Natural 1's, Missing by 5 or less, and other similar effects

[Talonhawke]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

How much did you succeed by on your bullrush?

All of it

Sounds like the tarrasque is on the moon god rest there souls.

[Orfamay Quest]

Maybe that's how the elves got here from Castrovel.....

[Matthew Downie]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

If you'd rolled 5 higher on the dice, would you have hit? If so, you missed by 5 or less.

[John Mechalas]

I guess I, too, don't understand why basic math has to be suddenly tossed out the window here just because there's a special rule about 1 and 20. It basically becomes a MIN/MAX function so that a 20 always succeeds by at least 0, and a 1 always misses by at least 1.

If you need to hit AC 32:

with a +4 modifier, then
...a 20 succeeds by MAX(0,24-32) = MAX(0,-8) = 0
...a 19 succeeds by 23-32= -9 = fails by 9
...an 18 succeeds by 22-32= -10 = fails by 10
...
...a 2 succeeds by 6-32 = -26 = fails by 26
...a 1 succeeds by MIN(-1,5-32) = MIN(-1,-27) = -27 = fails by 27

with a +16 modifier, then
...a 20 succeeds by MAX(0,36-32) = MAX(0,4) = 4
...a 19 succeeds by 36-35 = 3

If you need to hit AC 10:

with a +16 modifier, then
...a 20 succeeds by MAX(0,36-10) = 26
...a 19 succeeds by 35-10 = 25
...
...a 3 succeeds by 19-10 = 9
...a 2 succeeds by 18-10 = 8
...a 1 succeeds by MIN(-1,17-10) = MIN(-1,7) = -7 = misses by 7

Why is it necessary to make this more difficult than just math? The game is complicated enough as it is.

[John Mechalas]

Here's a simple Google Sheet you can play with. Just enter your target AC/DC/SR/whatever and your modifiers.

Edit: fixed a permissions issue.

[skizzerz]

John Mechalas wrote:

I guess I, too, don't understand why basic math has to be suddenly tossed out the window here just because there's a special rule about 1 and 20. It basically becomes a MIN/MAX function so that a 20 always succeeds by at least 0, and a 1 always misses by at least 1.

If you need to hit AC 32:

with a +4 modifier, then
...a 20 succeeds by MAX(0,24-32) = MAX(0,-8) = 0
...a 19 succeeds by 23-32= -9 = fails by 9
...an 18 succeeds by 22-32= -10 = fails by 10
...
...a 2 succeeds by 6-32 = -26 = fails by 26
...a 1 succeeds by MIN(-1,5-32) = MIN(-1,-27) = -27 = fails by 27

with a +16 modifier, then
...a 20 succeeds by MAX(0,36-32) = MAX(0,4) = 4
...a 19 succeeds by 36-35 = 3

If you need to hit AC 10:

with a +16 modifier, then
...a 20 succeeds by MAX(0,36-10) = 26
...a 19 succeeds by 35-10 = 25
...
...a 3 succeeds by 19-10 = 9
...a 2 succeeds by 18-10 = 8
...a 1 succeeds by MIN(-1,17-10) = MIN(-1,7) = -7 = misses by 7

Why is it necessary to make this more difficult than just math? The game is complicated enough as it is.

Where in the rules is the max/min you speak of? This is just math, but your math is more complicated than the actual math that takes place, which is d20+bonus compared to AC or CMD or whatever. There is no max or min going on. There is no rule that states you can't hit or miss by a negative number, should that be determined to be a hit or miss. Missing by -7 is still a miss (nat 1 rule tells us this), and missing by -7 is less than 5 so we pop a mirror image.

Aside, your max/min is almost correct math-wise if you want to avoid negative hits/misses for whatever reason, but you had a snafu in calculating the min on the last line; min(-1, 7) is -1, so that last bit misses by 1, a near miss. To make it fully accurate you need a disclaimer that things which adjust the roll after it has been made only apply to the rolled half of the min/max rather than the overall result (so in your example if I added a d6 after rolling the nat 1, it'd look like min(-1, 7+d6) rather than min(-1, 7)+d6). Overall, the max/min just seems unnecessary.

[John Mechalas]

skizzerz wrote:

Where in the rules is the max/min you speak of? This is just math, but your math is more complicated than the actual math that takes place, which is d20+bonus compared to AC or CMD or whatever. There is no max or min going on. There is no rule that states you can't hit or miss by a negative number, should that be determined to be a hit or miss. Missing by -7 is still a miss (nat 1 rule tells us this), and missing by -7 is less than 5 so we pop a mirror image.

The MIN/MAX comes from "always hit/always miss" as special cases. But it doesn't matter. Call it an IF statement if you prefer the programmatic approach. The end result is still the same. If you roll a 1 and exceed the AC by 8, you miss by -7 which is < 5 and you pop a mirror image. That's effectively the same as a mathematical floor which gives you a miss by 1. Again, it doesn't matter how you get there or how you model it. It's still math and the end result is the same: it's a miss by <5 and you pop a mirror image.

We are basically agreeing, just not on the semantics.

What I disagree with are the people who are coming up with new rules like "treat 20 as 30" or "20 is hit by a lot" or you
"missed by all of it", which all come out of nowhere, violate the approach that this is just math, and don't define what "a lot" or "all of it" represents, and thus can't be used to resolve "miss by 5" conditions. For some reason there are folks who are tripped up by missing by negative numbers. Applying a mathematical ceiling/floor takes care of that anomaly.

Quote:

you had a snafu in calculating the min on the last line; min(-1, 7) is -1

Typo. Thanks for catching that.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

I honestly feel this thread is a little unnecessary. I think the auto-success and failure system has no interaction whatsoever with how you factor in effects based on failure by a number. Those effects will always be using the raw rolled number+any modifiers to that roll to determine if the effect works, along with any other factors in the effect conditions. They are separate to the auto-failure or auto-success effect, and how that interacts with the raw number may change things.

For instance, say we have a monk using Crane Wing and has AC 30 while fighting defensively. This monk is attacked by a creature with a +7 to hit, and who rolls a natural 20. The attack wasn't a miss, it was a hit, so the monk maintains Crane Wing despite the creature rolling within the range they would have lost their AC bonus from fighting defensively, even if the roll would normally miss. That's because Crane Wing explicitly asks for a 'miss' and not 'when an attacker rolls', and this language is fairly common if not universal for these sorts of effects. (Any outliers will probably be subject to specific scrutiny, but I believe it would then just take effect if the raw value rolled matches what the effect is asking for)

The reverse is also true. A creature rolls a 1 on their attack, but their bonus is something so astronomical as to have hit that same monk. The attack is still a miss, but the raw value of the roll was enough to have been within the value of 4 or less (numbers in the negatives do exist you know). So the monk loses their Crane Wing effect, because it was a miss and that is the second condition Crane Wing needs to lose the effect.

Most of these interactions ask for either a miss or a hit to determine when the effect takes place. If this isn't satisfied, then the effect doesn't take place either way.

[David knott 242]

Another way to think of how much you hit or missed by is to compare the die roll you actually got with the die roll needed to hit.

For example, if your attack bonus vs. AC is high enough that a 1 would have hit except for the rule of a 1 always missing, then you would have hit if you had rolled a 2 and thus missed by 1.

I think this approach is identical in its practical effects with the mathematical approach of comparing the adjusted die roll with AC and going by that difference.

[Talonhawke]

David knott 242 wrote:

Another way to think of how much you hit or missed by is to compare the die roll you actually got with the die roll needed to hit.

For example, if your attack bonus vs. AC is high enough that a 1 would have hit except for the rule of a 1 always missing, then you would have hit if you had rolled a 2 and thus missed by 1.

I think this approach is identical in its practical effects with the mathematical approach of comparing the adjusted die roll with AC and going by that difference.

That goes back to Nat. 20 now being worse in most of these cases than a roll of 19.

[BigNorseWolf]

Matthew Downie wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

If you'd rolled 5 higher on the dice, would you have hit? If so, you missed by 5 or less.

if their armor class had been five lower would you have hit? No. Then you didn't miss by 5, you missed by a completely different mechanism.

if you had rolled a 6, and six was an automiss, you would have missed. The actual number comparisons are irrelevant.

[Talonhawke]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

If you'd rolled 5 higher on the dice, would you have hit? If so, you missed by 5 or less.

if their armor class had been five lower would you have hit? No. Then you didn't miss by 5, you missed by a completely different mechanism.

By that logic you trigger neither type of event. I have neither hit or missed by more than or less than any number.

[bbangerter]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

If you'd rolled 5 higher on the dice, would you have hit? If so, you missed by 5 or less.

if their armor class had been five lower would you have hit? No. Then you didn't miss by 5, you missed by a completely different mechanism.

if you had rolled a 6, and six was an automiss, you would have missed. The actual number comparisons are irrelevant.

In a bull rush attempt, on a nat 20, if their CMD had been 5 higher would the bull rush still be successful? Yes. So you didn't succeed by any amount.

And since no one else seems to dare respond to this question, I'll challenge you with it.

What happens with a nat 1 or nat 20 on a disarm attempt? Please explain your reasoning why the results are what they are. Feel free to compare it against a creature with a CMD of 5, and one with a CMD of 50. Assume your CMB is +1.

[David knott 242]

Talonhawke wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Another way to think of how much you hit or missed by is to compare the die roll you actually got with the die roll needed to hit.

For example, if your attack bonus vs. AC is high enough that a 1 would have hit except for the rule of a 1 always missing, then you would have hit if you had rolled a 2 and thus missed by 1.

I think this approach is identical in its practical effects with the mathematical approach of comparing the adjusted die roll with AC and going by that difference.

That goes back to Nat. 20 now being worse in most of these cases than a roll of 19.

How could that be? If a 19 hits, then a 20 hits by +1 more and threatens a crit even if the 19 didn't. How would the 20 be worse than a 19?

[N N 959]

Alright, we are discussing this rule:

PRD wrote:

Attack Roll

***
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

Then we have this on Combat Maneuvers:

PRD on Combat maneuvers wrote:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

***
If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll).

So do combat maneuvers subscribe to the Auto hit/miss rules for "attacks" ? IME, GMs have used those rules. If that is correct then what happens with trips?

PRD Trip wrote:

Trip

****
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.

So let's look at two scenarios:

A. The CMD is 31, and the attack roll is a natural 20 is rolled with a -5 modifier?

B. The CMD is 15 and the attack roll is a natural 1 with a +15 modifier?

Who gets knocked prone in A and B?

[bbangerter]

N N 959 wrote:

So do combat maneuvers subscribe to the Auto hit/miss rules for "attacks" ? IME, GMs have used those rules. If that is correct then what happens with trips?

Yes, they do.

PRD wrote:

Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.

N N 959 wrote:

PRD Trip wrote:

Trip

****
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.

So let's look at two scenarios:

A. The CMD is 31, and the attack roll is a natural 20 is rolled with a -5 modifier?

B. THe CMD is 15 and the attack roll is a natural 1 with a +14 modifier?

Who gets knocked prone in A and B?

A: Target gets knocked prone. Your results was 10 or more lower, but it was not a fail. You must 1) Fail 2) By 10 or more.

B: Neither is prone. You failed, you did not fail by 10 or more.

[N N 959]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

....if you had rolled a 6, and six was an automiss, you would have missed. The actual number comparisons are irrelevant.

If the number you missed by is irrelevant, then anytime you roll a 1 on a trip attempt, you cannot trip yourself?

[KingOfAnything]

You can miss so bad you miss yourself.

[Talonhawke]

David knott 242 wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Another way to think of how much you hit or missed by is to compare the die roll you actually got with the die roll needed to hit.

For example, if your attack bonus vs. AC is high enough that a 1 would have hit except for the rule of a 1 always missing, then you would have hit if you had rolled a 2 and thus missed by 1.

I think this approach is identical in its practical effects with the mathematical approach of comparing the adjusted die roll with AC and going by that difference.

That goes back to Nat. 20 now being worse in most of these cases than a roll of 19.

How could that be? If a 19 hits, then a 20 hits by +1 more and threatens a crit even if the 19 didn't. How would the 20 be worse than a 19?

rereading your early post I misunderstood your position. I had thought you were advocating a nat one being missed by 1 always.

[Ravingdork]

Seems pretty clear to me you just add your result to the 1 you rolled then compare. Any other interpretation just leads to too many weird situations for it to be the intended implementation.

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

Seems pretty clear to me you just add your result to the 1 you rolled then compare. Any other interpretation just leads to too many weird situations for it to be the intended implementation.

Yep, it's not rocket surgery... just use the rules that are there. Auto miss/hit has no provision for ignoring the normal method of adding modifiers to the roll.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Natural 20 and Natural 1: On attack rolls and saving throws, a natural 20 is an automatic success and a natural 1 is an automatic failure. But should I treat them differently than other results when deciding if a roll succeeded or failed by 5 or more, when comparing two opposed attack rolls to see which is a higher result, or other similar situations?

No, unless a specific rule tells you otherwise, treat a natural 20 or natural 1 result on an attack roll or saving throw the same as any other result when comparing the total result to other numbers. For example, if a fighter rolls a natural 1 for a total of 31 against the wizard’s AC of 33, the attack misses by 5 or less and destroys one of the wizard’s mirror images.

[TOZ]

As expected.

[Cavall]

No shock there.

Answered fast and clearly and with the expected answer. Moss is a miss and then you see what the miss triggers.

[N N 959]

Yes, glad to see the PDT keep it simple and straightforward. I also dislike it when posters try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW. So I welcome this clarification.

What I also like about this response is the PDT didn't try and change the rule(s). They've essentially told us that you follow the RAW.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

This was pretty simple, so I'm not surprised at the speed to which it was answered.

[graystone]

It's refreshing to see a FAQ answered the way I thought it should be answered. Even more so that it's simple, easy and to the point. Two thumbs up.

[whew]

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, glad to see the PDT keep it simple and straightforward. I also dislike it when posters try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW. So I welcome this clarification.

What I also like about this response is the PDT didn't try and change the rule(s). They've essentially told us that you follow the RAW.

If they'd ruled the other way, it would have been just as simple and straightforward. It would also have been just as compatible with RAW.

Finally, since there is a natural-one-miss rule, it's a pathetic, baldfaced lie to call the opposing viewpoint "try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW".

[N N 959]

whew wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, glad to see the PDT keep it simple and straightforward. I also dislike it when posters try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW. So I welcome this clarification.

What I also like about this response is the PDT didn't try and change the rule(s). They've essentially told us that you follow the RAW.

If they'd ruled the other way, it would have been just as simple and straightforward. It would also have been just as compatible with RAW.

Finally, since there is a natural-one-miss rule, it's a pathetic, baldfaced lie to call the opposing viewpoint "try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW".

No, it would not have been simple and straight forward, nor would it have been compatible with RAW. "Ruling the other way" would have meant, one of two nonsensical choices:

1. Rolling a "1" is a miss by an infinite number (Diego Rossi). Does this mean a 20 is a hit by an infinite number? Obivously not, so it's convoluted.

or;

2. Rolling a 1 is not considered a "roll" mechanic/you number doesn't count/is irrelevant ( a la Big Norse Wolf). Which means trying to trip someone, you can't trip yourself on a 1 because "your number is irrelevant."

What does that mean for rolling a 20 because the same logic would apply. So now you roll a 20 and you can't trigger anything because you aren't hitting by a "roll" mechanic, but by some other non-number based rule.

So no...it's not straight forward or simple, not even remotely. Nor is is compatible with RAW claiming that either 1 or 2 is the rule. There is nothing in RAW that supports such a notion. RAW says a 1 is a miss. That's it. Nothing else. It does not say you're not missing by a roll or that you're suffering a -infinity modifier. Reading the arguments, it all came across as emotionally driven: People not wanting a 1 to confer any benefit to the die roller.

So I stand by my assertion that the other viewpoints were a typical/textbool case of attempting to create rules that don't exist. It happens a lot, like people claiming you need to jump 11 feet to clear a 10 foot pit. Fortunately the PDT was able to quash it this time.

[TriOmegaZero]

whew wrote:

Finally, since there is a natural-one-miss rule, it's a pathetic, baldfaced lie to call the opposing viewpoint "try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW".

And that rule has no conflicting language with the question, so yes you would be adding rules.

Just like the popular "you rolled a 1 so bad things happen" requires adding rules.

[BigNorseWolf]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

whew wrote:

Finally, since there is a natural-one-miss rule, it's a pathetic, baldfaced lie to call the opposing viewpoint "try and attach rules that don't exist to RAW".

And that rule has no conflicting language with the question, so yes you would be adding rules.

Just like the popular "you rolled a 1 so bad things happen" requires adding rules.

No, because there wasn't a way to figure out whether you missed by 5 or not. If you add to the dice, it works as the faq says. if you subtract from the armor class, it would result in a miss.

[N N 959]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No, because there wasn't a way to figure out whether you missed by 5 or not. If you add to the dice, it works as the faq says. if you subtract from the armor class, it would result in a miss.

RAW says "rolling" a natural 1 is an automatic miss. It doesn't say you do anything else differently. Attempting to change how the results is calculated without any rule telling to do so is adding rules/house ruling.

[wraithstrike]

I definitely had been getting this one wrong for mirror image. I was undecided in other areas. Good to know so I can fix it now.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

So yes, it is possible to pop an image if one's modifiers are high enough on a Nat 1.

So don't say 'I just miss' in the future in such a niche, because you may still contribute!

+1

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

wraithstrike wrote:

I definitely had been getting this one wrong for mirror image. I was undecided in other areas. Good to know so I can fix it now.

Last time this came up, I believe we ran it correctly. This was also against a creature utilizing Blur, so....

Actually, even better question. If a creature has a form of concealment or miss chance, like Blur, do you still pop Mirror Images on a miss from concealment? What about other effects we've talked about in this thread?

[TriOmegaZero]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No, because there wasn't a way to figure out whether you missed by 5 or not.

Yes, there was. Missing on a natural 1 doesn't change the math.

[KingOfAnything]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No, because there wasn't a way to figure out whether you missed by 5 or not.

Yes, there was. Missing on a natural 1 doesn't change the math.

Eh. You kind of stretch the plain meaning of "miss by," but not beyond its breaking point.

[bbangerter]

KingOfAnything wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No, because there wasn't a way to figure out whether you missed by 5 or not.

Yes, there was. Missing on a natural 1 doesn't change the math.

Eh. You kind of stretch the plain meaning of "miss by," but not beyond its breaking point.

Not really. If I roll a 3, and my bonuses make it a 7, and the opponents AC is 10, did I miss by 5 or less? Yes.

The actual math doesn't change if I roll a 1, final result 5. Did I miss AC 10 by 5 or less? Yes.

Math is math. The only rule in play is that even if the AC is 2, a natural 1 is still a miss regardless of my bonuses. But the math side of it is the same regardless of that rule.

This isn't 2+2 = 5. That would be stretching things.

@BigNorseWolf, likewise, as I just said. Math is math. Whether you determine a miss by 5 or less by adding 5 more to the final result, or subtracting 5 from the AC, you still arrive at 1) Difference of 5 or less, 2) not a difference of 5 or less.

I don't do either, I take AC - hit roll, if it comes up 5 or less, its a near miss. I didn't add to the roll, or subtract from AC.

[Samish Lakefinder]

If the devs thought one side was completely without merit they would have ignored the thread not issued an FAQ. I am glad they cleared it up.

[TriOmegaZero]

They would not have ignored it, they would have marked it "No FAQ Response Needed".

[wraithstrike]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I definitely had been getting this one wrong for mirror image. I was undecided in other areas. Good to know so I can fix it now.

Last time this came up, I believe we ran it correctly. This was also against a creature utilizing Blur, so....

Actually, even better question. If a creature has a form of concealment or miss chance, like Blur, do you still pop Mirror Images on a miss from concealment? What about other effects we've talked about in this thread?

You have to get past concealment to have a chance to hit the target and that mirror image figment is a target.

[Samish Lakefinder]

With the Devs ruling I would have to say you still pop an image if you miss from concealment.

All the arguments against a nat 1 failing to pop an image apply to concealment as well. In fact because of the wording of the concealment rules, if you miss because of concealment you automatically pop an image as you have to hit before concealment is rolled.

The argument against it that I can see is that the Attacker is suppose to roll his attack and if he hits, the defender rolls to avoid being struck. There may be an argument that the attacker actually hit, but his attack was negated.

From the PDR
Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Samish Lakefinder wrote:

With the Devs ruling I would have to say you still pop an image if you miss from concealment.

All the arguments against a nat 1 failing to pop an image apply to concealment as well. In fact because of the wording of the concealment rules, if you miss because of concealment you automatically pop an image as you have to hit before concealment is rolled.

The argument against it that I can see is that the Attacker is suppose to roll his attack and if he hits, the defender rolls to avoid being struck. There may be an argument that the attacker actually hit, but his attack was negated.

From the PDR
Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.

Not really. The rule is that an image is popped from a near miss by 5 or less, presumably from a D20 roll.

A miss not from a D20 roll (i.e. concealment, miss chance, etc.) wouldn't be considered a miss by 5 or less (unless you want to rule that the D% roll was within 5 of what was needed to normally hit the target, but that's clearly not the intent, based on the FAQ); the reason this thread was made was because people were under the assumption that specific rolls on a D20 dice ignored certain mechanics, and there were multiple widely-used effects and maneuvers which used said mechanics.

I mean, there is still some murky interaction between Blur/Displacement and Mirror Images. I actually wonder that, since Mirror Images have the same effects as the caster (who has Displacement), that you have a 50% chance of not hitting (and therefore not destroying) a given Mirror Image, if you rolled for it.

Perhaps another FAQ regarding how Blur/Displacement and Mirror Images interact is in order...

[Cyrad]

The wording of the FAQ is unclear. Does the FAQ mean that the natural 1 or natural 20 rules do not apply when considering other effects based on attack rolls? Does this mean opportune parry and riposte can stop a natural 20 attack roll?

[Cavall]

Cyrad wrote:

The wording of the FAQ is unclear. Does the FAQ mean that the natural 1 or natural 20 rules do not apply when considering other effects based on attack rolls? Does this mean opportune parry and riposte can stop a natural 20 attack roll?

The FAQ was crystal clear. Check to see if roll hits or misses then apply next set of rules once determined.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Cyrad wrote:

Does the FAQ mean that the natural 1 or natural 20 rules do not apply when considering other effects based on attack rolls?

Natural 1 and Natural 20 Rules only alter the outcome of the roll (success/failure). They don't change that you still calculate the numbers and apply them for other effects, such as Mirror Images and Crane Wing.

The argument was that Rolling a Natural 1 wasn't a "miss by 5 or less," even if you end up exceeding the target AC, because the Natural 1 roll rigs the result. The final sentence of the FAQ disproves it.

FAQ wrote:

...if a fighter rolls a natural 1 for a total of 31 against the wizard’s AC of 33, the attack misses by 5 or less and destroys one of the wizard’s mirror images.

As for the Swashbuckler stuff, I'd say that it could, since Opportune Parry only requires that you exceed the target number to trigger its effect, similar to Mirror Images requiring that you miss by a range of numbers, and I don't see anything that supersedes the general rule. Conversely, this can also mean that if you roll a Natural 20 for your Opportune Parry, but don't have enough Attack Bonus to exceed the target number, your Opportune Parry still fails.

Of course, the FAQ does say that you calculate things normally as a general rule. There are things that may specify otherwise, and in those cases, you'd follow those rules instead; so, unless Opportune Parry has specific restrictions, what I suggested above would be the correct interpretation of that set of skills.

[Chess Pwn]

Yes a swash can party a 20 and if they roll a 20 it doesn't automatically parry

[BigNorseWolf]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No, because there wasn't a way to figure out whether you missed by 5 or not.

Yes, there was. Missing on a natural 1 doesn't change the math.

It isn't a math question. Do you change the die roll or lower the AC? Its an arbitrary call.

[BigNorseWolf]

Samish Lakefinder wrote:

From the PDR
Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.

I've never let concealment work for the images. A blurry wizard has the image of themselves distorted. A blurry image copies that look: so it is the distortion. (also with enough mirror images i'm already rolling enough dice to figure out the attack...math limit exceeded)

[TriOmegaZero]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Do you change the die roll or lower the AC? Its an arbitrary call.

That's an irrelevant call.