All Natural Criticals

[Liir]

I just wanted to share something I found interesting. I’m not advocating this as a change that should be implemented, though I will point out some advantages of using this approach. Either way, to me it’s just.. neat.

Basically it is an alternative method of determining a critical success or critical failure.
Mathematically it creates the same chance to critical as the current 10 over or 10 under method (exceptions noted below).

Here are the rules:
If your result is a success and you rolled a 10 or LOWER on the d20 die, the result is a critical success.
If your result is a failure and you rolled a 10 or HIGHER on the d20 die, the result is a critical failure.

Example 1:
Attack +10 versus Armor Class 16
Using the +10 method if you rolled a 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 (25%) you would critically succeed.
Using the 10 or LOWER method you would critically succeed on a 10, 9, 8, 7, or 6 (25%).

Example 2:
Attack +7 versus Armor Class 23
Using the -10 method if you rolled a 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 (30%) you would critically fail.
Using the 10 or HIGHER method you would critically fail on a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 (30%).

Exceptions: The maximum critical failure or critical success rate is 50% and it doesn’t account for having an automatic (critical) success on a 20 or an automatic (critical) failure on a 1.

Advantages: Less math, you don’t need to add or subtract to find the critical targets -- you only need to look down at the d20. Additionally, you can modify the critical target outside the +/- 10 range without complicating the math. For example: You could have a sword critically succeed on a 9 or lower (reducing its critical chance by 5%). It is much easier to look at a die and see it is 9 or less, versus comparing the result to the target AC+11 (instead of +10).

[Lyee]

I don't think this works with PF2 math at all.

Many enemies, even optimized, you'll have a 45% chance to hit.

Meaning you will only hit on an 11 or higher, and crit on a 20. This kills all crits for those enemies.

Especially likely with iteratives.

[Balsamic Dragon]

It's an interesting idea. It points out a problem in the system (in most d20 systems, actually), where the math breaks down at the ends of the curve.

Example 1:
Attack +1 versus Armor Class 30
- You do not have a chance of normal success.
- If you roll a natural 20, you will critically succeed.
- You do not have a chance of failure.
- If you roll anything other than a 20, you will critically fail.

Or, more reasonably:

Example 2:
Attack +1 versus Armor Class 20
- If you roll a 19, you will succeed.
- If you roll a natural 20, you will critically succeed.
- If you roll a 10-18, you will fail.
- If you roll a 1-9, you will critically fail.

Under your method, you would never critically succeed or critically fail on this roll.

(It's been a long morning, so feel free to point out if I've missed something here...)

[Isaac Zephyr]

I think the issue would be overcomplicated. Whilst it is easier to see a 1-10 on a die compared to doing math, you still have to do math.

Players are not always aware of the target AC they are aiming for. So when they make the roll, they already have to view their result on the die, calculate the total using their attack bonus and any other modifiers, and then announce that total to the GM.

That total is what the GM uses. It doesn't matter what the player rolled unless they specifically rolled a Natural 1 or 20. The GM then uses this total to determine the results. + Or - 10 are some of the easier things to notice, which makes it very easy for the GM to identify a critical.

Example, my rogue has AC 15, a goblin has an attack modifier of +6. A 19 or 20 will crit for the goblin, but that isn't what I'll be looking for as GM. I'm looking for if the result is 25 or more. Only a natural 1 will fail. By this other system, say the roll is an 8. The player or goblin now has to maintain this in memory while calculating the total.

It also creates an odd confusion where if you're the player, there's a hype of "I may have crit!" Because it's on the high end of the crit range spectrum, followed by "sorry, miss". A positive feeling followed by a shut down. Comparatively when you roll an 18, you have the "I may have crit!" followed by "not quite, but you still hit, roll damage.". Positive feeling followed by disappointment, but still a payoff.

[Tridus]

Liir wrote:

Example 2:

Attack +7 versus Armor Class 23
Using the -10 method if you rolled a 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 (30%) you would critically fail.
Using the 10 or HIGHER method you would critically fail on a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 (30%).

So I would critically fail if I rolled a 15, but not if I rolled a 2?

That is REALLY unintuitive. Instead of "higher is better", now it's "higher is better unless it's not high enough, in which case lower is better" thing that people are going to struggle to understand.

[Liir]

Tridus wrote:

Liir wrote:

Example 2:

Attack +7 versus Armor Class 23
Using the -10 method if you rolled a 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 (30%) you would critically fail.
Using the 10 or HIGHER method you would critically fail on a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 (30%).

So I would critically fail if I rolled a 15, but not if I rolled a 2?

That is REALLY unintuitive. Instead of "higher is better", now it's "higher is better unless it's not high enough, in which case lower is better" thing that people are going to struggle to understand.

I agree with your point, though in practice (and with time) it would quickly become second nature.

GM: Roll to hit.
Player: Does a 17 (total) hit?
GM: Yes!
Player (looks at d20, notes it is a 7): I Crit!

That being said, I agree with Isaac's example above.. and if the plan is to stick to a +/- 10 always (and never use a different spread or modify the spread); this doesn't get you a lot.

I still think its neat though..

[Unicore]

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

It's an interesting idea. It points out a problem in the system (in most d20 systems, actually), where the math breaks down at the ends of the curve.

Example 1:
Attack +1 versus Armor Class 30
- You do not have a chance of normal success.
- If you roll a natural 20, you will critically succeed.
- You do not have a chance of failure.
- If you roll anything other than a 20, you will critically fail.

PF2 math is a little trickier than this, in the sense that a natural 20 would not be a critical hit in this instance, only a regular success.

I am not sure how this would impact the OP's critical hit system, but you can only critically succeed on a check that you have a chance of success on (per page 292).