Critical Hits and Critical Failures

Friday, March 30, 2018

In the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, when you roll your d20, there's more than just success and failure on the line. You can also critically succeed or critically fail at a variety of checks, from attack rolls, to saving throws, to skill checks and beyond. Rules like these have always been a part of Pathfinder—for example, if you fail a Climb check by 5 or more you fall, and if you fail a Disable Device check by 5 or more you set off the trap—but they are uncommon and not universally applied. In the playtest, we have a unified mechanic.

The Four Degrees of Success

In Pathfinder Second Edition, every check is rolled against a particular DC. Your roll on the d20 + your proficiency modifier + your ability modifier + all your relevant modifiers, bonuses, and penalties make up your check result. If your check result meets or exceeds the target DC, congratulations! You succeeded, and you might have critically succeeded. Otherwise, you failed. If you exceeded the target DC by 10 or more, or if you rolled a natural 20 and met or exceeded the target DC, then you critically succeeded. If your result was 10 or more lower than the target DC, or if you rolled a natural 1 and didn't meet the target DC, then you critically failed. Collectively, success, critical success, failure, and critical failure are called the four degrees of success. You can gain special abilities that increase or decrease your degree of success, often due to having a high proficiency rank. For instance, if your class grants you evasion, you get master proficiency in Reflex saves and treat any success on a Reflex save as a critical success!

Examples

Let's start with a fireball spell. In Pathfinder First Edition, if you succeed the Reflex save, you take only half damage, and evasion allows you to take no damage on a successful save. In Pathfinder Second Edition, here are the degrees of success for fireball (and many of its old friends like lightning bolt and cone of cold) in the playtest.

    Success Half damage
  • Critical Success No damage
  • Failure Full damage
  • Critical Failure Double damage

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Any character who critically succeeds takes no damage, and characters with evasion count their successes as critical successes. What about someone legendary at Reflex saves with improved evasion? They count critical failures as failures and thus can never suffer the deadliest effects of a Reflex save, even on a natural 1!

Not all effects list all four degrees of success. If an effect doesn't list a critical success entry, that means there is normally no special effect for critically succeeding, so you just use the result for a success. Similarly, if an effect doesn't list a critical failure entry, there is normally no special effect for critically failing, so you just use the result for a failure. If a success entry is missing, that means nothing happens on a success, and if a failure entry is missing, that means nothing happens on a failure. Let's take a look at an example that combines two of these rules: the results of a basic attack called a strike.

Success You deal damage, which equals the weapon's or unarmed attack's damage dice plus your Strength modifier if it's a melee attack, plus any bonuses.

Critical Success You deal double damage—you roll twice as many damage dice and add double the ability modifier and double any other bonuses to damage.

Let's unpack what this means. You deal damage on a success and double damage on a critical success. Since there is no failure entry, that means normally nothing happens on a failure, and since there is no critical failure entry, that means a critical failure has the same effect as a failure, so nothing happens. But the fighter might have something to say about that! The fighter can use the special certain strike action, which lets him strike with the following failure effect.

Failure Your attack deals the minimum damage. (Treat this as though you had rolled a 1 on every die.)

So with certain strike, a failed attack roll isn't actually a miss—your fighter is so skilled that you still get a glancing blow on a failure and miss entirely only on a critical failure! Meanwhile, a fighter with the twin riposte reaction can use one weapon to parry and attack with the other weapon whenever an enemy critical fails an attack roll.

Save or Lose

One of the effects of the four degrees of success that adds the most fun to the game is what this means for save or lose effects—effects where if you fail your save, you're unable to continue the fight. These sorts of effects are tricky in almost every roleplaying game, and Pathfinder is no exception. In Pathfinder First Edition, even if your character has a 75% chance of succeeding at your Will save against a mummy's paralysis, chances are pretty high that four mummies are going to paralyze you. (Thanks a lot for that encounter in your Pathfinder Society Scenario, Jason!)

It's tempting to just decide the solution is not to have save or lose effects, but that really cuts off a wide variety of classic feats, monster abilities, and spells from the game. The flip side of those abilities is that if they don't just win, chances are that many of these effects are just wasting a turn. So you either cast the save or lose spell and win, or you cast it and waste the turn. Having those as the only two outcomes is not a great proposition, and of course, players and GMs often maximize their DCs and saving throw bonuses in order to tilt the outcome to their side as much as possible.

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.

Some Mysterious Critical Effects

I'm closing out with some cool critical effects that result from critical successes on your attack rolls or skill checks or from critical failures on your enemy's saving throws. See if you can figure out where they come from!

  • The creature is banished and can't return to your home plane by any means for 1 week.
  • The creature takes the full collapse damage and falls into a fissure.
  • The target believes the fact for an unlimited duration.
  • The target's intellect is permanently reduced below that of an animal, and it treats its Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom modifiers as –5. It loses all class abilities that require mental faculties, including all spellcasting. If the target is a PC, she becomes an NPC under the GM's control.
  • The creature is pushed 30 feet in the direction of the wind, is knocked prone, and takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage.
  • You grant a +4 circumstance bonus.
  • Per a failure, except the target believes that everyone it sees is a mortal enemy. It uses its reactions and free actions against these enemies regardless of whether they were previously its allies, as determined by the GM. It otherwise acts as rationally as normal and will likely prefer to attack enemies that are actively attacking or hindering it.
  • The target must succeed at a Fortitude save or die. Even on a successful save, the target is frightened 2 and must flee for 1 round.
  • Your target regains Hit Points equal to 2d10 + your Wisdom modifier.
  • Per a success, but even afterward, the target is too scared of you to retaliate against you.

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
201 to 250 of 567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah their was both good and bad in 4th. Their was just one to many bad options for me. Their was in fact a few good ideas mixed in.


Albatoonoe wrote:
If there is always a 5% chance of failing

I don't think there is. If the DC is 10, and your modifiers total +9, then a 1 passes.

Likewise if the DC is 25 and your modifiers total +4, a 20 misses. All rolling a natural 20/1 does is turn a success/failure critical.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm being really grumpy in the morning huh. That said, I do find implicating "Oh you don't really like Pathfinder despite running and playing only Pathfinder games so your opinion is dumb!" really fricking insulting. Or maybe its just my morning grumpiness.

Anyway, never played 4th edition, but to my understanding, wasn't it crappy roleplaying system that was good as tactical war game or something?

Either way, I do note that lot of people are like "Oh no, that one thing is similar to 4e, so its automatically bad!" even though quite lot of things like that I've seen in plenty of other systems as well, like 13th age or Cypher System and such <_<

Shadow Lodge

Hmmmm... Hmmm...

I'm hung up on certain strike, and twin reposte action now and having 4e flashbacks after having recently run into 3 action type terms of stride, strike and step.

Like I had a flash in my mind of little square blocks for "class feats" with formatting like:

Attack: against AC
Requirement: Fighter 1 or BAB +5
Success: 1W + modifier damage
Critical success: 2W + 2x modifier damage
Failure: modifier damage

Then I had a minds-eye glimpse of a "rogue feat"

Attack: against Reflex
Requirement: Rogue 5
Success: 1W + modifier damage, target cannot step or stride next turn
Critical success: 1W + modifier damage, target cannot step or stride next turn and you get a free step action

I remember how high the "switch cost" from 3.5e felt to learn reaping strike vs sure strike vs covering attack vs passing attack vs brute strike vs comeback strike vs (fill in another 50 "strikes").

I'm not sure how I'll feel if we get the skinny on a fighter having a daily use (or once per long rest) action... but I sense it on the horizon.

Unstoppable? Gain hp equal to 2d6 + Con modifier?

PF2e is starting to preview like equal parts 4e and 5e now. Ironically I'm excited by the 5e elements, but queasy on the 4e ones.


You say that but have you seen the constant complaints on the forums and the demand for all the rules fixes. Anyways it doesn't matters its been announced its happening nothing you can do about that. Fortunately you still have all your old books. My first dm still plays 1st edition every weekend its been like 40 years+ for him. So you can in fact still play pf1.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost every "this is just like 4e" complaint is ultimately meaningless. A lot of things go into making a game popular or unpopular and while people are good at knowing what they like and what they don't, studies are clear that people are really terrible at figuring why they do or don't like something. If the extent of why one can vocalize why they dislike something is "it reminds me of this other game I don't like" that's a fundamentally irrational concern and not something Paizo should care about. I mean "damage on a failed attack roll" reminds me of 13th Age, which is a game I really like, not that Paizo should care about that.

Plus, it's not like there weren't good ideas in 4e. For my money having something more interesting to do in combat than "I swing my mace" was one of them.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Yeaaah, quite lot of pushback is just "I don't want things to change because I don't like change!" so I'm becoming afraid if the vocal people who might or might not be the minority(its really hard to tell on Internet) make it so that changes I really liked don't happen :'D
What's wrong with that? There's plenty of people out there who would much rather not see a new edition, but just continue seeing support for P1e. Are you saying that the people who actually want to play Pathfinder because that's what they like should be ignored, simply because they would rather more things stay the same than change? I play PF because I want to play PF, not because I think it could use some major reworking and then it might be fun.

And you can still play it. No one's taking away your toys. But you have those toys. Many of us don't. Paizo obviously feels there's nothing further they can do with an aging system that breaks badly under certain (rather common) stresses. Or simply that it's time to try something new.

In this case, I'm proof it's working. I simply won't play 3.x/PF. It's too much work for too little payoff, with so many more problems than features that it's never going to win out over an alternate system that I don't have to fight against. Yet every single thing I've heard for PF2E, even Resonance, sounds great. It's almost like they're designing a fantasy game specifically for me. If we get what they have promised, and that includes a monster creation system with much more ease of use (including use of levels rather than pure hit dice/CR), I won't have need for another fantasy game again.

The change is happening. There'd be no point in doing this if not to try something new and bold, and fix the problems with the 3E engine that Paizo is very aware of by now. It's not pleasant, and it might sound unfair or seem personal, but yes, I do hope they continue with their plans full steam ahead, and don't pay attention to the people who are basically just going to continue playing PF1 anyway.

They have their game with more than enough support for many, many years of gaming. Now it's everyone else's turn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Almost every "this is just like 4e" complaint is ultimately meaningless. A lot of things go into making a game popular or unpopular and while people are good at knowing what they like and what they don't, studies are clear that people are really terrible at figuring why they do or don't like something. If the extent of why one can vocalize why they dislike something is "it reminds me of this other game I don't like" that's a fundamentally irrational concern and not something Paizo should care about. I mean "damage on a failed attack roll" reminds me of 13th Age, which is a game I really like, not that Paizo should care about that.

Plus, it's not like there weren't good ideas in 4e. For my money having something more interesting to do in combat than "I swing my mace" was one of them.

13th Age actually is the game I was associating the "partial damage on a miss" with rather than 4E. I really do like a lot of stuff in 13th Age, and would be happy to see more of it leak into PF2 by osmosis.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
If there is always a 5% chance of failing
I don't think there is. If the DC is 10, and your modifiers total +9, then a 1 passes.

I think you're wrong. I believe a 1 is always a miss. It's just not a critical miss if it's less than 10 below the target DC.

CorvusMask wrote:
Umm, you are being rude there seriously. Like, you have no reason to do that besides to personally insult me, so umm gonna flag that.

I wasn't talking about you. I was passive-aggressively describing a segment of the posters on this forum that you may or may not fall into the category of.

If that upsets you, maybe take a look at the post I was responding to and see whether or not your own post might be construed in much the same way as you're interpreting mine.

Also just in case you missed it, I edited my post to include (I believe before you replied):

Me wrote:
Or maybe we can just not ascribe certain motivations to people who've chosen to participate in the playtest forum? Naaah. That'd be too reasonable.
CorvusMask wrote:
wasn't [D&D 4th ed] crappy roleplaying system that was good as tactical war game or something?

It had about as much focus on combat as Pathfinder does. It provided tactical choices every single round in the form of class powers (what Pathfinder 2nd edition seems to be calling feats) that a player had to choose between using. The tactical element helped in come in by the fact that the powers typically couldn't be combined so you had to select the power that was most advantageous for the current situation. Much like you might choose between Power Attack or Certain Strike in Pathfinder 2nd edition.

CorvusMask wrote:
even though quite lot of things like that I've seen in plenty of other systems as well, like 13th age

Hardly surprising. I believe the design brief of 13th Age was "take everything good about 4th ed and put it on a 3.5esque chassis to try to get those who've rejected 4th edition to purchase it".

CorvusMask wrote:
2nd edition is going to happen no matter what at this point and there is no point in 2nd edition if its identical to 1st edition and lot of problems with 1e does come from backwards compatibility with 3.5.

Given the games you've cited I'm going to guess you haven't played or read the rulebooks of AD&D 1st edition or AD&D 2nd edition. AD&D 2nd edition was a brand new edition. It had significant portions that were dramatically different from AD&D 1st edition. But unlike D&D 4th edition and D&D 5th edition, AD&D 2nd edition didn't throw away the book and start from scratch. It took an iterative approach that allowed it to create a game that was significantly different, but still fairly compatible with the previous edition.

There is definitely value in iterative design. Especially when each iteration is well supported and see's a decent lifespan. That's how Pathfinder was developed FYI. It was an iterative design on 3.5e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
If there is always a 5% chance of failing
I don't think there is. If the DC is 10, and your modifiers total +9, then a 1 passes.
I think you're wrong. I believe a 1 is always a miss. It's just not a critical miss if it's less than 10 below the target DC.

I think the second paragraph makes it clear-

Quote:
Your roll on the d20 + your proficiency modifier + your ability modifier + all your relevant modifiers, bonuses, and penalties make up your check result. If your check result meets or exceeds the target DC, congratulations! You succeeded, and you might have critically succeeded. Otherwise, you failed.

So all I need to do to succeed is meet or beat the DC with a d20 roll plus my mods.

Quote:
If you exceeded the target DC by 10 or more, or if you rolled a natural 20 and met or exceeded the target DC, then you critically succeeded. If your result was 10 or more lower than the target DC, or if you rolled a natural 1 and didn't meet the target DC, then you critically failed.

So I only care about a 20 if I know the roll succeeded, or a 1 if I know it failed. If I roll a 20 miss the DC, or a 1 and hit the DC then nothing happens- it's just a normal failure or success.

So the algorithm is:
- Note modifiers
- Roll a d20
- Compare your roll plus your modifiers to the DC.
- If you met or exceeded the DC check "Did you clear by 10" or "Did you roll a 20", if yes then you critically succeed, if no then you succeed.
- Otherwise, check "did you miss the DC by 10 or more" or "did you roll a 1" if yes then you critically failed, if no then you failed but not critically.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I see people are completely misreading my post.

(Side note: I'm not actually 100% of the stance that we shouldn't have a new game, P1e is perfect, yadda yadda- I'm just vocalizing that side)

I think the easiest comparison might be something like this:

Imagine walking up to a die-hard Star Wars fan. The kind with a life-sized Jabba the Hutt statue in his living room, and every model of the Milennium Falcon ever made sitting on his shelves. Now, imagine telling that fan, "You know, the new trilogy and prequels are absolutely the best thing that's ever happened to Star Wars. We got to learn about how the Force works, we get to see Luke be a grumpy old man, we get to see Darth Vader flirting using sand-based pickup lines, we get to see Han die. You know, you really should like them. Oh, you don't? That's okay. You can just completely ignore them and pretend that the original trilogy is all that ever existed and ever will exist, while the rest of the world gets more and more stuff from the Galaxy far, far away. You just sit in your little corner with your toys, that will never change and you can rewatch over and over again to your heart's content."

How do you think they would respond to that? Because that's basically what's happening here. People are saying, "Oh, you don't like the new stuff that they're asking our opinion about? That's okay, because you like how things were, you can sit in the corner with your old stuff while we get shiny new things to play with. You have plenty of things, stop complaining!"

And that's where people have an issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think the second paragraph makes it clear-
I believe one of Mark's posts makes it less clear.
Mark Seifter wrote:
If your nat 20 isn't a critical success, it is still a success, and if your nat 1 isn't a critical failure, it is still a failure.


I like the degrees of pass/fail. As for the medusa thing, its like cthulhu having stats, folks want their PF characters to do things they shouldn't be able to.

A failure is a miss at my table. Hopefully, I can ignore certain strike and not have any issues.

Thinking I might drop the crit pass/fail on skills. Will playtest it first naturally in August.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:


Same for nauseated 3 that would reduce your rolls by 3 (fun fact, using an action to vomit can reduce your nauseated condition by one).

Vomit action? Woo! "I take my first action to puke on the bard." Maybe there can be a Cayden Cailean worshiper ability that lets you spew without an action. "I never let hurling get in the way of the fun!"

I might be a bit too amused by this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leedwashere wrote:
  • Is a roll of natural 20 where the total is not a success treated as a success?
    What happens in the unlikely event that the result would have been a critical failure?
  • Is a roll of natural 1 where the total is a success treated as a failure?
    What happens in the event that it would have been a critical success?
  • Will these nat 20 (or 1) rules apply universally in PF2? Or will there be some applications where nat 20 (or 1) don't matter, like in PF1?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Meophist wrote:
It doesn't appear as though natural 1's are auto-failure. They become critical failures only if it would normally be a failure anyways.
If your nat 20 isn't a critical success, it is still a success, and if your nat 1 isn't a critical failure, it is still a failure.

Returning to this thread after a while, it looks like the answer to at least the first two bullet points here is that a nat 20 is a always a success unless it's a critical success, and a nat 1 is always a failure unless it's a critical failure. I also get the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that these rules are universal, including for skills.

One aspect of PF1 skills that I liked was that there wasn't any special significance attached to any of the faces of the die, just to the result. Perhaps I'll feel differently about it in play with PF2, but think if the nat 20/1 rules are intended to be always on I'd feel better if they were instead just an automatic shift one step in their direction. So if your bonus is low enough or the DC high enough, a nat 20 that would still result in a critical failure (based on the total result) results in a regular failure instead of a success, as would currently appear to be the case as I understand it. The reverse would apply as well. It's just those extreme cases which make me feel a bit weird inside.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:


Just because 4th Edition did a similar thing, doesn't make it bad. 4E wasn't some arch-construct of ill will and evil power. It actually had a LOT of good ideas.

As someone who strongly dislikes 4E, I cannot agree more with this statement. I may have hated the game as a whole, but that doesn't mean there weren't some worthy ideas in there that deserve a second chance.


Bardic Dave wrote:
As someone who strongly dislikes 4E, I cannot agree more with this statement. I may have hated the game as a whole, but that doesn't mean there weren't some worthy ideas in there that deserve a second chance.

How much 4th ed are you able to stomach in the game before it's too much like 4th ed and not enough like Pathfinder? 50%? 30%? 10%? I'm genuinely curious.

FYI: Someone I game with whose been looking forward to Starfinder was instantly turned off by three things with Starfinder:

  • 10% resale value of equipment.
  • Monsters created with different maths.
  • The Gap being very reminiscent of the Forgotten Realms 100 year jump.
He's still willing to play it and enjoy it (for at least one campaign), although only because it's science fiction. That is the tolerance threshold I'm dealing with in my group. Maybe keep that context in mind when reading my posts. Or you know. Don't. I leave it in your hands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leedwashere wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:
  • Is a roll of natural 20 where the total is not a success treated as a success?
    What happens in the unlikely event that the result would have been a critical failure?
  • Is a roll of natural 1 where the total is a success treated as a failure?
    What happens in the event that it would have been a critical success?
  • Will these nat 20 (or 1) rules apply universally in PF2? Or will there be some applications where nat 20 (or 1) don't matter, like in PF1?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Meophist wrote:
It doesn't appear as though natural 1's are auto-failure. They become critical failures only if it would normally be a failure anyways.
If your nat 20 isn't a critical success, it is still a success, and if your nat 1 isn't a critical failure, it is still a failure.

Returning to this thread after a while, it looks like the answer to at least the first two bullet points here is that a nat 20 is a always a success unless it's a critical success, and a nat 1 is always a failure unless it's a critical failure. I also get the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that these rules are universal, including for skills.

One aspect of PF1 skills that I liked was that there wasn't any special significance attached to any of the faces of the die, just to the result. Perhaps I'll feel differently about it in play with PF2, but think if the nat 20/1 rules are intended to be always on I'd feel better if they were instead just an automatic shift one step in their direction. So if your bonus is low enough or the DC high enough, a nat 20 that would still result in a critical failure (based on the total result) results in a regular failure instead of a success, as would currently appear to be the case as I understand it. The reverse would apply as well. It's just those extreme cases which make me feel a bit weird inside.

Complete agreement, actually. If the DC is 50, and I only have a +20 bonus, a natural 20 should not be a success. It should simply mitigate the critical failure into a simple failure. If the DC is 10, and I have a +20 bonus, a natural 1 should not be automatic failure; it should simply mitigate the critical success down to a regular success.

We know they have abilities in the game for automatic success at low DC checks as your rank improves to Expert and beyond. The designers have talked about them; but they're gated behind feats. I personally think those are kind of a feat tax similar to PF1 Skill Focus or SF Skill Synergy. Just please bake them into the proficiency ranks as a core assumption, so EVERY expert in a given skill can autopass checks up to DC X.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
As someone who strongly dislikes 4E, I cannot agree more with this statement. I may have hated the game as a whole, but that doesn't mean there weren't some worthy ideas in there that deserve a second chance.

How much 4th ed are you able to stomach in the game before it's too much like 4th ed and not enough like Pathfinder? 50%? 30%? 10%? I'm genuinely curious.

Those percentages are meaningless, because there is no quantifiable property of "4E-edness". You're creating a false dichotomy; ideas and concepts aren't inherently either 4E or not-4E, nor does the introduction of a mechanic that is similar to a 4E mechanic necessarily make the game feel and play more like 4E. Context is everything. The fact that a PF2 concept might resemble something that was in 4E is not inherently negative. You need to see how that mechanic works in concert with the rest of the system.

The best answer to your question I can give is that I will play PF2 if I find it to be fun, and so far I am cautiously optimistic that I will. I haven't played PF1 in years—the clunky 3E baggage + the endless bloat eventually became too exhausting for me—but I have so many fond memories of my time spent playing Pathfinder. Based on what I've seen so far, PF2 stands a strong chance of transporting me back there; most of what's been revealed so far strongly evokes the Pathfinder I love and remember, superficial similarities to 4E notwithstanding.


For what I saw, if trained in the task you'll need to roll 8+ (or 7+, 6+ or even 5+ depending on your proficiency rank - Mark confirmed something like this in another blog discussion) on the d20 to achieve success against an average encounter (same CR than the APL) in attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and so on. Using the same logic than PF1 and Starfinder DCs, the roll needed will increases by +1/+2/+3 (or +4 in some cases) in higher CR encounters (challenging, hard, and epic).

Using these assumptions, there are some simulations trying to gauge the critical chances:

Spoiler:

Average Encounter
Legendary character (supposedly) needs to roll 5+ on d20 to succeed against an average encounter. This means a critical success with 15+, a 30% chance (almost 1/3) to hit. Critical failures never happen.

In the other hand, an untrained character (which I'm accounting only the untrained -2 instead of the legendary +3, despite of the other involved modifiers) (supposedly) needs to roll 10+ to suceed against same average encounter. This means a critical success only with a natural 20, and critical failures still not happening (it'd need a 0 on the d20 roll).

Challenging Encounter
Legendary character (supposedly) needs to roll 6+ to succeed. This means a critical success with 16+, a 25% chance (1/4) to hit. Critical failures never happen.
Untrained character needs to roll 11+ to suceed. This means no critical success, since it'd need a 21+ on the d20 roll, and critical failures only on a natural 1, a 5% (1/20) chance.

Hard Encounter
Legendary character (supposedly) needs to roll 7+ to succeed. This means a critical success with 17+, a 20% chance (1/5) to hit. Critical failures never happen.
Untrained character needs to roll 12+ to suceed. This means no critical success, since it'd need a 22+ on the d20 roll, and critical failures only on a natural 1 or 2, a 10% (1/10) chance.

Epic Encounter
Legendary character (supposedly) needs to roll 8+ to succeed. This means a critical success with 18+, a 15% chance (almost 1/6) to hit. Critical failures still never happening.
Untrained character needs to roll 13+ to suceed. This means no critical success, since it'd need a 23+ on the d20 roll, and critical failures only on a natural 1, 2 or 3, a 15% (almost 1/6) chance.

With these simulations that I'm supposing, looks like characters will hit critical successes a lot more times than in PF1, while the critical failures/fumbles will happen only a little more times, and even so, only in very specific/situational cases.

Am I right about these assumptions, Mark?

If yes, was that the intention of the design team? How will that work for monsters? The same way?


thflame wrote:
I think you misunderstand. I believe the devs have said that there are specific skill feats/proficiencies that specifically let you automatically succeed at certain skill checks under certain situations.

Nope, I totally and completely understood. I can't say that I'm thrilled that I have to pay a feat tax if I don't want to avoid a 5% random failure chance.

So to be clear, my original comment was on a non-feat enhanced normal average proficient skill check... No matter how good I am, unless I take a fancy/shiny skill feat to prevent it, I fail 5% of the time no matter HOW good I am at a skill no matter HOW easy that task may be. And on the flip side no matter HOW hard a task may be, you make it 5%. Unless of course the DM makes an arbitrary fiat ruling that some roll is either unneeded or impossible...

So, yeah... Unless some super important mechanics where left hidden, I don't like it much.


graystone wrote:
thflame wrote:
I think you misunderstand. I believe the devs have said that there are specific skill feats/proficiencies that specifically let you automatically succeed at certain skill checks under certain situations.

Nope, I totally and completely understood. I can't say that I'm thrilled that I have to pay a feat tax if I don't want to avoid a 5% random failure chance.

So to be clear, my original comment was on a non-feat enhanced normal average proficient skill check... No matter how good I am, unless I take a fancy/shiny skill feat to prevent it, I fail 5% of the time no matter HOW good I am at a skill no matter HOW easy that task may be. And on the flip side no matter HOW hard a task may be, you make it 5%. Unless of course the DM makes an arbitrary fiat ruling that some roll is either unneeded or impossible...

So, yeah... Unless some super important mechanics where left hidden, I don't like it much.

Does the fact that skill feats are their own category make you any happier about "paying the feat tax"? You won't have to choose between power attack and a skill feat; you can have both.


wakedown wrote:

Like I had a flash in my mind of little square blocks for "class feats" with formatting like:

Attack: against AC
Requirement: Fighter 1 or BAB +5
Success: 1W + modifier damage
Critical success: 2W + 2x modifier damage
Failure: modifier damage

I had the same flash!!

wakedown wrote:
PF2e is starting to preview like equal parts 4e and 5e now. Ironically I'm excited by the 5e elements, but queasy on the 4e ones.

But I'm more excited about 4e elements and cursing the 5e ones... Hahaha!

(And I'm still hoping that untrained proficiency will give only half level instead of level -2... - Hey, Mark, Jason and the entire design team, please listen to this :D )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the "1s are always a failure" and "20s are always a success" conundrum can be resolved, in practice, by simply not asking for rolls when one's modifiers fall outside of [DC-1, DC+20].

But if a 20 is always a success, it would be nice if that was in the blog post because the text suggests otherwise.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of: nat 20/nat 1 moves you one step up or down the success/failure ladder. It means if success was just too unlikely you can't magically succeed 5% of the time. However if you could get within 10 of the DC then you can avoid a critical failure 5% of the time.

I think it's something that Paizo could be convinced to swap out if there's enough feedback on that feature during the playtest.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Given the games you've cited I'm going to guess you haven't played or read the rulebooks of AD&D 1st edition or AD&D 2nd edition. AD&D 2nd edition was a brand new edition. It had significant portions that were dramatically different from AD&D 1st edition. But unlike D&D 4th edition and D&D 5th edition, AD&D 2nd edition didn't throw away the book and start from scratch. It took an iterative approach that allowed it to create a game that was significantly different, but still fairly compatible with the previous edition.

There is definitely value in iterative design. Especially when each iteration is well supported and see's a decent lifespan. That's how Pathfinder was developed FYI. It was an iterative design on 3.5e.

You are both right and wrong there, I haven't read any of D&D editions besides 5e's rulebook(note: I don't particularly like to play 5e because of player's options not being enough customizable to my liking), however I haven't been assuming that editions start from scratch, after all that would be completely new game and not a new iteration.

(though, I've been told that 5e is basically better version of 2e so uh, yeah, like I said, I haven't read them so I can't comment on how accurate that is)

Its just that changes in 2e so far to me sound more like new iteration than completely new game. It sounds like to me that 2e is going to be same to 1e as Starfinder is to Pathfinder: its essentially the same game but some of rough edges have been smoothed while others still exist either because its in nature of the system or because I don't like particular fix to the problem. I don't like Starfinder's version of Non-Lethal combat for example.

(In comparison, Pathfinder to 3.5 sounds like bug fixed version of 3.5 to me. Sure it doesn't have some stupid things that 3.5 had(like hide and move silently being two different skills along with Listen and Spot), but it doesn't sound like at core it plays differently)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:

I see people are completely misreading my post.

(Side note: I'm not actually 100% of the stance that we shouldn't have a new game, P1e is perfect, yadda yadda- I'm just vocalizing that side)

I think the easiest comparison might be something like this:

Imagine walking up to a die-hard Star Wars fan. The kind with a life-sized Jabba the Hutt statue in his living room, and every model of the Milennium Falcon ever made sitting on his shelves. Now, imagine telling that fan, "You know, the new trilogy and prequels are absolutely the best thing that's ever happened to Star Wars. We got to learn about how the Force works, we get to see Luke be a grumpy old man, we get to see Darth Vader flirting using sand-based pickup lines, we get to see Han die. You know, you really should like them. Oh, you don't? That's okay. You can just completely ignore them and pretend that the original trilogy is all that ever existed and ever will exist, while the rest of the world gets more and more stuff from the Galaxy far, far away. You just sit in your little corner with your toys, that will never change and you can rewatch over and over again to your heart's content."

How do you think they would respond to that? Because that's basically what's happening here. People are saying, "Oh, you don't like the new stuff that they're asking our opinion about? That's okay, because you like how things were, you can sit in the corner with your old stuff while we get shiny new things to play with. You have plenty of things, stop complaining!"

And that's where people have an issue.

The alternative is basically just going "No, you can't ever have anything new/different because I don't want it!" And that is far more unfair, boiling down to selfishness standing in the way of progress.

To use your examples, if you don't like the new Star Wars stuff, who cares? You weren't going to engage with it anyway. There is literally no pleasing such a fan because they only want the original stuff. Seriously, if you don't like anything new that they're doing with it, what else is there? It's a logical inconsistency at best. But you can't reasonably expect no one to ever make something new for Star Wars. Myself, I pretend the horrible prequels don't exist, or basically gloss them over for the purposes of Star Wars gaming. I did exactly what you said, and kept to my originals, which weren't tainted in their awesomeness by the existence of the prequels.

Literally, there is no solution to this problem except to ignore those who refuse change for change's sake. They don't want anything new, so of course they'll have to be satisfied with what they have. And if they are not satisfied with that, how were they ever going to be? Meanwhile, they would actively deny those of us who enjoy something new, be it Star Wars or a PF2E, simply for the sake of their stuff remaining unchanged, even though it would have anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Does the fact that skill feats are their own category make you any happier about "paying the feat tax"?

Not in the least. I'd be as excited to take one of those as the completely useless but needed for 1/2 the combat feats combat expertise. Something you'd NEVER take but you were forced to cuz...

Bardic Dave wrote:
You won't have to choose between power attack and a skill feat; you can have both.

You jumped to the conclusion that this is news to me. I understand and don't like it. It's being forced to not pick a skill option that's fun/enjoyable to instead pick one because I don't want to fail at something I don't think I should have to take a feat to not fail at. Or another way to say it is a feat tax... :P

wakedown wrote:
PF2e is starting to preview like equal parts 4e and 5e now. Ironically I'm excited by the 5e elements, but queasy on the 4e ones.

LOL I agree with Bruno Mares. Myself the 4e elements I can live with. It's the 5e ones that make me throw up in my mouth a little. ;)

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the "1s are always a failure" and "20s are always a success" conundrum can be resolved, in practice, by simply not asking for rolls when one's modifiers fall outside of [DC-1, DC+20].

It would have to be hard coded though and not left up to Dm fiat. The last thing I want is to join a new game and not know how rolling is going to work.


CorvusMask wrote:
It sounds like to me that 2e is going to be....essentially the same game but some of rough edges have been smoothed .......In comparison, Pathfinder to 3.5 sounds like bug fixed version of 3.5 to me.

You say potato I say potato. I think we're saying the same thing we're simply using different words to express the same idea. Using your terminology: I could sell a bugfix to my Pathfinder group way more than I can sell a new version to them.

NOTE: a bugfix would be errata. Pathfinder is most definitely not just 3.5e with some errata applied to it. It is a new iteration on the same game. But I'm happy to simply agree to disagree with you on this issue.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


I'm not sure I like the fighter doing minimum damage when he "misses"...

I don't mind casters still getting some benefit from their spells even if the opponent makes the save, ...

So fighters can't be really good at using their weapons, but casters can still screw you on a success? Dude, its minimum damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady Firebird wrote:
The alternative is basically just going "No, you can't ever have anything new/different because I don't want it!" And that is far more unfair, boiling down to selfishness standing in the way of progress.

You can have something new. There's Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. There's 13th Age. There's anything Monte Cook Games produces. There's new RPGs coming out all the time. Or Paizo could have produced a new game called "Amazing Stories" and chart a completely new direction in fantasy RPGs.

But no. Instead Paizo wanted to capitalise on the success and brand of Pathfinder for their new game. So now they have to live with the baggage that name comes with and the expectations from their existing fans*. Unfortunately Paizo can't have their cake and eat it too. How different and dissimilar the game ends up being has yet to be seen. How much Paizo is willing to change to appease their existing fans who don't want certain changes vs reaching out to new fans at the cost of some of their existing fans also remains to be seen.

* Based on your own posts you are not an existing fan. You are a new fan who has no interest in playing Pathfinder.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, yeah, I could be wrong there since I haven't played or read 3.5 besides hearing some silly stories about how it mechanics worked(like I think it still had the whole "you can lose exp" thing?). So yeah, I admit I'm probably wrong there and it is different in feel enough to count as iteration.

Still, I think 2e changes so far don't so radically different enough to be new game rather than new edition. Starfinder doesn't feel different enough to Pathfinder for me to consider it a different game rather than Pathfinder in spaaaaace.

Hmm, I guess other way to say it is that I don't mind whether new iteration is backwards compatible with old one mechanics wise? I don't like converting things, so I prefer to run old edition adventures with old edition materials. Thats why I would never run Pathfinder's 3.5 modules unless they get converted to newer editions by Paizo, I don't play or run 3.5.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
The alternative is basically just going "No, you can't ever have anything new/different because I don't want it!" And that is far more unfair, boiling down to selfishness standing in the way of progress.
You can have something new. There's Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. There's 13th Age. There's anything Monte Cook Games produces. There's new RPGs coming out all the time.

Yup, there are tonnes of new RPGs coming out all the time! Have you heard of the latest one? I think it's called Pathfinder 2 or something like that. Looks pretty cool!

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Using your terminology: I could sell a bugfix to my Pathfinder group way more than I can sell a new version to them.

This isn't a bad metaphor!

I have predominantly two types of gamers in my gamer-graph:
a) Folks who are married, have kids, work and have the capacity to grok a handful of major changes along with minor changes that can be cleared up as they are encountered. They will 100% reject a major system change (like going from 3.5e to 4e).

b) Folks who love to metagame character building and have big $$ invested into HeroLab. Going from 50+ books and an open SRD to a single book or even a half-dozen books will cause instant revolt.

I'm open-minded. I've been the chief driver of 4e, 5e, 13th Age and many systems into 3.5/PF groups, only to have those effectively be one-offs and to return to the 3.5/PF core. To a certain extent, I'm the early adopter to help Paizo cross the chasm to the majority of my gaming groups.

Believe it not, many of the players balked at the notion of having to say slide instead of 5ft step. PF2e using terms like stride, strike and step introduces a switch cost and friction. Every little bit adds to the switch barriers. The fact all the 4e classes had all these powers with similar names caused an unbearable amount of friction for the gaming laggards in my social graph and generated at least $10,000 for Paizo from all those players. If the switch cost is high enough, then a consumer can switch to any alternative. For our group, undoubtedly if we opt to no longer continue the 3.5e/PF torch, ultimately our destiny is controlled by the laggards and we pursue the path that is easiest for the working-folks to migrate to (between PF2e and 5e). That means whichever system has less new rules to learn, less new labels to memorize, and less things that have a name but that name now means something else. Example: If the PF2e Power Attack was actually called Vital Strike that actually lessens the switch cost. There's heaps of switch costs between new action systems, new skill proficiency grades, new tiers of conditions (Dying 4, Frightened 3), new systems of critical success and failures, new damage calculations for spells based on levels, renamed abilities, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with folks on the forums vocalizing their concern for selling new rules to their respective groups. All our groups are going to be different too.

Yet, if we were getting a 3.85e edition, it's a lazy no-brainer sell for folks to buy into the switch simply for "bug fixes".

There are real dangers in the world for companies leading customers through version changes. Just think about Windows 95 to Windows 7 to 8 to 10. Microsoft had to basically give Windows 10 away for free because they made the switch cost too high to move from 7 to 8. Wizards made it too high from 3e to 4e which forced them to make a 5e which had lower switch costs to come across from any prior edition. Paizo will need an ace up their sleeve too ~ something akin to giving away starter rules as a free download. That, or a ton of marketing $.

I can imagine it now. I pass the PF2e Core Book around to my assorted players. I can envision which ones flip through it and say "huh, looks cool, I wouldn't mind trying it". And others which flip through and see a lot to learn and say "nah, looks like too much to learn". Sadly the latter controls our fate for each future campaign from here until we're dust. Since we started gaming in 3e, only Pathfinder and 5e have gotten approval from the laggards. And some of those guys play core fighters and barbarians no less - because they don't want a lot of brain baggage to game with the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Yup, there are tonnes of new RPGs coming out all the time! Have you heard of the latest one? I think it's called Pathfinder 2 or something like that. Looks pretty cool!

Really!? That sounds like a game my group currently plays. I sure hope the mechanics are as similar to the current game as the name is!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zero the Nothing wrote:
thflame wrote:


I'm not sure I like the fighter doing minimum damage when he "misses"...

I don't mind casters still getting some benefit from their spells even if the opponent makes the save, ...

So fighters can't be really good at using their weapons, but casters can still screw you on a success? Dude, its minimum damage.

That's usually how those things go. As long as the casters reign supreme, that's really what matters.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

You can have something new. There's Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. There's 13th Age. There's anything Monte Cook Games produces. There's new RPGs coming out all the time. Or Paizo could have produced a new game called "Amazing Stories" and chart a completely new direction in fantasy RPGs.

But no. Instead Paizo wanted to capitalise on the success and brand of Pathfinder for their new game. So now they have to live with the baggage that name comes with and the expectations from their existing fans*. Unfortunately Paizo can't have their cake and eat it too. How different and dissimilar the game ends up being has yet to be seen. How much Paizo is willing to change to appease their existing fans who don't want certain changes vs reaching out to new fans at the cost of some of their existing fans also remains to be seen.

* Based on your own posts you are not an existing fan. You are a new fan who has no interest in playing Pathfinder.

You could have the same thing. And choose to, indeed, since it seems you won't be happy with any significant change. Fortunately, I'm still here in this forum because I don't believe for a second that posters who share your conservative view will hold back the development of something awesome. Obviously, you won't be pleased with any significant change at all, so I don't understand why you aren't just sticking to PF1. There's no sense limiting PF2 to a few minor revisions when that already exists. Nor is it reasonable to expect that no one will ever do anything new with Pathfinder, as with the Star Wars example.

I'm a fan of Paizo's quality and their dedication as developers. They've also proven to be very accepting to people of all stripes. For that alone I would support them. But I can't stand the broken 3.x engine that powers PF1, and am glad to see it go the way of the dodo. So I'm here precisely because I want a fantasy game that fits my needs, and nothing has sufficed.

Until now.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

I had a big response to one of those posts, but yeah... it would have just been more off topic corrosion on a blog that should be about the task resolution setup.


Stone Dog wrote:
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.

I had a big response to one of those posts, but yeah... it would have just been more off topic corrosion on a blog that should be about the task resolution setup.

All threads in this subforum have a "lifespan" of a few pages before they devolve into a war and it there is no longer any point in following it unless you wanna see the same 4-5 guys fight each other for several pages.

If it exceeds 5 pages, don't even bother clicking.

It just happened a bit faster than usual here...

EDIT: Sadly, I just realized we're contributing to the off-topic problems by discussing this, so...

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!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zero the Nothing wrote:
thflame wrote:


I'm not sure I like the fighter doing minimum damage when he "misses"...

I don't mind casters still getting some benefit from their spells even if the opponent makes the save, ...

So fighters can't be really good at using their weapons, but casters can still screw you on a success? Dude, its minimum damage.

When you put it that way, it does sound a little "class-ist".

It honestly depends on how much damage is minimum damage.

In PF1, minimum damage for a fighter is something like 50-60 damage, whereas maximum damage is something like 60-70 damage. That's a boatload of damage.

Let's imagine a situation where a fighter has to roll an 11 to hit. Let's say his attack deals 2d6+6 (18 STR with a greatsword).

Average DPR is 13 x 0.5 = 6.5.

Add this feat and your DPR jumps to:

13 x 0.5 + 8 x 0.45 = 10.1. That's more than a 50% increase in damage.

Now, I do believe that PF2 is moving towards fighters dealing multiple dice worth of damage at higher levels, in which case, this will probably work out okay.

The other aspect that bugs me is how this feat works in the game world.

I can understand if you are just hitting so hard that, even though you hit their armor, you still deal minimum damage, but what about enemies with high touch AC?

Most DEX characters live by not getting hit. (I have an elven swashbuckler with 6 CON and 20 DEX that is a prime example of such a character.) You sick this fighter on them, and it doesn't matter how good their DEX is (unless it's REALLY good) this fighter is going to chip away at their (probably lower than average) HP and they literally can't do much about it. A fighter that would normally hit half the time is now hitting virtually ALL the time and dealing some damage.

The feat effectively gives the fighter a +10 to hit, but makes them do minimum damage, unless they crit, then they get normal damage, but they can also "critically crit" for double damage too.

When it comes to casters, I feel a bit more lenient. (This is coming from a guy who thinks the martial/caster disparity is a real issue.)

Casters get a limited number of "shots" per day and, assuming the save effects aren't too powerful, this really isn't a problem.

I think I mentioned that I was worried that a hoard of casters with dominate could potentially stun lock a boss just by spamming dominate spells and burning his actions. If this is true, then the failure effects need to be toned back some. If not, then I'm okay with a caster dumping a 3rd level spell and getting a 1st level spell effect out of it because the enemy made the save.

201 to 250 of 567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Critical Hits and Critical Failures All Messageboards