it, I'd probably inflate the DC of the check so that he cannot possibly divine its secrets. In reality, that event will not come to pass... he wouldnt be in any position to get his hand on the Nether scroll.
So while the numbers are designed to be bounded within an acceptable range for all characters to do most things, the DM still gates those opportunities by dint of storytelling. Your level 20 Archmage is going to be diving the secrets of the universe, while my level 1 mage is going to spend a few hours reading Tasha's Guide to Making Jokes.
I see equating "good tabletop rules" with "good video game rules" as an (unintentional) fallacy. The D&D rules with no adaptation were written specifically to work in a variable tabletop setting. Its why house rules are not only so common, but encouraged. Meanwhile, the game is rigid and can't really have the flexibility it needs to run smoothly. Adaptation of the rules is important. Its why I never compared this game to tabletop D&D, but specifically BG1 and (mostly) 2. Those games were so largely successful because they adapted the rules to suit the game. From what I've seen and read so far, Larian are trying to do the opposite, and I don't see that working as well, or being as accessible.
The Infinity Engine games, the Shadowrun games, Pillars of Eternity, Fallout 1 and 2 - essentially either developed their own systems or took great liberties, essentially picking and choosing, cutting out a lot of fat, particularly the Shadowrun games, and the result were games I liked, or probably more accurately in Pillars case I at least found quite playable.
Pathfinder Kingmaker - Went a lot further than most of the genre generally has in trying to play out mechanically as a Pen and Paper campaign would, and I found it frustrating and that it completely ruined my enjoyment of the game.
I also don't think any games did the skill check concept better than the Shadowrun games. I mean it was extremely simple, but I have no issues with how they were done mechanically, it just made sense to me.
Well - to be fair, I've only be responding to points about 5e as a system and not its implementation into the game. So you're misapplying my point. However, presumably Larian will also functionally accomplish this by not letting you be level 1 at the very very end of the game passing DC 18 checks with a crit. Instead, you'll be level 10 and doing it, accomplishing the same thing.
I'd be curious to see what sources you have for Larian not adapting rules. From what I can see, they're adapting rules all over the place (Adjusting damage of spells to better balance in a video game. Introducing mechanics like food for healing that arent really present in 5e, etc).
Team initiative was an adaptation until people disliked it, and so it was scrapped. I dont know if we can defend the idea that Larian is being "too faithful" to the rules to make a good game.
A difference of 4 numbers just doesn't capture the range of skill between a master of their craft and a total amateur.
Same goes for the difference between a master warrior and a baby faced soldier who can barely hold a sword.
It's just a subpar representation of what your characters skill level should be, imo.
Look at the way rules were adapted in Baldur's Gate 2 as opposed to how much closer to the books Larian is sticking. There's a world of difference there, with Larian trying to make a purist sequel to a pretty free adaptation of a game.
Yeah there's some sense to this logic here. I don't agree with all your conclusions at the bottom of your post. But I do think it's a huge mistake for video game developers to lean too far into "the tabletop experience" because I think it can sacrifice what truly makes video games unique.
Actually, in contrast to what hybridial said below you, one example that I like about this is the dice-rolling. Many tabletop players seem to dislike a strict fealty to dice rolls and especially don't like constant dice rolling. But dice rolling in a video game can happen a lot faster and can also take place in hidden fashion. This is one area where I think Kingmaker excels.
The tabletop experience can permit some bending and breaking of rules, allowing for a fun, more unpredictable experience. But video game players don't want unpredictable. Maybe in a plot or quest result, yes. But not generally in a gameplay system. I can't make any specific conclusions from this about BG3, as I have yet to play or even watch much of others.
The biggest difference between a videogame and a pen and paper game is the presence of an actual game master. A GM can actually see if the players are enjoying or being frustrated by the mechanics of the campaign and adjust accordingly, but a videogame can't do that. Some of the design decisions in Pathfinder boggle my mind that they thought would be a good idea in a videogame. Such as locating quest integral map locations via dice roll, examples of which were also very bugged for a long time apparently which would not have helped.
I'd also add that the GMs I've played with don't really emphasis travel as much as Kingmaker did where I felt most of the gameplay was on the world map because it was so tediously insistent on taking absolutely everything step by step.