| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess what is confusing OP and he is absolutely right about is that you will never ever have the same chance for either a critical failure or a critical success.
If the DC is 10 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit fail the check as you can not fail the roll by 10 (1-10=-9). However you can crit succeed the check (20-10=+10).
If the DC is 11 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit succeed the check as you can not beat the roll by 10 (20-11=+9), however you can critically fail it (1-11=-10).
|
This is probably the most simple way you can narrow this down:
If a DC10 is a Success, and an 11 (DC+1) is a Critical Success, then if we strictly go by DC minus the window, then you could Critically Fail on a 9.
There would be no failure window, only a critical failure window. That is why DC-10 is unbalanced.
11 = DC+1 = Critical Success (33%)
10 = DC = Success (33%)
9 = DC-1 = Critical Failure (33%)
Failure (0%) can't happen this way
If the Failure-10 method were applied to the same problem, then it makes a whole lot more sense.
11 = DC+1 = Critical Success (25%)
10 = DC = Success (25%)
09 = DC-1 = Failure (25%)
08 = DC-2 = Critical Failure (25%)
I guess what is confusing OP and he is absolutely right about is that you will never ever have the same change for either a critical failure or a critical success.
If the DC is 10 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit fail the check as you can not fail the roll by 10 (1-10=-9). However you can crit succeed the check (20-10=+10).
If the DC is 11 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit succeed the check as you can not beat the roll by 10 (20-11=+9), however you can critically fail it (1-11=-10).
Remember that barely failing a roll while rolling a natural 1 is a critical failure, while barely succeeding while rolling a natural 20 is a critical success.
If you need a natural 10 or 11 to succeed at a roll (coincidentally, the two examples in your post), you will have a 5% chance to critically succeed and a 5% chance to critically fail.
I guess what is confusing OP and he is absolutely right about is that you will never ever have the same change for either a critical failure or a critical success.
If the DC is 10 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit fail the check as you can not fail the roll by 10 (1-10=-9). However you can crit succeed the check (20-10=+10).
If the DC is 11 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit succeed the check as you can not beat the roll by 10 (20-11=+9), however you can critically fail it (1-11=-10).
Remember that barely failing a roll while rolling a natural 1 is a critical failure, while barely succeeding while rolling a natural 20 is a critical success.
If you need a natural 10 or 11 to succeed at a roll (coincidentally, the two examples in your post), you will have a 5% chance to critically succeed and a 5% chance to critically fail.
This is correct but for the sake of simplicity I excluded the special 1&20 rule in my example, should have mentioned it.
...
Failing by 10 or more results in a critical failure. The 5 is a critical failure.
So, according to your reading of the rules, you have 10 success results, but only ever 9 failure results?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Failing by 10 or more results in a critical failure. The 5 is a critical failure.So, according to your reading of the rules, you can have 10 success results, but only ever 9 failure results?
Yes. The chance of a non-critical success will never exceed 50%, and the chance of a non-critical failure will never exceed 45%.
It's uneven, but it matches what's stated on pg. 630 of the Core Rulebook.
|
|
It's uneven, but it matches what's stated on pg. 630 of the Core Rulebook.
The problem is that specificity always outweighs other references.
In order:
Errata > Specific Rule > Other Rules > Other References (glossary/index/etc.) > Other Materials.
The entry for critical failure only says, "if you fail a check by 10 or more". The weapon critical hit entry does give some weight to DC-10... but at the same time, we've seen Paizo's history with copy editors has not always been the best.
Looking at this being used in Pathfinder Society, I'm not sure which route to go. For now, I accept that DC-10 works and it's simple, but we have a ton of super geeks that play Pathfinder, and I know people will argue it, even if my chapter has decided DC-10 for now (until ruling from Paizo).
I'm making my arguments from an "Arbiter" point of view. I see reasons for both, but I'll be damned if I can't make an argument for an unpopular but technically possible position. I just want clarification from an official source so we can cite it and be done with it.
...
Failing by 10 or more results in a critical failure. The 5 is a critical failure.So, according to your reading of the rules, you can have 10 success results, but only ever 9 failure results?
Yes. The chance of a non-critical success will never exceed 50%, and the chance of a non-critical failure will never exceed 45%.
It's uneven, but it matches what's stated on pg. 630 of the Core Rulebook.
If we disregard the 1 and 20 special rule, the check DC is 15 and you have a +4 modifier you can have:
0 crit success (total of 25+) = 0%
10 successes (totals of 15 to 24) = 50%
9 failures (totals of 6 to 14) = 45%
1 crit failure (total of 5) = 5%
If we disregard the 1 and 20 special rule, the check DC is 15 and you have a +5 modifier you can have:
1 critical success (total of 25) = 5%
10 successes (totals of 15 to 24) = 50%
9 failures (totals of 6 to 14) = 45%
0 crit failures (totals of 5 or less) = 0%
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is slightly more critical failure territory? GOOD. The game is stacked in favor of success as it is, failure needs to have some teeth to it.
Hehe, agreed!
I'm a bit torn on this one, but leaning slightly for the DC-10 method.
Stil, the other side has something to offer and I wanted to argue the case thoroughly. I've had enough rules-lawyers at my tables to know what is headed my way... lol :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DC+10 Critical Success
DC+9 Success
DC+8 Success
DC+7 Success
DC+6 Success
DC+5 Success
DC+4 Success
DC+3 Success
DC+2 Success
DC+1 Success
DC+0 Success
DC-1 Failure
DC-2 Failure
DC-3 Failure
DC-4 Failure
DC-5 Failure
DC-6 Failure
DC-7 Failure
DC-8 Failure
DC-9 Failure
DC-10 Critical Failure
DC-11 Critical Failure
Choose a continuous string of 20 results and you will see that as per my above example you can not pack both crit success and crit failure into one d20 roll without the 1 and 20 special rule.
If you start at DC+10 going down you will end up at DC-9, so no critical failure. If you start at DC-10 going up you will end at DC+9, so no critical success.
In an edition where simplicity is the goal, part of me wants to err on the side of simplicity and say critical failure is just DC-10... but I know the rules lawyers love these games, too. The math nerd in me hates this, as well - especially when +1 or -1 matters in everything else we do.
Are you the GM? (Sounds like it). If so, you know your players best, which one do you think they'll care about? If it's important to them then ask yourself HOW important is it? Is it worth the cognitive load of having to do DC-11? If it is then you have your answer. If it isn't be up front with them, let them plead their case and then make a final decision one way or the other.
Now I personally am intrigued by this so I'm going to also use a concrete example.
Critical Success: DC 25 or more.
Success: DC 15 to DC 24
Failure: DC 6 to DC 14
Critical Failure: DC 5 or less
The player has a +4 on this check.
1 (5): Critical Failure
2 (6): Failure
3 (7): Failure
4 (8): Failure
5 (9): Failure
6 (10): Failure
7 (11): Failure
8 (12): Failure
9 (13): Failure
10 (14): Failure
11 (15): Success
12 (16): Success
13 (17): Success
14 (18): Success
15 (19): Success
16 (20): Success
17 (21): Success
18 (22): Success
19 (23): Success
20 (24): Critical Success
I'm afraid this is too "mathy" for me to understand. From what I can see if you have precisely a 50% chance success (natural result of an 11) then you only get 5% chance of critical failure and 5% chance of critical success.
Can you please show me a concrete example of the situation your describing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess what is confusing OP and he is absolutely right about is that you will never ever have the same chance for either a critical failure or a critical success.
If the DC is 10 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit fail the check as you can not fail the roll by 10 (1-10=-9). However you can crit succeed the check (20-10=+10).
If the DC is 11 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit succeed the check as you can not beat the roll by 10 (20-11=+9), however you can critically fail it (1-11=-10).
That makes sense. But doesn't the "natural 1 is always one step down in the results line" and "natural 20 is always one step up in the results line" fix that fuzziness in the rules?
Or have I just made up that rule and there is no special rule for a natural 1 and a natural 20?
|
|
Or have I just made up that rule and there is no special rule for a natural 1 and a natural 20?
Nat-1 and Nat-20 just move the category of success down or up one, respectively.
You still determine what the total is first, and where it lands on the scale, then step it down/up.
I'm working on a GUIDE for my Pathfinder Society group, where I have some good (I hope) visual aids.
I guess what is confusing OP and he is absolutely right about is that you will never ever have the same chance for either a critical failure or a critical success.
If the DC is 10 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit fail the check as you can not fail the roll by 10 (1-10=-9). However you can crit succeed the check (20-10=+10).
If the DC is 11 and your modifier is +0 you can never crit succeed the check as you can not beat the roll by 10 (20-11=+9), however you can critically fail it (1-11=-10).
That makes sense. But doesn't the "natural 1 is always one step down in the results line" and "natural 20 is always one step up in the results line" fix that fuzziness in the rules?
Or have I just made up that rule and there is no special rule for a natural 1 and a natural 20?
The rule is there but it is not making things entirely even because this is very much depending on the DC versus the total check result.
If the DC is 15 any you have +24 on the check, then obviously you can not not succeed. Because even on a roll of 1 you would have rolled a total of 25 and critically succeeded, which however gets lessened to a simple success. Every other roll is a critical success, so you have 1 success and 19 critical successes for this check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule is there but it is not making things entirely even because this is very much depending on the DC versus the total check result.
If the DC is 15 any you have +24 on the check, then obviously you can not not succeed. Because even on a roll of 1 you would have rolled a total of 25 and critically succeeded, which however gets lessened to a simple success. Every other roll is a critical success, so you have 1 success and 19 critical successes for this check.
I think everyone understands in extreme cases there is of course not an equal chance of critical success as there is of critcal failure. I think this thread is about situations where there is a 50% chance of success. Under that situation it seems there is an even chance of critical success as there is for critical failure due to the natural 1 and natural 20 roll. Which means whether critical failure happens at DC-10 or DC-11 seems to be ultimately meaningless except in extreme cases where you have less than even odds at critical success/critical failure.
What am I missing? And is it actually important?
@JohnLynch is correct, that the pure mathmatical model of +/-10 is never an actual spectrum of possible results and as a result, a model that creates 22 options fails to represent the real chances of critical success or failure.
This is a huge part of why it is misleading to say that a +1 in 2nd edition is like a +2 in pathfinder, especially for strike rolls: because the end target array is not always shifted by 10% AND not every check applies critical failures or successes. Pathfinder 2's success chart is -10< critical failure, 0< failure, 0≥ success, 10≥ critical success.
The 50/50% die roll, DC 11 has equal possibilities of critical failure and critical success which cannot be represented on a time line assuming that critical failure/success is a +/- 10 situation. In the case of a DC 11, a 1 is a critical failure. But in the case of a DC 10 check, a roll of a 1 is also a critical failure, just as it is on a DC 12 check (which will be shown below).
In non-trivial cases (checks where critical success and failure are still possible, either success or failure should always have a probability of 50%, not 45%. Rolling a 5 on a DC15 check is not failing by 10. it is failing by 9.
A number line is a misleading visual representation of the critical system in PF2 because of the natural 1 and natural 20 rule. It is much better represented by a chart that has each possible die roll and then changing percentages for each category.
with a bonus of 0:
DC 9 - 5%/35%/50%/10%
DC 10 - 5%/40%/50%/5%
DC 11 - 5%/45%/45%/5%
DC12 - 5%/50%/40%/5%
DC13 - 10%/50%/35%/5%
If there critical failure happened on -10≤ of the DC this chart gets skewed quickly to:
with a bonus of 0:
DC 9 - 5%/35%/50%/10%
DC 10 - 5%/40%/50%/5%
DC 11 - 5%/45%/45%/5%
DC12 - 10%/45%/40%/5%
DC13 - 15%/45%/35%/5%
Mathematically this would have huge consequences on all numbers modeling based on whether the DC was 10 higher than the bonus, making it extra impossible to evaluate the effects of bonuses on play without knowing the DCs those checks will be made against.
This seems highly improbable as the design intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is indeed the crux of it: the book doesn't state explicitly that it is DC-10, only, "If you fail a check by 10 or more, that’s a critical failure"
But if failing starts at DC-1... do we count from the start of failing, or do we count from the start of succeeding?
Is this considered ambiguous? I thought it was obvious that if you need an 11 to succeed, rolling 10 is "fail by 1", rolling 9 is "fail by 2", and rolling 1 is "fail by 10".
I've never heard of anyone saying, "fail by zero".An interesting imaginary rule for examining the 'issue' of imbalance is if +2/-2 (instead of +10/-10) was a critical success or failure.
Say we're rolling d20 + 9 against a DC of 20. With the +2/-2 rule:
11 or 12 is success. (10% chance)
10 is failure. (5% chance)
9 or less is critical failure. (45% chance).
13 or more is critical success. (40% chance).
The player has a 50% chance of success and a 50% chance of failure, but the chance of the failure being critical is slightly higher.
Since the difference is only 5% (whether using this rule or the PF2 +/-10 rule) I don't see it matters much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling a 5 on a DC15 check is not failing by 10. it is failing by 9.
And here I disagree. It is not amount of numbers in between 5 and 15 (which are indeed 9) but how much higher or lower you need to roll to succeed, which always is by 10.
A critical failure is when you would have to add 10 or more to your final result in order to meet the DC.
A critical success is when you could reduce your total by 10 or more and still meet the DC.
Rolling a 5 on a DC15 check is not failing by 10. it is failing by 9.And here I disagree. It is not amount of numbers in between 5 and 15 (which are indeed 9) but how much higher or lower you need to roll to succeed, which always is by 10.
A critical failure is when you would have to add 10 or more to your final result in order to meet the DC.
A critical success is when you could reduce your total by 10 or more and still meet the DC.
But look at what that does to the math.
with no bonuses, your numbers mean that the shift from a DC 11 to DC 12 jump the 1 number from a one value shift (5% success to 5% failure) to a two value shift (5% less success, 5% more critical failure). Because that shift is not matched on the other side, you have this huge bulge, right in the middle of your curve, right where people will most see it and have to interact with it and feel most cheated that getting a +1 to change the target value from 11 to 10 only shifts the scale from failure to success, but getting a -1 to require a 12 shifts it from success to critical failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But look at what that does to the math.
with no bonuses, your numbers mean that the shift from a DC 11 to DC 12 jump the 1 number from a one value shift (5% success to 5% failure) to a two value shift (5% less success, 5% more critical failure). Because that shift is not matched on the other side, you have this huge bulge, right in the middle of your curve, right where people will most see it and have to interact with it and feel most cheated that getting a +1 to change the target value from 11 to 10 only shifts the scale from failure to success, but getting a -1 to require a 12 shifts it from success to critical failure.
I get were you are comming from, however the basic math is clear once you realise that you have to put 21 numbers (DC±10) into only 20 possible results.
POST MASSIVELY EDITED AFTER SOME SECOND THOUGHT
DC9 check, no boni, no 1&20 rule:
0 crit fails (because you can't roll minus 1)
8 fails
10 succeeds
2 critical succeed
DC10 check, no boni, no 1&20 rule:
0 crit fails (because you can't roll zero)
9 fails
10 succeeds
1 critical succeed
DC 11 check, no boni, no 1&20 rule:
1 crit fails
9 fails
10 succeeds
0 critical succeed (because you can't roll 21)
DC 12 check, no boni, no 1&20 rule:
2 crit fails
9 fails
9 succeeds
0 critical succeed (because you can't roll 22)
The "problem" only becomes a problem once you add the 1&20 rule because it artificially shifts the otherwise beautiful mathematical asymetry.
DC9 check, no boni:
1 crit fails (because 1 reduces your fail to crit fail)
7 fails
10 succeeds
2 critical succeed
DC10 check, no boni:
1 crit fails (because 1 reduces your fail to crit fail)
8 fails
10 succeeds
1 critical succeed
DC 11 check, no boni:
1 crit fails
9 fails
9 succeeds
1 critical succeed
DC 12 check, no boni, no 1&20 rule:
2 crit fails
9 fails
8 succeeds
1 critical succeed (because 20 increases your succeed to a crit succeed)
Please remember that the average on a d20 is 10.5, however you can't do a DC10.5 check. This means that DC9 and DC10 are as far away from an "average" check DC as are DC11 and DC12.
And when looking at the numbers you are a little more likely to succeed than to fail, even when adding the 1&20 rule:
DC9: 8 fails, 12 succeeds.
DC10: 9 fails, 11 succeeds.
DC11: 10 fails, 10 succeeds.
DC12: 11 fails, 9 succeeds.
Yes it becomes clear, but it also means that there is this glaring point of imbalance upon the impact of receiving a +1 or -1 right in the middle of your number system, that is flagrant because it impacts things like saving throws much more intensely than it impacts attack rolls. All DPR calculations, especially those for spells, are thrown significantly off because you don't just need to try to calculate what the effect of getting a bonus or penalty to attack rolls will do, but which side of the scale that is happening on.
For players, "who cares" works to a certain extent, but as a developer, why would you do that to yourself?
Especially with the tricky math you are asking people to think of as far as requiring less than 10 of the DC is: What number fails this check? that number -10 is a critical failure.
Yes it becomes clear, but it also means that there is this glaring point of imbalance upon the impact of receiving a +1 or -1 right in the middle of your number system, that is flagrant because it impacts things like saving throws much more intensely than it impacts attack rolls. All DPR calculations, especially those for spells, are thrown significantly off because you don't just need to try to calculate what the effect of getting a bonus or penalty to attack rolls will do, but which side of the scale that is happening on.
For players, "who cares" works to a certain extent, but as a developer, why would you do that to yourself?
Especially with the tricky math you are asking people to think of as far as requiring less than 10 of the DC is: What number fails this check? that number -10 is a critical failure.
Sorry but I edited my original post, it is not totally different now, but the conclusion is different, so you might want to have a second look.
All the math that ignores the nat 1 and nat 20 rules of PF2 do not represent the game in play. They are not good models for understanding rates of success, failure, critical success and critical failure.
EDIT: Which is my argument is that a number line is not a functional model for PF2 math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through a fair number of the posts in this thread.
I will add my two cents and say, no it's not supposed to be an even statistical chance of crit failure or crit success. In fact, it almost never will be because your modifier to the roll and DC will impact more than anything. If you are targeting AC 10 with an attack roll of +20, guess what you're going to crit (except on a nat 1 which reduces success levels by 1 step, IIRC).
It DC+10 to crit success and DC-10 for crit failure. It's that simple. Don't over complicate it. Don't overthink it.
If it's a DC 15 challenge, a 25 is a crit success and a 5 is a crit fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will add my two cents and say, no it's not supposed to be an even statistical chance of crit failure or crit success. In fact, it almost never will be because your modifier to the roll and DC will impact more than anything. If you are targeting AC 10 with an attack roll of +20, guess what you're going to crit (except on a nat 1 which reduces success levels by 1 step, IIRC).
This I agree with
It DC+10 to crit success and DC-10 for crit failure. It's that simple. Don't over complicate it. Don't overthink it.If it's a DC 15 challenge, a 25 is a crit success and a 5 is a crit fail.
Except in one case it's 25 or more and in the other it's 15 or less. to at least fail you have to get 16.
Essentially the asymmetry is because the active dice rolling player wins ties. eg If you sneak up on someone with the same perception as your stealth they have a 45% chance to see you, if they try to see you hiding they have a 55% chance to see you. Spells with attacks are a tiny bit better than spells with saves for this reason too.
It is hardly a new problem - 3.5 had failing by 10 when climbing meant you fell & it bugged me then. It still bugs me but I am used to it. Definitely overthinking it.
I will add my two cents and say, no it's not supposed to be an even statistical chance of crit failure or crit success. In fact, it almost never will be because your modifier to the roll and DC will impact more than anything. If you are targeting AC 10 with an attack roll of +20, guess what you're going to crit (except on a nat 1 which reduces success levels by 1 step, IIRC).
This I agree with
It DC+10 to crit success and DC-10 for crit failure. It's that simple. Don't over complicate it. Don't overthink it.If it's a DC 15 challenge, a 25 is a crit success and a 5 is a crit fail.
Except in one case it's 25 or more and in the other it's 15 or less. to at least fail you have to get 16.
Essentially the asymmetry is because the active dice rolling player wins ties. eg If you sneak up on someone with the same perception as your stealth they have a 45% chance to see you, if they try to see you hiding they have a 55% chance to see you. Spells with attacks are a tiny bit better than spells with saves for this reason too.
It is hardly a new problem - 3.5 had failing by 10 when climbing meant you fell & it bugged me then. It still bugs me but I am used to it. Definitely overthinking it.
The active die rolling applies equally to the critical failure/ failure value as it does to the success/failure paradigm. I think the idea that you critically fail when you roll 10 lower than you would fail is not a complicated concept, and it prevents the math from falling apart.
If it is easier think of it this way: if the DC is 15 you need to roll a 5 to fail, and a 15 to succeed. You only critically succeed on a 20. If you focus on the idea that the person rolling wants to shift their success tier up, the numbers all stay consistent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can look it in different ways. The fact is that:
15 is success
25 is critical success
5 is critical failure
is simple and elegant.
What it is not is symmetrical, for all the reasons already stated, which are all based on the fact that meeting the exact DC is a success and not a tie.
As Pickles said, it's because the active part (the one making the roll) has a slight advantage built in. That's an old thing, and definitely not a problem as far as I can see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can look it in different ways. The fact is that:
15 is success
25 is critical success
5 is critical failure
is simple and elegant.What it is not is symmetrical, for all the reasons already stated, which are all based on the fact that meeting the exact DC is a success and not a tie.
As Pickles said, it's because the active part (the one making the roll) has a slight advantage built in. That's an old thing, and definitely not a problem as far as I can see.
20is critical success
15 is success5 is failure
less than 5 is critical failure
is simple and elegant, and mathematically correct.
Giving the tie to the roller should apply equally at every tier of success. No one rolling the dice wants to critically fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the d4=>d6 Savage Worlds die step thing all over again.
The math doesn't "Break down".
The math works fine.
The math is simplified for at table play. DC-10, DC+10 is much much faster to do.
The difference of 5% more chance of critical failure on hard rolls (as if you have an even or better chance on the roll, you can only crit fail on a 1, and with high enough you just never crit fail) is minuscule and is not a problem for at table play.
The reading of this rule doesn't matter if you need an 11 (or higher) on the die to succeed. 11 or higher is 50% of the d20.
At that point, there's a nice 5/45/45/5.
If the DC is one lower, that goes to 5/40/50/5, but if the DC is one higher it goes to 10/45/40/5 .
That is the thing that doesn't sit well with my inner math nerd.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of a DC 15 with no bonuses, how is rolling a 5 "failing the check by 10 or more?" It is not because a 15 is not a failure.
A lot of people really want to apply a number line visual model to the act of rolling for 4 tiers of success, but for multiple reasons, that creates a lot more confusion that it helps players understand. There are three points of significance to visually model around, not a singe Yes/No fulcrum. Rolling the dice is always about rolling into a specified array to qualify for a tier of success.
I actually agree that the developers establish this problem for themselves on page 10 in the section where they describe the model as essentially boiling to whether you are successful or not ( a thing for which a number line is a fine visual model). But they actually created a 4 tier system that is incredibly more nuanced and does create large balance issues at the point where the odds of overall success or failure (combining critical failure and failure, success and critical success) change.
Remember how much players HATED the math of the playtest because they felt it pushed them toward optimization? Imagine it becoming common knowledge that letting your bonuses fall behind expected values penalized you further by shifting your odds of critical failure up by an arbitrary and punitive 5%, all so that you can incorrectly pretend like the 4 tier success system is essentially a +/-10 math equation, when that equation is already thrown out the window by the fact that you are rolling a 20 sided die where 2 of the options (1 and 20) already break the rules of your formula.
I don't mean for this to sound aggressive, we are lead into this interpretation by the way the rules tend to focus on the idea that failure/success is always the most essential point of interest in the equation, and perhaps some clarity from the developers will help sort this out, but assuming that "failure" as a category only has 9 values when its range is centered in the probability matrix of actual possible outcomes (DC values between 12 and 19 points higher than bonuses) defies logic, simplicity or elegance.
Calling a 5 a critical failure vs a DC of 15 is not making things easier, it is arbitrarily punishing the roller by increasing the odds of something really terrible happening. Something like dying when you are having to make flat checks to stay alive.
This is a point of view.
Mine is that the roller has a slight advantage, because a tie (meeting the DC exactly) becomes a success for them instead. Everything else stays the same.
This is a point of view.
Mine is that the roller has a slight advantage, because a tie (meeting the DC exactly) becomes a success for them instead. Everything else stays the same.
We both seem in agreement about the idea that a success means equalling the DC.
Doesn't this apply equally when the roller is trying to get a failure instead of a critical failure? The situation is identical. In the situation where the DC was 15 and I have no bonuses, isn't it stranger for me to need to roll a 6 to get a failure instead of a critical failure, or 9 under the original DC?
EDIT:
I think the flat check for dying is a really really good place to look at this mechanic and figure out what makes the most sense.
The DC of the flat check is 10+your dying value. A critical failure when you are at dying 2 or worse is character death. Is this really the point at which you want your odds of critical failure shifting up by 5% faster than if the flat check had started at DC 5 or 6?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of a DC 15 with no bonuses, how is rolling a 5 "failing the check by 10 or more?" It is not because a 15 is not a failure.
If I needed 70 points on my test to get a Pass, and I got a 69, I would say I failed by 1 point. If I got 60 I would say I failed by 10 points.
One could attempt to construct another linguistic method to describe this, such as saying, "If you get 69 points, you fail exactly. If you get 68 points, you fail by an excess of 1." But this is not a terminology people are likely to adopt.
The way I understand it, the way I'm pretty sure almost everyone understands it, is that if you need a 15 to succeed and you get a 5, you fail by 10. If you described that as 'failing by 9' you would be confusing everyone for no reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this the new "What's the DC to jump over a 5' pit" thread?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to thank everyone in this thread for helping me appreciate the friends that I game with even more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is easier think of it this way: if the DC is 15 you need to roll a 5 to fail, and a 15 to succeed. You only critically succeed on a 20. If you focus on the idea that the person rolling wants to shift their success tier up, the numbers all stay consistent.
The issue is that you do not need a 5 to fail, you need a 6.
Another way of expressing the asymmetry is that you can succeed by 0 if you hit the DC exactly but if you fail it is by at least 1.
Anyhow while this bugs me from an aesthetic point of view it is not a mechanical one.
The original point that crit fails are twice as likely as crit successes is only at one point on the relative attack/defence curve. At most other points they are skewed more and in either direction.
In the case of a DC 15 with no bonuses, how is rolling a 5 "failing the check by 10 or more?" It is not because a 15 is not a failure.If I needed 70 points on my test to get a Pass, and I got a 69, I would say I failed by 1 point. If I got 60 I would say I failed by 10 points.
One could attempt to construct another linguistic method to describe this, such as saying, "If you get 69 points, you fail exactly. If you get 68 points, you fail by an excess of 1." But this is not a terminology people are likely to adopt.
The way I understand it, the way I'm pretty sure almost everyone understands it, is that if you need a 15 to succeed and you get a 5, you fail by 10. If you described that as 'failing by 9' you would be confusing everyone for no reason.
I think the American grading system is a better analogy than a simple pass/fail analogy.
There are multiple categories within that scale. A 70 would be C/2.0 on the grading scale. A 60 would be a D/1.0 on that scale. Many grading scales are sub divided further, but it is always by an understood range, not a +/- understanding. The math of the entire system works out very good with a range of 10 for failure and a range of 10 for success. The math has an arbitrary buckle when you condense the fail range to 9. All for no actual value to the ease of play. When putting a DC vs a party with mixed bonuses (so that natural 1s and 20s become more difficult to account for) it is far better to know what number is the bottom of each range than to switch your goal post halfway through the calculation:25+ critical Success
15 but less than 25 Success
5 but less than 15 Failure
less than 5 Critical Failure
is a very good scale.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not understanding what the fuss is about. Everything is working just fine. An example.
For a +5 bonus. DC = 15 (since base DC calculation is 10+bonus)
Crit success roll = 25 or higher
Crit fail roll = 5 or lower
Roll a 1 = fail (total = 6). But move one step down from a natural 1, so it becomes a critical fail.
Result: 5% critical fail chance
Roll a 2-9 = fail. (total = 7 to 14)
Result: 40% fail chance
Roll a 10-19= succeed. (total 15 to 24)
Result = 50% success chance
Roll a 20 = critical success. (total = 25)
Result: 5% critical success chance.
These look like happy numbers to me.
Meanwhile...
A +5 bonus versus DC 16 continues to give a 5% critical fail chance, and a 5% critical success chance. No problem there.
A +5 bonus versus a DC 14 gives a 5% critical fail chance, and 10% critical success chance.
Still look like happy numbers to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My turn.
DC 20.
Result is 10 or lower = critical failure unless you rolled a 20 = simple failure.
Result is 11 to 19 = simple failure unless you rolled a 1 = critical failure or a 20 = simple success.
Result is 20 to 29 = simple success unless you rolled a 1 = simple failure or a 20 = critical success.
Result is 30 or higher = critical success unless you rolled a 1 = simple success.
Hope I get that right :-)
So to be clear and relate all of this back to the OP, even if the thread title is sensationalist and misleading: It was the intended structure of the game to make critical failure more likely than critical success?
This seems like bad design, and not what I believe was intended. It introduces no simplicity or ease of understanding because it only decreases the odds of failure to the increase the odds of critical failure in those situations where the party will be struggling the most to accomplish success. That went over like a wet blanket in the playtest.
A linear +/-10 model is not easier math than a 4 tiers of success model, especially when you factor in the added complexity of the natural 20 and natural 1.
Having consistent ranges for success and failure makes so much more sense, it is saying that 10 less than a critical success is a success and 10 less than a success is a failure, and 10 less than a failure is critical failure.
Insisting on seeing success/failure as a 0, (or a fulcrum) only leads to unnecessary confusion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The assertion that DC+-10 makes Critical Failures twice as likely as Critical Success is flatly wrong.
A Critical Failure can in some cases be twice as likely,
Rolling at +3 on a DC 15:
A Crit Fail happens on a 1 or a 2 with a result of 4 or 5, and a Crit Success on a 20 with a max possible result being 23 upgraded
A Critical Success could be twice as likely as a Critical Failure,
Rolling at +6 on a DC 15:
A Crit Success on a 19 or 20 resulting in 25 or 26, and a Crit Fail on a 1 with the minimum possible result being 7 downgraded)
Rolling a +4 or +5 on a DC 15 give an equal chance of Critting in either direction but not the same chance of regular success/failure.
It all depends on the DC and the modifier, there is no flat probability for crits in either direction.
The only "imbalance" presented by DC+-10 is that ties go to the roller, giving a %5 greater chance of regular success than a regular failure.
With DC+-10 (the actual RAW) there is a slight advantage due to ties given to the roller. But making the DC+10 to DC-11 would not change how ties are decided, but would actually swing things even more in the favor of the roller.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
25+ critical Success
15 but less than 25 Success
5 but less than 15 Failure
less than 5 Critical Failure
is a very good scale.
Yes it is. I'm not saying that your way of viewing the thing is wrong.
You are viewing possible results from 'below', or from 'above'. It makes sense logically and mathematically.Others have another point of view: the DC. Thus, +10 and -10 span from that point. That's probably a more 'subjective' point of view, because that's where the result has the biggest jump: from success to failure.
Still, it is the point of view that the developers considered, since it has been the only one that mattered in the previous editions. And they built from there.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was the intended structure of the game to make critical failure more likely than critical success?
It was both not the intended structure, and not a true statement.
Critical Failures are not more likely than Critical Successes as a rule (it's situational).
Regular Successes are more likely than Regular Failures as a rule, because of ties.
The assertion that DC+-10 makes Critical Failures twice as likely as Critical Success is flatly wrong.
True, but the statement that DC+-10 makes critical failures more likely than critical success across the entire spectrum of possible DCs is objectively true. It is only noticeable when you need to roll a 12 or higher on the die, but it is always present.
It is not a question of if ties should go to the roller, it is a question of whether ties should always go to the roller or if the failure/critical failure axis is some how special and deserves to be punitive.
I really don't understand this whole discussion. Where exactly is written that critical successes and critical faillures have the same probabilities? It's just like in the real world - you often fail really bad and only sometimes - and with high effort - shine.
DC15 --> critical fail at 5
DC10 --> critical success at 20
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hoo boy, I hope no new player ever sees this thread. Mathfinder, indeed.
If you are a poor soul who is new to RPGs and you have made a wrong turn into this thread, avert your gaze! Look away!
The simple method of doing this math is fine and results in a perfectly fun game. The consequences of a critical failure only come up rarely anyway as there is no real effect of a critical failure on to hit rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but the statement that DC+-10 makes critical failures more likely than critical success across the entire spectrum of possible DCs is objectively true. It is only noticeable when you need to roll a 12 or higher on the die, but it is always present.
The assertion that DC+-10 makes Critical Failures twice as likely as Critical Success is flatly wrong.
If you need a natural 12 to succeed, you have a 10% chance of critical failure and a 5% chance of critical success.
If you need a natural 9 to succeed, you have a 5% chance of critical failure and a 10% chance of critical success.
Both of these are 1 number off from the 10/11 "middle" part of the d20. Seems pretty balanced to me.