Critical Hits and Critical Failures

I wonder how the "Take 10" rule is going to be handled and how it will help people who don't want to "screw up" basic tasks 5% of the time. I personally use crit/fails house-rule on PF1 and most of the time those random 1s go to perception, which can always be explained!

I like the reminder up thread that "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

To pull another Star Trek reference, there is a podcast of the new Star Trek Adventures RPG that I saw a couple of episodes of. In that game the helmsman rolled results that, in other games, would be critical failures. In that game though, rolls on the extreme end of the failure side (20s in this case. weird, I know.) could simply indicate misfortune. The helmsman didn't fail the piloting task, but the ship was hit by ion discharges.

Maybe the degrees of success work out like that for some things?

Failures and Critical failures could be set up as no particular mistakes made, but still something didn't go quite right.

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

It would be so cool if we could have conversations about the actual topic in these threads, instead of every blog thread devolving into discussions of why others systems might be the devil, or how everyone else either hates change or hates Pathfinder, take your pick.

Ugh.

But how do you propose we do that? It essentially boils down to these groups:

"I don't like [topic] because it's different from PF1!"

"I like [topic] because it's different from PF1!"

Normally, this isn't a problem, but this comes up in threads specifically about stuff they have already changed for PF2. Content that is happening regardless. The latter group can talk about what they liked or didn't like without completely tromping all over the thread topic, even while enjoying or preferring aspects of PF1. It's more difficult for the former group to do so because much of their opposition comes from resistance to any significant change at all, which is exactly what these topics describe.

Neither group is wrong, but in discussions about what is, in fact, changing for PF2E, some stuff is more contentious by nature. How do you get it to stop without segregating these groups in some way?

Honestly, I don't think it's possible to resolve, since it involves people actually being reasonable, and not letting everything devolve into hyperbolic misrepresentation of the opposition. It also involves people needing to actually be capable of the introspection necessary to articulate why they like/dislike the change.

Even more honestly, I'm pretty sure my desired proposal violates some forum rules.

Now, on topic - I really like what I've seen of these rules so far. I was especially happy to see that crit fails on attacks don't have much of an any extra effect. (Beyond the possible reactions that have been mentioned.)

Regarding the issue of crit fails on skills for the people who should be highly skilled (such as the falling off a horse example) I think it's something you're not really going to have to always roll for. I personally hope that the rules encourage GMs to not call for checks if the outcome isn't actually important. (With maybe a brief summary of what constitutes 'important')

ChibiNyan wrote:

I wonder how the "Take 10" rule is going to be handled and how it will help people who don't want to "screw up" basic tasks 5% of the time. I personally use crit/fails house-rule on PF1 and most of the time those random 1s go to perception, which can always be explained!

I like the reminder up thread that "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

To pull another Star Trek reference, there is a podcast of the new Star Trek Adventures RPG that I saw a couple of episodes of. In that game the helmsman rolled results that, in other games, would be critical failures. In that game though, rolls on the extreme end of the failure side (20s in this case. weird, I know.) could simply indicate misfortune. The helmsman didn't fail the piloting task, but the ship was hit by ion discharges.

Maybe the degrees of success work out like that for some things?

Failures and Critical failures could be set up as no particular mistakes made, but still something didn't go quite right.

This smacks a bit of some of the more narrative-style games made famous by the "indie" movement of the past few years. For me, that's a great thing. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying was a great example of how you could really tie narrative and mechanics together. FFG's Star Wars game, where you can fail but with advantages, or succeed but with complications, is another example.

What works for me about this is that ultimately we're crafting fantasy stories. I don't play purely for combat (not that there is anything wrong with such), nor do I play purely for diceless shared storytelling. I love the unique mix of both role- and rollplaying that our hobby offers, and so systems that blend narrative with mechanics are great. They open so many doors, especially since almost all of my gaming today is in PBP, which takes advantage of the written format.

It'd be easy to describe these things as the scene needs and the context fits best. Maybe your warrior simply missed her shot. Maybe falling debris from the ruined keep walls ruined the shot instead. Maybe the Orc's valiant comrade pulled him to safety in the nick of time. All of these could describe the same event (Failure on a shot) in different scenes. The group goes with whatever is most entertaining for them.

Really, everything they've described for PF2E so far really seems flexible like this. This looks to be the ultimate toolbox for fantasy gaming. I can't wait!

Agreed on it having a much more narrative-style feel to it. I am also pleased by that direction. (Although I also love a good simulation...I just don't feel any game has ever managed simulation very well) It'll be interesting to see where they draw the lines between those elements in the playtest rules.

Wait, Fighters get some sort of momentum mechanic to build up combos? Shut up and take my money! :P Wish there were a way to join the alpha tests...

Agreed on it having a much more narrative-style feel to it. I am also pleased by that direction. (Although I also love a good simulation...I just don't feel any game has ever managed simulation very well) It'll be interesting to see where they draw the lines between those elements in the playtest rules.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen game come close to decent simulation. Now, I tend to prefer more crunch in that regard than the really loose narrative style; M&M over FATE for supers, say, though I'm willing to play the latter and play to its strengths. But no D20-based game, and especially 3.x/PF, has been any good at simulationist gaming. I mean, the nebulous definition of hit points alone kinda puts the kibosh on anything remotely resembling that. And that's only the first of many, many problems for simulationist rules!

But so far, all of this sounds like the perfect blend of narrative and crunchy ("semi-simulationist?") rules. Gah, I wish it was here already so I could start using it!

As for 4E: As I see it, it was a beautiful and functional system that gave every class its chance to shine. Its downfall was the garish anime-style fluff and the utterly uninspired adventure design.

With Paizo, we know we can expect some top-notch storytelling, so I‘m confident they can pull off a 4E-like system.

Do we know the effect of things like keen weapons or improved critical hit yet? Is it only having to surpass the target DC by 9 instead of 10 or something like that?

There seems to be a confusion about messaging here. I was under the impression that beating any DC or AC by 10 gives you a crit (Critical now being a universal term), meaning a specialist in whatever field gets critical successes all the time(Beating whatever AC or DC by 10) and can't fail miserably(Too many bonuses. Too good), since crits are more common in general.

Or is that only for combat? Because if not, then the d20 becomes more of a range of effects, 1 meaning awful, and 20 meaning amazing with the DC putting you toward the awful and bonuses toward the awesome. God I hope that's how it works. It would mean a removal of some bad randomness.

Edit: This post is operating with this new blog post in mind. I'm suggesting a lot of contention may be coming from a misunderstanding of critial and what it means to this edition. If all challenges operate around 1-20 with a range of outcomes, which this blog post seems to indicate, that is actually... pretty cool.

The article is great. The one problem I have is that I was hoping for something that is apparently not going to be the case for the playtest.

Twin Riposte. A feat tax for something I was hoping would be default to the edition. Instead of Strike critical failures having "No effect" I was hoping you would leverage your new Design Space of non-binary outcomes to allow combat to be faster and more thrilling.

A fighter should be able to train to take advantage of opponents openings and should be able to strike them if their attack is so weak compared to his defense. A class feat should then bolster this ability and its versatility like tripping, not give it in its barest form only if dual wielding. It goes hand in hand with a high AC and martial prowess.

I am in love with the idea of a fight of 5 goblins vs a high level combat built martial being a bloody affair lasting only a few turns as each of their critical failures results in him slicing through them. I understand that he can make many attacks a turn now even while moving, but I am hesitant to think highly of this before I see the full playtest.

It's power would still pale in compare to the new Dominate, but for a fight it would bolster his reputation. Moreso if he had multiple reactions as it seems like he should.

I'm still not sure of the term "Critical Failure." Especially since in the case of attacks it apparently is the same as a normal failure except it can be taken advantage of by some abilities. But at least in my mind "Critical Failure" brings to mind those goofy "You stab yourself in the leg" or "you drop your weapon" kind of things, by making it sound significantly worse than a normal failure. As it is I've seen the idea that a 1 results in something extra bad being assumed even though it's not currently in the rules. Similarly, applying crits to things other than attack roles also seems to be pretty common too with many people not realizing it's not currently in the rules.

I think my point might have gotten away from me a bit. But what I'm trying to say is that the language needs to be very careful, because assumptions will be made based on words used and extrapolating systems based on others.

snip

I wonder if what you want isn't already available. You say feat tax, but is it? Remember, a shield is a weapon, and with the new action economy, as a "full round" a Fighter can (I'm assuming eventually) slash, bash, and raise his guard, block his enemy's attack, to the retaliate against the enemy foolish enough to attack a Fighter with his guard up and blade ready. It rewards both offense and defense, rather than pure offense, a huge problem with PF1 I recall, with all its "Rocket tag."

Hell, it being a feat Might be good. An archetype you'd have to wait, but a Fighter could do the above scenario in a few levels if it's all feats (Which makes him a huge threat. Remember, most things can't even react with an attack), only sacrificing the base when on the move.

The 90% of the entire blog post is a 'hell yeah', the other 7% is a 'let us be cautious', and the final 5% it's me screwing the math up like always.

The creature is banished and can't return to your home plane by any means for 1 week.

I know this. It's a critical fail when you argue with your GM.

Twin Riposte. A feat tax for something I was hoping would be default to the edition.

This is not a feat tax, just a feat. It allows you to be particularly good at a style of combat. That's what combat feats are for!

That spellcaster presumably also has to spend a spell slot on Dominate Person, rather than just naturally gaining that ability by virtue of being a spellcaster. Would you call that a «spell slot tax»?

Sorry Cat, I'm not interested in an argument taking some little part of my post wildly out of context with its entirety. I'm sorry the post was so long.

Alydos wrote:

snip

I wonder if what you want isn't already available. You say feat tax, but is it? Remember, a shield is a weapon, and with the new action economy, as a "full round" a Fighter can (I'm assuming eventually) slash, bash, and raise his guard, block his enemy's attack, to the retaliate against the enemy foolish enough to attack a Fighter with his guard up and blade ready. It rewards both offense and defense, rather than pure offense, a huge problem with PF1 I recall, with all its "Rocket tag."

Hell, it being a feat Might be good. An archetype you'd have to wait, but a Fighter could do the above scenario in a few levels if it's all feats (Which makes him a huge threat. Remember, most things can't even react with an attack), only sacrificing the base when on the move.

I don't think it is. Thank you for the shield example, that helps though.

I'm optimistic, but I feel like they are missing a huge opportunity with their new +10/-10 if they are making it primarily for spells and skills. They could be taking inspiration from Tenra Bansho Zero that makes defense a truly viable option by making it dangerous to attack someone who is skilled in defense.

Do we know if crit fails only occur on a 1? Would he huge if being bad at something meant failing miserably often or not. Same with crits being DC + 10. I think that's how it works. The blog post says every check in a post about crits and fails.

Twin Riposte. A feat tax

Pretty sure that's not what feat tax means.

Frosty Ace wrote:

I don't think it is. Thank you for the shield example, that helps though.

I'm optimistic, but I feel like they are missing a huge opportunity with their new +10/-10 if they are making it primarily for spells and skills. They could be taking inspiration from Tenra Bansho Zero that makes defense a truly viable option by making it dangerous to attack someone who is skilled in defense.

I think that make exist. We have this Ripose that activates basically as a replacement for an attack by raising your guard (But the AC stays for every hit!) And the ability to be flanked, and have a missing flaker hit the other. Feels like a sword and board Fighter can lead his defense, or even just protect a rogue that wants to "Gang up" with the Fighter. I like how it's all shaping up, really.

Do we know if crit fails only occur on a 1? Would he huge if being bad at something meant failing miserably often or not. Same with crits being DC + 10. I think that's how it works. The blog post says every check in a post about crits and fails.

No, it should also occur if they fail your DC by 10. But it doesn't do anything. It's equal to a failure except it might trigger your once per turn reaction, assuming you have taken the class feat to take advantage of it.

That's the part I'm taking issue with. By default it's nothing. With investment it's once per turn. I don't think either is how it should be.

No, it should also occur if they fail your DC by 10. But it doesn't do anything. It's equal to a failure except it might trigger your once per turn reaction, assuming you have taken the class feat to take advantage of it.

That's the part I'm taking issue with. By default it's nothing. With investment it's once per turn. I don't think either is how it should be.

The issue with any universally applicable critical failure mechanic on attacks is, and always has been, that it will inevitably hit the PCs a lot harder than NPCs simply because PCs roll so many attacks over the course of a campaign. Or at least feel like it does. Which is pretty un-fun most of the time.

Frosty Ace wrote:

Do we know if crit fails only occur on a 1? Would he huge if being bad at something meant failing miserably often or not. Same with crits being DC + 10. I think that's how it works. The blog post says every check in a post about crits and fails.

No, it should also occur if they fail your DC by 10. But it doesn't do anything. It's equal to a failure except it might trigger your once per turn reaction, assuming you have taken the class feat to take advantage of it.

That's the part I'm taking issue with. By default it's nothing. With investment it's once per turn. I don't think either is how it should be.

I actually think it's better to have more variety for failure and success around everything except attacking. At the end of the day, every martial willattack, and every caster will cast, but there can be ways to make it much spicier. What you suggest, for a magic equivalent, would be a crit fail or succeed for casting an offensive spell. That'd be bad. It's why most fumble rules suck. It removes too much agency.

What the Fighter has by way of reactions and AoOs is what a Wizard has by way of counterspell: a specialty in a "common" field (Spell and steel are mundane in DnD). For a Goblin attacking a Paladin, an attack pinging of the shield rather than the armor is the same, but only a Fighter can make it a two weapon parry. That's the kind of "nice martial/mundane thing" people have wanted. It's a layer only the best can access, and no dice luck or spell can mimic it. It's a design decision I'm seeing with a lot of things.

I actually think it's better to have more variety for failure and success around everything except attacking. At the end of the day, every martial willattack, and every caster will cast, but there can be ways to make it much spicier. What you suggest, for a magic equivalent, would be a crit fail or succeed for casting an offensive spell. That'd be bad. It's why most fumble rules suck. It removes too much agency.

What the Fighter has by way of reactions and AoOs is what a Wizard has by way of counterspell: a specialty in a "common" field (Spell and steel are mundane in DnD). For a Goblin attacking a Paladin, an attack pinging of the shield rather than the armor is the same, but only a Fighter can make it a two weapon parry. That's the kind of "nice martial/mundane thing" people have wanted. It's a layer only the best can access, and no dice luck or spell can mimic it. It's a design decision I'm seeing with a lot of things.

Offensive spells do have critical success in 2e, they deal double damage like martial attacks. At +10/nat20.

I also don't think it effects player agency, but that's an odd aside so maybe? Many hundreds of critical fails will occur for the enemies in a campaign. Moreso with the proper party now that the -10 rule is here.

Paladins are supposed to be the Defensive class per one of their earlier blogs, so maybe they'll have something more along the lines of what I want.

I still don't think at high levels a single reaction is even close to okay for martials. As has been said much better for 14+ years, if casters can aim for a much stronger Prince of Amber, why does the fighter not aim for Ares?

Yeah I'm thinking their gonna be a lot of martial class feats that are going to involve doing more with your actions. Wouldn't be surprised if they got one that gave them a second reaction.

I like the reminder up thread that "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

To pull another Star Trek reference, there is a podcast of the new Star Trek Adventures RPG that I saw a couple of episodes of. In that game the helmsman rolled results that, in other games, would be critical failures. In that game though, rolls on the extreme end of the failure side (20s in this case. weird, I know.) could simply indicate misfortune. The helmsman didn't fail the piloting task, but the ship was hit by ion discharges.

Maybe the degrees of success work out like that for some things?

Failures and Critical failures could be set up as no particular mistakes made, but still something didn't go quite right.

I think my main contention is that the "random circumstances make you fail" thing should not come up 5% of the time. That's way, way too often for someone actually good at a skill to be failing DC0 to DC10 checks. You might say, well, just don't make skilled characters roll; but again, how do I determine what's skilled enough to not roll? The natural threshold is when they would succeed on a 1, in which case the nat 1 autofail is meaningless because it will never happen.

I'm really hoping that skill feats are not structured such that I have to choose between "don't look like an idiot 5% of the time" and "gain a cool new trick to do with the skill."

I do intend to test the skill system by taking 20 as much as possible. Even if taking 20 isn't codified in the system as a formal rule, you can always brute force it (on retry-able tasks) with endless rerolling until a 20 comes up, which is basically what taking 20 simulates without wasting table time.

I mean it is a d20 based game. So a 1 is going to come up 5% of the time. You would have to use a different die for most of your roles to change that. d30 d40 d50 d100? Whats the preferred change their might be something out their already I think the war hammer 40k rpg uses a d100.

I think even Michael Jordan occasionally missed a free throw. Never fell down on his face but then his + is probably high enough where on a 1 he doesn't fail by 10. Also I'm pretty sure I saw that easy rolls wouldn't require a roll. I could be mistaken their.

Offensive spells do have critical success in 2e, they deal double damage like martial attacks. At +10/nat20.

I also don't think it effects player agency, but that's an odd aside so maybe? Many hundreds of critical fails will occur for the enemies in a campaign. Moreso with the proper party now that the -10 rule is here.

Paladins are supposed to be the Defensive class per one of their earlier blogs, so maybe they'll have something more along the lines of what I want.

I still don't think at high levels a single reaction is even close to okay for martials. As has been said much better for 14+ years, if casters can aim for a much stronger Prince of Amber, why does the fighter not aim for Ares?

Ah. Let me clarify. I meant one such as fireball or dominate person. Or to be even more hyperbolic to get my point across, mage hand or bless. I mean the basic concept of "Use magic." A martial has to use martial prowess to succeed and achieve, and before that was bound to purely mundane, generic attacks. Even ragelancepiunce is just more regular attacks, but with movement. As such, in a bad fumble system, a 1 being a dropped weapon means the double bladed, twf with 8 attacks, limited to 5 feet to be effective , has a 5% chance to be useless. And even more nuanced fumble rules were often too penalizing or gamey, and all it ignored the strongest, casters, cause too many spells just had to be at and could "win," so to speak. That was my point in why typical fumble systems are bad.

Just keep in mind we don't know much of anything. We all probably are too attached to PF1. A -10 is a fumble, but remember, iterative attack are at -5 and-10(?), meaning they are, to say the least, not great. On the other hand, a +4 ac possibly leading to an attack at -2, a class feature only I have, so I may move, attack, guard (Against everything, mind you), and react, hitting with the highest average accuracy out of most (Since remember, only the Fighter can pump his AoO, and subsequently, his action economy, and accuracy is everything since all damage is more dice), well that sounds great.

All of that is conjecture. But what we do know, is that a huge emphasis is being placed on defense and mobility (Ideally equal to offense for purposes of design choices). If you see them all as valid avenues to this new system, one where one move + creative stuff seems rewarded more than attack+other attack, that is a step in a good direction.

Edit: A Paladin is about defense in that it can heal, ignore really bad things and cast helpful spells. A Fighter is all about combat, pure and simple. Whether they dodge an attack while flanked, block an attack, chase an enemy, or gang up with a squishy, they're either dealing damage or facilitating it being dealt. With how well thought out the feats seem to he (Relative to the new action economy), the may not be Ares, but it he will fight like him.

Second edit: A thought in action economy: If iterative attacks are at a - 5 and -10 penalty, and this applies for every martial, and for spell casters they have different levels of spells to use different amounts of action points, then the classes that are able to use their reactions may actually be the best at whatever it is that they do, since you can't innately get more actions. In the case of the fighter, that would be combat in general, and in the case of the wizard, that would be counterspelling

jimthegray wrote:

the medusa thing visually makes me think of willow ,

when willow tried to turn the queen to stone ..and she made her save

Willow vs. Bavmorda

Yep, this is cool and I like it.

But with four degrees of success, suddenly the design space broadens significantly. You can still suffer an effect that takes you out of the action entirely on a critical failure, and you can completely ignore the effect on a critical success. But on a failure, you suffer a powerful effect but not one that takes you entirely out of the fight in one go, and even on a success, you suffer a milder effect that is still useful for the spell's caster. For example, if you critically fail your save against dominate, you are completely under the spellcaster's control, but if you only fail, you can try to break out of the effect each round. On a successful save, you aren't controlled, but you still lose an action on your next turn as you struggle to fight off the mental commands, which could be a serious problem—you might not be able to step away before casting a spell, or have time to raise a shield.

I REALLY like this. Because of my general luck with spellcasters, I almost never take spells that have a save effect of "x negates" because with my luck, even if my DC is 24 and the monster's save is -10, the jerk will still roll a nat 20 and save, and the spell does nothing and I wasted a turn while the fighter's just shredding everything left and right. Now when that inevitably happens, it sounds like he'll still succeed but not critically succeed (because it's still not 10 more than the DC) so I might still do SOMETHING and not have wasted a spell. I like that there is much more of a spectrum where I may still do something with my spells and that makes it much more likely I will take a diversity of spells to suit my characters.

It also looks like this stuff is still very compatible with the crit and fumble decks (except in some cases you need to switch which you'd use--e.g. if someone critically succeeds on a spell, you use the magic option on the fumble deck since it benefits the target) if you felt just doubling or minimizing effects got boring. Or we could get new decks...

Okay, am I the only one who instantly sees the issue with this new crit system? It's not intuitive. There's already dozens of questions on how it works, in what circumstances it works, and what scenarios change things. Crits are going from simple to confusing very quickly.

Pathfinder First Edition:
- Nat 20: Auto hit and possible crit threat
- Beat DC again: Critical!
- Nat 1: Auto fail
(This applies to attacks, saves, and a few other things. No auto success and failure on skills and other related checks.)

I've never been a fan of crit confirm in Pathfinder, but I always understood why it was there and have used it because it made sense and was simple.

I do love the idea of critical failure and success on skills and things like that, but I feel like it needs to be simpler.

In PF 2e though, now there's four levels of success, but only sometimes. And a Nat 20 always hits but only sometimes crits. Nat 1s are always a fail but only sometimes a critical fail. Different things will have different levels of success. It's already confusing, and it'll only get worse as more rules are released and more classes/abilities/spells are published, unless it's simplified just a little.

I'm not asking for something so simple like 5e. I don't want 5e. But I would like to to be intuitive so you don't slow down game time trying to figure out how far above and below the DC the check was, and which level of success that is. As written now, after every nat 1 and 20 the game will come to a halt and rules looked up depending on the spell, skill, attack, or situation. A lot more math involved. Mathfinder 2e, now with even more math!

Please make the crit system intuitive!

BryonD wrote:

None of it changes the narrative nature of Medusa. As you point out, PF1 throws the PCs a bone in that it provides a way to avoid "seeing" Medusa. But it doesn't contradict the narrative.

Your scenario contradicts the narrative. You may like the play value more than you care about the narrative integrity of the character.

I don't know about you, but in my games, my stories, both as player and GM, I decide the narrative. Any narrative integrity arises organically from the game at hand, and is not enforced by some slavish devotion to a mythological creature who inspired the similar but still very different creature in this game.

If your goal for an aspect of the game is to create the experience of some specific mythical set piece, then you are going to need to be somewhat "slavish" to the narrative details. Now, I think that is an absurd choice of words because why would you choose that unless it was something that you wanted and it sounded fun?

You seem to be focusing on a claim I never made, that being: everybody else should have accurate Medusa in their game.

I think I've already made it clear that if someone else is ok with "there is no Medusa in my game, but there is a creature that is 'inspired' by Medusa", then I have zero dispute there.

The fact remains that I want the option to recreate Medusa.
The fact remains that "As presented here" it can't truly without house rules.
The fact remains that it can easily be done with house rules.
I don't see you disputing any of those points.

FWIW, my first post led off with how I had significant debates on this exact topic over the 4E version and I was not going to reverse myself now. A very significant difference between that debate and this one is that in the 4E debates I was consistently told that I was wrong and slowly turning to stone bit by bit was completely consistent with the mythological character. So, frankly, I find you rebuttal far more refreshing. You can have your game and I'll have mine and PF2 is an adaptable system.

Also, FWIW, dragons breath fire. Dragons don't breath lightning. I started playing D&D around 40 years ago before I was 10. Dragons breathing all kinds of things is a truth from my childhood. I never think twice about it. Someone could, in theory, call me out for doing dragons "wrong". That would be ok. And some 8 year old who starts playing RPGs tomorrow may become 45 and never think twice about partial effects from Medusa because that is what they grew up with. There is nothing wrong with that.

I want to have the option of creating my late 20th century view of Medusa. That is a preference. It isn't really subject to debate.
Hell, according to things I've read, in antiquity Medusa was not generally described as a snake haired woman, because, duh, everyone who saw her turned to stone. Who would tell? Maybe I am wrong to insist on that physical structure. :)

Mathfinder 2e, now with even more math!

Please make the crit system intuitive!

Really? They need to assume the players can't handle +10 and -10?

It's a shame (actually probably a good thing) that we can't post images in threads here.

So just imagine the accompanying screen shots, or go to Morbotron and look them up.

[Zoidberg, calmly] Relax Friends...
[Zoidberg, 3 seconds later, screaming] PANIC JERKS!

Preeeeeeety much all the Playtest threads, just continuously.

I mean, I think we all know that we all want more info, and that these teasers are really light on actual detail, but man the level of assumption, baseless extrapolation, and vitriolic defense and attack of said assumptions and baseless guessing is just absurd.

All fish live in water, all Trout are fish, Therefore Fighters can divine smite at 3rd level and if I roll a 20 on acrobatics I can jump down your throat and wear you like a power suit.

[Insert pic of Finn from adventure time wearing Jake as a suit]

Yay!

Alright first. This is the first blog post that had any merit to posting it. Actually some meat and not just some vagueness that means about as much as a politicians promise. And to top it off it was well layed out.

Now as to the concerns. Mixing in nat 1/20 rolls into this in my mind is a mistake. It is simply a sacred cow that needs to die anyway, but mixing it with a parallel system just makes it even worse. And yes we should not need to pay a feat tax to not fail every 20 times we do something no matter how easy it is related to our skill level. At least this issue is fairly easy to houserule away. Then again what does it say about the quality of the product when I can see from a preview not even playtest something that I imidietly see as houserule it away.

My other concerns are related to d20 just ruling the game same as levels 1-4 or so in PF1(Which in my opinion are waste of space in the book outside of NPC use), now just stretched over 20 levels. However without having an actual document to build characters and check DCs etc. I can't really say if there is an issue or not.

My other concerns are related to d20 just ruling the game same as levels 1-4 or so in PF1(Which in my opinion are waste of space in the book outside of NPC use), now just stretched over 20 levels. However without having an actual document to build characters and check DCs etc. I can't really say if there is an issue or not.

They have said there will be static DCs, so I think for a large part of what you are doing you will get to the point of negligible dice impact. Those 10ft high stone walls aren't going to get suddenly harder to climb as you level (according to devs.) 10 levels on the dice might no longer allow critcal failure - success for the wizard but now failure - critical success, while the guy invested doesn't even have to roll because they now have a climb speed.

My other concerns are related to d20 just ruling the game same as levels 1-4 or so in PF1(Which in my opinion are waste of space in the book outside of NPC use), now just stretched over 20 levels. However without having an actual document to build characters and check DCs etc. I can't really say if there is an issue or not.

We do know it's their intent that even the least skilled party members of a particular level can succeed at all checks in theory (and not just with a natural 20, we're talking a reasonable, if not great, chance of success). We also know there's explicitly only around a 17-18 point spread between best and worse bonuses even at 20th, at least in skills.

Those two things together mean, sorta definitionally, that really skilled people will be able to make level-appropriate checks on pretty low numbers, at least at higher levels. There are probably a few exceptions to that at the extreme end of things (trying to sneak past someone with a +32 Per is DC 42...making that roll with a +18 Stealth is impossible sans 20, while a +35 has good odds), but the game design seems to very intentionally be for them to be rare, and they're inevitably gonna make higher skills more valuable, not less.

Promising. 2nd August is too far away ...

And now, having just made a post decrying the making of assumptions, I shall, Hypocritically, make an assumption.

Why are they adding the 1 20 Auto-Fail/Success mechanic to skill checks?

Why, when it is not the rule in PF1, Not in 5e, specifically called out in the rules of 3.5 as not the way skill checks work, are they putting this into the PF2 playtest?

I think it's because they pay attention to how people play. You listen to D&D podcasts? Most of them do it. Most game groups do it. It even happens, INCORRECTLY, at Adventurer's League and Pathfinder Society tables (YES it DOES, I have personally witnessed it).

The human brain likes patterns that match, and if 1 is auto fail and 20 is auto success on a d20 roll for COMBAT, and for SAVES, SURELY, SURELY our brain tells us, SURELY it MUST be the rule on this other d20 roll.

It is how, to my observation at least, the majority of people play the game. Paizo is simply changing the rule to accommodate the fact that the majority of their customers are going to do it that way at home, to avoid confusion and arguments at Con tables.

Anyway, that's my take.

1) I am curious how the Critical-Hits-and-Critical-Failures system will affect the new knowledge roll checks?

What information do you get from each category for knowledge?

Example for a troll:

Crit-fail = Miss identifies creature (It's immune to fire?)
fail = unknown creature? (yea gads what's that?)
success = know creature's type and common traits (Troll, regenerates?)
Crit-success = know everything? (Tim the Troll, regenerates, rake, use acid or fire to kill?)

2) What happens to Take 10 and Take 20 rules? Some modified use in exploration mode?

3) On the auto 1 and 20, I find it helps me to think of it as increasing the severity of a fail or success by one level. That would take care of the %5 success on an impossible task (Still if something is impossible don't allow the check.)

QuidEst wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Losing one of your actions might not sound like much, but it's often a big problem for monsters and PCs alike. Admittedly, dominate is on the lower end of success effects in part because the fail and critical fail effects are so dire, but even then, slow 1 is preeetty good.

I'm glad to hear that a regular fail vs. Dominate Person is still dire! I'll be playing a lot of enchanters, after all.

The most devastating thing that happened to my monk in our 12th level playtest was when Jason's wizard failed (not fumbled) his save against dominate and unleashed chain lightning and cone of cold on the party.

Ah yes.. good times.

I am really confused where this whole "natural 20 auto suceeds and natural 1 auto fails skill checks" is coming from.

From what I gather, it seems like there is a DC, and you take your total and compare. If you are between DC and +10, you succeed, if you beat DC+10 you crit succeed, and the opposite direction failure

People are talking about a 20 letting them jump to the moon, but even with a 20 you still need to beat the DC of 5.044 billion to get there (assuming the moon is the same distance as Earth's).

EDIT: I reread it and it seems to critically succeed, you need to either beat the DC+10 or roll a 20 and still beat the DC. Then just the opposite direction failure/natural 1s. Still very reasonable

The fact remains that I want the option to recreate Medusa.

The fact remains that "As presented here" it can't truly without house rules.

Uh, it hasn’t been presented here, this is not a blog about monster creation.

Using the monster creation rules to recreate the mythical Medusa that can easily TPK groups will not be “house rules”.

I am really confused where this whole "natural 20 auto suceeds and natural 1 auto fails skill checks" is coming from.

From what I gather, it seems like there is a DC, and you take your total and compare. If you are between DC and +10, you succeed, if you beat DC+10 you crit succeed, and the opposite direction failure

People are talking about a 20 letting them jump to the moon, but even with a 20 you still need to beat the DC of 5.044 billion to get there (assuming the moon is the same distance as Earth's).

EDIT: I reread it and it seems to critically succeed, you need to either beat the DC+10 or roll a 20 and still beat the DC, so it's a little different, but still very reasonable

But, if you read the information in the comments (Mark Seifter's posts), if you roll a 20 and it doesn't beat the DC, it's a regular success. And, if you roll a 1 and it does beat the DC, it's a regular failure.

However, getting a success on athletics doesn't mean that you can jump to the moon, because athletics is presumably set up such that the height of your jump is based on what your result is (and gets better the more proficient you are).

But, if you read the information in the comments (Mark Seifter's posts), if you roll a 20 and it doesn't beat the DC, it's a regular success. And, if you roll a 1 and it does beat the DC, it's a regular failure.

However, getting a success on athletics doesn't mean that you can jump to the moon, because athletics is presumably set up such that the height of your jump is based on what your result is (and gets better the more proficient you are).

He then goes on to say that

Yep. We have endeavored to set up the wording in such a way as to work well with our new system rather than degenerately where we can.

This tells me they already anticipated this and this won't be a problem outside of possibly a few holes that will be worked out during the playtest

This tells me they already anticipated this and this won't be a problem outside of possibly a few holes that will be worked out during the playtest

I am making it my mission to find those holes. Already looking forward to a playtest barbarian rolling a 20 on her untrained Craft(laser rifles) check, which she of course has +level-2 to the roll of.

I am making it my mission to find those holes. Already looking forward to a playtest barbarian rolling a 20 on her untrained Craft(laser rifles) check, which she of course has +level-2 to the roll of.

It seems likely that actually building things is a Trained Only skill use. Repairing things is likely untrained, but that's a lot less disruptive.

Partizanski wrote:

This tells me they already anticipated this and this won't be a problem outside of possibly a few holes that will be worked out during the playtest

I am making it my mission to find those holes. Already looking forward to a playtest barbarian rolling a 20 on her untrained Craft(laser rifles) check, which she of course has +level-2 to the roll of.

Crafting a Laser Rifle requires Gunsmithing at Legendary

I've been staring at some tables, probably need a better visualization, but its actually feeling like having no special 1/20 rules is cleanest, though the dev one approximates it nicely in the normal range of values. (I wasn't expecting that, I was liking the rules as explained. and was intrigued by idea from other posters that 1/20 simply move the generated result one step in the bad/good direction).

The poster suggested approach makes things worse, IMO for "normal range DC/modifiers" to solve extreme range DCs. It makes crits (on both good/bad side) much more common. (Its possible I misinterpreted the suggestion -- I applied the one-step better/worse rule regardless of if the modifier + roll was above or below the DC threshold). I feel this proposal doesn't work well with the absence of crit confirmations. If you're house ruling in the move one step on 1/20s, I think you also want to have to confirm crit/failures.

The dev listed approach, comes into play most strongly in situations where the DCs are strongly mis-matched from the modifiers of the people rolling the dice. Which means in the scenario where a natural 20 would be failing, but is turned into a success by the listed rules, the player has at best a 45% of failing, a 50% chance of crit failing, and a 5% of success. As you push your luck on even worse odds, you're trading failure percentages for crit failure.

I think this makes sense for checks that have a "cost" (spending action in combat, a penalty on failure). If its something you could have taken 20 on, then yes its in a funny place.

Gamers typically want 1/20s to mean something special, as I see it now, the Dev rule is close to the 'weakest' bonus/penalty you can give to 1/20s. If this is enough for people to think of 1/20s as special and avoid swingier/more broken house rules, its probably a great solution.

Heyoooo, more buffs to the fighter! I can't believe I actually wanna play one now!