This is a major typo that really effects how the game is played. How did no editor catch this? Does the editor play the game? Loving the system but that's an unacceptable oversight that shouldn't have made it to production.
On page 278 in the Weapons section, a natural 20 results in a critical success:
Critical Hits
When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).However, in "Chapter 9: Playing the Game" on pages 445-446, the book gives a general rule for determining critical successes on all checks:
If you rolled a 20 on the die (a "natural 20"), your result is one degree of success better than it would be by numbers alone. If you roll a 1 on the d20 (a "natural 1"), your result is one degree worse. This means that a natural 20 usually results in a critical success and natural 1 usually results in a critical failure. However, if you were going up against a very high DC, you might get only a success with a natural 20, or even a failure if 20 plus your total modifier is 10 or more below the DC.(The same chapter is followed by sections on "Specific Checks," including "Attack Rolls" and "Spell Attack Rolls," but those sections do not delineate any exceptions to this rule.
Since "Specific Overrides General" (p. 444), do natural 20s on weapon attack rolls operate differently than all other checks, as per the rule on page 278? (While natural 1s do not?) And if yes, I am assuming that spell attack rolls also automatically crit on a natural 20, even though this rule is listed in the "Weapons" section?