Treat as one better.

So I'm a little confused about the effect "treat your save as one better". When does this happen?

For example, the oracle focus spell Debilitating Dichotomy. 9d6 vs a basic will save for me and my opponent, but I treat my save as one better. So if i succeed it's a crit success. If I fail it's a success, and if I crit fail its just a failure.

But eventually, that oracle gets Resolve. So if I succeed I get the effects of a critical success. If I fail that will save and it counts as a success, do I take no damage due to Resolve? What if I roll a nat 1? That's a crit fail. The spell says I treat my save as 1 better, but rolling a 1 means I treat it as one worse. How does that work out?

Same for things with the Incapacitate rules. If I'm higher level and I roll a 1, do i just fail or do i critically fail?

There are some rogue feats that let you treat fails as successes and successes as critical successes for stealth. Does that mean their fails are crit successes?

You increase the degree of success by one, meaning a crit fail becomes a fail, a fail becomes a success, and a success becomes a crit success. You will only be able to increase the results of a roll by one step per roll. If you're affected by something that increases it and something that decreases it, they both apply, being a net 0.

For example, you roll a For save vs a Basilisk's stare. You roll a nat 1, for a total of 15. That's a fail, which moves to a crit fail. But you're also level 8, meaning the incapacitate trait kicks in and increases it by one, resulting in just a fail.

For the rogue abilities, again you can only increase by a single step per roll, so fails would increase to successes and then stop there.

There's not really any rules written down that says you can only increase by one, but this post by a developer clarifies that was the intent, and it will be added somewhere or FAQed at some point.

Most such abilities also already say something along the lines of "when you roll a success/failure/etc. on XYZ, you get a critical success/success/etc. instead" and won't interact anyways. If you roll a 15 and that's a failure, then you rolled a failure and get a success instead. If you have another ability that says when you roll a success on the related check you get a critical success instead, it wouldn't interact with that roll again because you didn't roll a success, you rolled a failure. You just got a success instead of the failure you rolled.

So in the case of an oracle with resolve, it says "[...]When you roll a success on a Will save, you get a critical success instead." You have to actually have rolled a success. If you rolled a failure and got the benefits of a success instead, you still don't qualify for the benefits of resolve because you didn't roll a success.

Most such abilities also already say something along the lines of "when you roll a success/failure/etc. on XYZ, you get a critical success/success/etc. instead" and won't interact anyways. If you roll a 15 and that's a failure, then you rolled a failure and get a success instead. If you have another ability that says when you roll a success on the related check you get a critical success instead, it wouldn't interact with that roll again because you didn't roll a success, you rolled a failure. You just got a success instead of the failure you rolled.

So in the case of an oracle with resolve, it says "[...]When you roll a success on a Will save, you get a critical success instead." You have to actually have rolled a success. If you rolled a failure and got the benefits of a success instead, you still don't qualify for the benefits of resolve because you didn't roll a success.

"Roll" is used pretty interchangeably with "get" when it comes to success outcomes.

As an example, on page 445 of the CRB where it explains the rules on checks it says: "...if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed! If your roll anything less than the DC, you fail."

I don't think the designers meant that if you use Assurance and don't actually "roll", or if your result is adjusted down a step, that you won't suffer the failure effects of not meeting the DC. Most of the rules are written in relatively plain english without strictly defined terms, and when they are written like that the strict game terms are usually capitalised.

Actually, most of the rules describing abilities have very tight wording. So that the Rules forum does not explode too much with RAW vs RAI arguments.

That is a lesson Paizo took to heart from their PF1's experience and they really succeeded at it.

"Roll" is used pretty interchangeably with "get" when it comes to success outcomes.

Not at all. Here's an extract from the errata:

"Changes to the Greater Juggernaut, Greater Resolve, Improved Evasion, and Third Path to Perfection class features

All three of these abilities grant a two-tier benefit on a failed saving throw of the specified type, but (as always) no ability will ever change your degree of success by more than one step. To clarify, we’re making the following clarification to all three abilities. Change the beginning of the last sentence from “When you fail” a given saving throw to “When you roll a failure on” a giving saving throw. "

So, they use roll voluntarily to remove the possibility to multiply affect a roll.

Djinn71 wrote:

"Roll" is used pretty interchangeably with "get" when it comes to success outcomes.

Not at all. Here's an extract from the errata:

"Changes to the Greater Juggernaut, Greater Resolve, Improved Evasion, and Third Path to Perfection class features

All three of these abilities grant a two-tier benefit on a failed saving throw of the specified type, but (as always) no ability will ever change your degree of success by more than one step. To clarify, we’re making the following clarification to all three abilities. Change the beginning of the last sentence from “When you fail” a given saving throw to “When you roll a failure on” a giving saving throw. "

So, they use roll voluntarily to remove the possibility to multiply affect a roll.

That is... not good. If that wording is intended to always mean physically rolling a die then Paizo need to be very consistent with it, otherwise we get situations where things like failing with Assurance conflicts with the general rules on Checks.

I really don't want the answer to the question of "Does it count as a failed check if I didn't actually roll?" to be "No."

Am I the only one who consider the spell feature just a note to give some "better" resolve effect available when you take that specific focus spell?

Once you have Resolve you simply apply it to anything will related but Debilitating Dichotomy, which will be using its own feature ( because it's better and designed for the focus spell itself ).

That is... not good. If that wording is intended to always mean physically rolling a die then Paizo need to be very consistent with it, otherwise we get situations where things like failing with Assurance conflicts with the general rules on Checks.

I really don't want the answer to the question of "Does it count as a failed check if I didn't actually roll?" to be "No."

"Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers)."

So, yes, Assurance is not affected as it clearly states you don't roll. You need to roll to change the result.

The wording in the Step 3 section of page 445 is problematic as it implies that a roll can be both a success and failure at the same time if we take it very strictly:

if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed!

the Step 2 section defines "result" as the roll + total modifier

If your roll anything less than the DC, you fail

"roll" is used to mean the unmodified result of the die (even in the Step 2 section just above)

So with a DC 15 and a modifier of +5 a roll of 12 is both a success (12+5 >= 15) and a failure (12 < 15).

This is obviously dumb, and the intent is perfectly clear: a roll that is not a success is a failure, meaning we can ignore the second clause and move on with our lives.

The wording in the Step 3 section of page 445 is problematic as it implies that a roll can be both a success and failure at the same time if we take it very strictly:

CRB p445 wrote:

if your result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed!

the Step 2 section defines "result" as the roll + total modifier

CRB p445 wrote:

If your roll anything less than the DC, you fail

"roll" is used to mean the unmodified result of the die (even in the Step 2 section just above)

So with a DC 15 and a modifier of +5 a roll of 12 is both a success (12+5 >= 15) and a failure (12 < 15).

This is obviously dumb, and the intent is perfectly clear: a roll that is not a success is a failure, meaning we can ignore the second clause and move on with our lives.

You skipped Steps 1 and 2 there.

Full rules on Checks