|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But "the system is broken if we ignore the rules" is not a compelling argument.We're talking about the scale, not the method you use against it. This applies no matter what type of dice you use. Too many people are caught up on the d20 rolls.
Considering Crits only apply to d20s I think it matters quite a bit.
You are completely right that Normal Success has one more "point" in the category than Normal Failure. You incorrectly conclude that makes Critical failures more likely because you assume the center point is in between regular failure and regular success, of that the two categories aught to be equal. If meeting the DC was no-result and reroll, things would be also be 100% symmetrical and the chance of crits would not change.
The asymmetry is on purpose, and it's because the Center Line (meeting the DC) is counted as an extra chance from Normal Success.
My previous post shows the actual chances of Crits, and Critical Successes are just at likely as Failures.
Talking about pure scale though, you are inserting a positive and negative 0 into the scale to make your point.
According to your graph:
Failure by 1 is DC-2
Failure by -0 == DC-1 (you just say Failure)
Success by +0 == DC (you just say Success)
Success by 1 is DC+1
You can't Fail by 0, Failing by 0 is Succeeding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from discussions of probability involving specific die rolls, and just look at the ranges for each outcome, which is what Outrider appears to be going for.
If we assume a task with DC 15, I think we're all in agreement that results of 15-24 are a success (ten possible), and 25+ is a critical success (infinite possible). Similarly, anything less than 5 is certainly a critical failure (infinite possible). The question at hand then boils down to which of two options is intended:
a) A check crit fails if you fail by ten or more, meaning 5 is a critical failure as well, and only 6-14 result in a simple failure (nine possible). The CRB phrasing would seem support this view, but it results in an asymmetry between the size of the failure and success ranges (nine and ten, respectively).
b) A check crit fails if adding ten to your result would still result in a failure. A 5 would then be merely a failure (5+10=15 -> pass DC 15), resulting in a range of failure values of 5-14. Standard failure and success would then have an equal number of possible results (ten each), suggesting this might be the intended design despite the wording of the rules.
Note that I'm disregarding the nat 1/20 rules, as these shift the degree of success after determining which outcome range the roll falls in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep saying pg. 445 is open to interpretation. There is no such openness to pg. 630.And if you're fine with interpreting the glossary to give the foolproof definition while the main entry, related main entries, and even other glossary entries have no such language... that's your choice.
The rule is stated with two different wordings in different places. You claim one of the ways it is stated is ambiguous and can be interpreted in two different ways. The other way the rule is stated is unambiguous and matches one of the two interpretations of the first way it is stated.
If you're fine with interpreting the rule such that the glossary contradicts it instead of corroborating it... that's your choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not comply with your graphs.Which is precisely why I'd like Paizo to rule on this. I fully recognize both sides, and I even lean a bit more toward simplicity and a bigger risk of failure for the PCs.
But, at the same time, if I'm going to point out a flaw in the system, I'm going to thoroughly explain and support the arguments why it's a flaw. It's the engineer in me.
Well as a fellow engineer I'd say clear wording can never be wrong. ;)
|
I mean, look how much of a debate this has sparked. I've seen people debate these very things at my tables or neighboring tables.
If I'm the GM, then I will temporarily rule on it and move on, addressing it later. I'd rather keep playing.
But, in the context of Pathfinder Society, there's a point to be had here when the GMs are supposed to conform to society/paizo standards. The entry itself is not clear and concise, and expecting players and GMs to scour every inch of the book for something that's referenced only in the glossary is a misfire in editing and use of language. The primary entry for any rule should be the most clear and concise of all, not some ancillary reference place.
I will say, after some test runs and a scenario in PF2e, it does feel like failure and especially critical failures happen a whole lot more often, noticeably so, and outweighed the critical successes. The math proves this, too.EDIT: I will add that part of this is due to some players wanting to skill check when they shouldn't (due to being PF1e veterans), so that definitely impacts things a bit, but there is something to it feeling more common, for sure.
Presumably some of it is MAP too? If the first attack is 60% or so to hit (9+) the next will be 35% (14+) but with 20% (14) crit fail. Not that crit fails on attacks do much normally.
Really the theoretical issues with the asymmetry are drowned in practice by the variance on d20s and the fact the DC will shift all over the place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the playtest:
"If your result is less than the DC, you fail. For actions you
initiated, this typically means there is no effect. If you were
rolling a saving throw, failing generally means you are
affected by a spell or ability. If there is no failure effect
listed, the ability simply has no effect if it fails.
If you fail and roll a 1 on the d20 (also called a “natural
1”), or you fail and your result is equal to or less than the
DC minus 10, you critically fail instead of just failing. A
critical failure is sometimes called a “fumble.” If an action
or activity does not specify a critical failure effect, then the
effect for a critical failure is the same as that for a failure."
From the 2E rulebook:
"Many times, it’s important to determine not only if you
succeed or fail, but also how spectacularly you succeed or
fail. Exceptional results—either good or bad—can cause
you to critically succeed at or critically fail a check.
You critically succeed at a check when a check’s result
meets or exceeds the DC by 10 or more. If the check is an
attack roll, this is sometimes called a critical hit. You can
also critically fail a check. The rules for critical failure—
sometimes called a fumble—are the same as those for a
critical success, but in the other direction: if you fail a
check by 10 or more, that’s a critical failure."
Why specifically change the language around what constitutes a critical failure, away from DC-10 and to "if you fail a check by 10 or more." if the goal was to increase clarity that the intention was for the value 10 bellow success to be a critical failure?
There was clearly an effort to change that understanding. Now the glossary not supporting that change is very unfortunate and as a result, some form of Errata will need to be forth coming on either the the rues on page 10 and 445 or the rules on 630. I guess we will have to wait to see which it will be.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from discussions of probability involving specific die rolls, and just look at the ranges for each outcome, which is what Outrider appears to be going for.
When the topic is titled: "CRITICAL FAILURE - TWICE AS LIKELY AS CRITICAL SUCCESS" You can see how I got confused.
As I showed already, the title is not true:
Probabilities
Lets divert things further and instead of talking pure numbers, I propose the flowing thought experiment instead, based only on numbers irreverent to dice:
I propose an alternate rule to insert symmetry into the system.
Meeting the DC will no longer be a success or a failure, it's a re-roll.
We put this on the scale at 0
Going up the scale we hit 10 and call that and anything higher a Critical Success, we have 9 chances for Normal Success and an infinite range of possible critical successes.
Going down the scale we hit -10 can call that and anything lower a Critical Failure, we have 9 chances for a Normal Failure and an infinite range of possible Critical Failures.
We have now achieved perfect symmetry.
Of course we are going to need to re-roll a lot of stuff. That's not fun.
Let's just give the roller an edge and count 0 as a Success, it's not symmetrical, but it only favors the roller, and doesn't hurt them in any way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written, the rules are fairly clear that having a result of 5 on a DC 15 check is a critical failure.
That does mean that for any given DC, there are 9 values for regular failure and 10 values for regular success. Which is unbalanced.
It would probably be better to have the spread of values be equal - 10 values for regular success and 10 values for regular failure.
I think the best way to have the proper (equitable) math and have the easy DC +/-10 calculations is to do as Unicore suggests and treat the DC-10 value as a 'failure DC' where if you meet that DC, you have a standard failure (instead of a critical failure as is described in the current rules).
So if the DC is 15, and the total result of your roll is 5, then you have succeeded at the failure DC and have a result of standard failure.
If instead you get a total result of 3 on the DC 15 check, then you have not met the failure DC of 5 and get the result of critical failure.
Easy to explain, easy to calculate, and has the proper 10 value spread for both success and failure cases.
But does probably need developer announcement to be official.
How about we stop arguing and just start FAQing?
Someone right a good post for FAQ and lets all click the button.
How about we stop arguing and just start FAQing?
Someone right a good post for FAQ and lets all click the button.
What button?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, one last ditch try, and then I am done (for the day at least).
I don't see how asymmetry is inherently bad, but changing the rule to be DC-11 for a Crit failure doesn't actually accomplish a symmetrical system, and it's a BAD idea, please don't do it.
To implement it you need to start saying things like rolling a 14 on a DC 15 check is Failing the check by 0, if rolling a 13 is Failing by 1.
I don't want a game where I need to think of +0 and -0 as two different numbers, which is actually what is being proposed.
Outriders charts are very misleading in how they arbitrarily have a bigger section for Crit Fails and Crit Successes, they don't depict a valid representation of the spectrum. If we are going on pure theoretical numbers it should be infinite in both directions, not stop at 4 and 25. He is right in showing a bigger range for Normal Success than Normal Failure, but that does not actually mean anything about the likelyhood of crits.
Nine is less than ten, so in general regular failure is 90% as likely as regular success.
This does not change the ratio of critical failure to critical success.
In the game as it stands (see page pg. 630.) you have a slightly better chance of Regular Success than Regular Failure, and Crits are just as likely in either direction. I am ok with this.
So I think the question, or at least my question is: with the change From the playtest rulebook to the PF2 rulebook about what constitutes a critical failure: from Less than or equal to the DC-10 to failing a check by 10 or more, did the actual number required to roll a critical failure change? Is 10 less than the DC a critical failure or a failure? Because the glossary still says DC-10 but the rules on page 10 and in chapter 9 playing the game use the failing by 10 or more language, which is a shift away from the DC-10 language.
So I think the question, or at least my question is: with the change From the playtest rulebook to the PF2 rulebook about what constitutes a critical failure: from Less than or equal to the DC-10 to failing a check by 10 or more, did the actual number required to roll a critical failure change? Is 10 less than the DC a critical failure or a failure? Because the glossary still says DC-10 but the rules on page 10 and in chapter 9 playing the game use the failing by 10 or more language, which is a shift away from the DC-10 language.
And the English language has table variation. In my Iron Gods campaign, where the skald had access to Timely Inspiration and Gallant Inspiration, the skald asking, "How much did you fail by?" meant "How much do I need to add to your roll to convert it to a success?" The party made lots of Knowledge checks so they often knew the DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best way to have the proper (equitable) math and have the easy DC +/-10 calculations is to do as Unicore suggests and treat the DC-10 value as a 'failure DC' where if you meet that DC, you have a standard failure (instead of a critical failure as is described in the current rules).
I also agree with this. The way I think of it is each DC actually comes in triplets. The base DC is the typical DC for success, with a "crit DC" equal to base+10 and a "failure DC" at base-10. Then, with the example DC 15 task, you have a clear ladder of "I need a 5 to avoid a crit failure, 15 to actually succeed, and 25 to get a crit success." A 6-15-25 progression just doesn't make sense to me. I'll concede that a strict reading of the rules leads to the latter interpretation, but the point being argued for is that the former is a more logical approach that balances success and failure ranges.
I don't see how asymmetry is inherently bad, but changing the rule to be DC-11 for a Crit failure doesn't actually accomplish a symmetrical system, and it's a BAD idea, please don't do it.
I'm curious as to what you think is bad about it, why should we favor one result over the other?
To implement it you need to start saying things like rolling a 14 on a DC 15 check is Failing the check by 0, if rolling a 13 is Failing by 1.
I don't think that's true. Multiple alternative wordings have been proposed that would result in equal failure/success ranges. Speaking in terms of a "failure DC" at DC-10, as well as "If adding 10 to your total would still result in a failure, you instead achieve a critical failure" both accomplish this without redefining what "fail by 1" means.
Outriders charts are very misleading in how they arbitrarily have a bigger section for Crit Fails and Crit Successes, they don't depict a valid representation of the spectrum. If we are going on pure theoretical numbers it should be infinite in both directions, not stop at 4 and 25. He is right in showing a bigger range for Normal Success than Normal Failure, but that does not actually mean anything about the likelyhood of crits.
That's slightly disingenuous. Yes, Outrider is choosing to show more crit failure results than crit successes despite both having an infinite number of values to achieve either. The point they're trying to illustrate though is that if we start at the breakpoint between failure and success, and advance in both directions at an equal rate, we reach crit failure range sooner than crit success (after only nine numbers rather than ten). Thus, if we compare the first eleven "bad" results to the left of the breakpoint, we end up with two critical fails to nine regular, while the first eleven "good" results contain one crit success to ten regular. Such an imbalance makes it (admittedly only slightly) easier to reach the critical failure range with penalties and higher DCs than to reach crit success with bonuses and lower DCs. Now, it's possible that this was the intent, but it could also be an oversight that at least deserves consideration for correction.
So if I had to summarize this thread, I think it's:
Everything works fine, it's as intuitive as your expect it to be when someone says "DC+10" or "DC-10" and the only "problem" is that some people are annoyed that the probabilities for crit success and crit failure aren't equal (but they we're never actually expected to be equal once you start adding bonuses).
But the rule for critical failure does not explicitly state "DC-10" - it states "... fail by 10"
Does "fail by 10" mean:
a) "Failure, and 10 less" or
b) "Success, and 10 less"It matters, because we already know that "succeed by 10" means "Success, and 10 more" - in the success scenario we moved 11 points away, in the failure scenario we move... 11 as well? or 10?
That's the problem. That's it.
If this is important to you, talk to your GM about it. If you are the GM talk to your players about it.
I think its clear that if DC 15 is a success then DC 5 is a critical failure. But you could check adventures to see if anything confirms this one way or the other.
So I think the question, or at least my question is: with the change From the playtest rulebook to the PF2 rulebook about what constitutes a critical failure: from Less than or equal to the DC-10 to failing a check by 10 or more, did the actual number required to roll a critical failure change? Is 10 less than the DC a critical failure or a failure? Because the glossary still says DC-10 but the rules on page 10 and in chapter 9 playing the game use the failing by 10 or more language, which is a shift away from the DC-10 language.
Those are the same thing.
If the DC is 15, 10 less than the DC is 5."Less than or equal to the DC-10" means 5 or less.
"Failing by 10" means 5 or less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if anything Devs need to clarify the intention of this rule and use appropriate, fool-proof wording.
Having followed and contributed to this tread, there are a couple of factions which deserve an official answer.
For some the wording and the intention of the current rule is clear, for others the wording is unclear but the intention is clear, for others the wording is clear but the intention is unclear (I do count myself among those as I can relate to the arguments of other factions) and for some even wording and intention may be unclear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as official guidelines are nice and all, I really do think the 3.5e, PF1e and 4e playerbase grew far too reliant on them. A GM is running the game. A GM is expected to adjudicate the rules. Ultimately they are the best suited to determine what is most fun for their group. I do not think the game is going to break apart and become unplayable if a GM has a critical failure happen at DC 5 or DC 4 or even DC 6 for a DC 15 skill check.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Symmetry just isn't important when it comes to checks. So this whole thread, interesting as it is, is moot.
Symmetry is nice if you have mathematical OCD. Which admittedly is probably true of plenty of Pathfinder players! But it does nothing for gameplay.
What matters is quick and easy maths at the table and happy fun times. Not abstract mathematical proportionality.
As for FAQ... the rulebook is perfectly clear on the maths and mechanic. Claiming that it needs further explanation from Paizo is just being persnickety imho. There's much more important things for the them to be working on.
So I think the question, or at least my question is: with the change From the playtest rulebook to the PF2 rulebook about what constitutes a critical failure: from Less than or equal to the DC-10 to failing a check by 10 or more, did the actual number required to roll a critical failure change? Is 10 less than the DC a critical failure or a failure? Because the glossary still says DC-10 but the rules on page 10 and in chapter 9 playing the game use the failing by 10 or more language, which is a shift away from the DC-10 language.Those are the same thing.
If the DC is 15, 10 less than the DC is 5.
"Less than or equal to the DC-10" means 5 or less.
"Failing by 10" means 5 or less.
Not if you step away from the number line and see 14 as the highest number that would qualify as failure.
But that is arguing in circles. Someone said they wanted to see the issue condensed in to a simpler question and the primary question I have is if the wording of the new rule was intended to lead to the same result, why deliberately chose to reword it in a way that makes my interpretation possible?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Franz Lunzer asked the a very simple and unbiased question to help resolve this on the thread post for questions for pathfinder Friday. Rather than attempt to answer it, and move this discussion there, I suggest folks like the question a whole lot so it is clear that this is a question that we would like answered by a developer.
You can see it here.
Symmetry is nice if you have mathematical OCD. Which admittedly is probably true of plenty of Pathfinder players! But it does nothing for gameplay.
Symmetry would also keep dying PCs alive quite a bit longer when they drop to dying/ generally not lead to them critically failing, and still make for quick and easy math, as long as you step away from the +/-10 equation, which incidentally, is what the developers did in their revised rules explanation for the core rulebook.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is more than one type of symmetry going on here. I’d argue that symmetry of interpretation is more valuable for gameplay than statistical symmetry particularly among new players or those who struggle with remembering asymmetrical rules.
The system where X is a success, X+10 is a crit success, and X-10 is a crit fail is symmetrical and elegant with regards to interpretation, and I’m willing to give up perfect statistical symmetry (which honestly goes unappreciated by most) in favor of game flow and ease of learning.
What button?How about we stop arguing and just start FAQing?
Someone right a good post for FAQ and lets all click the button.
Didn't we use to have a button to flag a post for FAQ? Or did we all just favorite it before?
Edit: Yeah, go look at some post in the PF1 sub-forum of the board. We have an option at the top of a post to FAQ, but it is mysteriously not present in the PF2 forum.
It might be that the developers are feeling a little overwhelmed by questions from people for the first couple of months after launch?
It might be that the developers are feeling a little overwhelmed by questions from people for the first couple of months after launch?
Well I would have helped to provide a proof- or rather foolread set of rules in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, for I am not saying that the rules are bad per se and/or there was no extensive proof-reading or playtesting, however please keep in mind that it can sometimes be very, very hard to put a rule or set of rules in writing.
You know what you want, you know what the rule is about and how the rule should be used in your game, you type down the rule and why doing so fail to notice that you did not use unambiguous wording that can clearly be understood even from complete beginners.
Exempli gratia for PF2 are the guidelines and rules when it comes to the transition in between exploration mode and encounter mode while one or both sides are using stealth.
If many of your players don't know how to handle basic stuff for a situation that is occuring on a very regular basis in any RPG then you know this section of the rules needs to be improved on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have no bonus and the dc is 15. You roll there are only 6 steps between failure and critical success here. According to OPs logic crit success should be more likely but it obviously isn't.
This is only true after accounting for the nat 1/20 rules, which shift degrees of success rather than defining success/failure ranges. That really doesn't say anything one way or the other about the relative likelihood of critical successes and failures.
I think part of the problem is the OP and I aren't quite getting across what we mean when we say it's "easier" to crit fail than crit succeed. As long as we're doing examples, here's the simplest one I can think of to illustrate my point: a DC 11 flat check, ignoring nat 1/20 rules (for now). At the most basic level, this check is "balanced" in the sense that there is an equal probability of achieving a good or bad result (11-20 passes, 1-10 does not). However, rules as written, a 1 is a critical failure, while a 20 is not a critical success. In a situation where good and bad outcomes should be equally likely, it is possible to critically fail but not critically succeed. This is what the OP and I mean when we say it's "easier" to critically fail than critically succeed.
Now, for those who would like to argue that adding in the nat 1/20 rules resolves this problem... well, not quite. Yes, for this particular roll we would now have balanced outcomes (1 crit fails and 20 crit succeeds). However, if we shift the DC up or down, the mismatch returns. Increasing the DC to 12 causes a result of 2 to now be a critical failure, while lowering the DC to 10 does not cause 19 to become a critical success. Put another way, starting from the balanced DC 11 check, a +1 bonus to your roll does not improve your odds of achieving a critical success, while a -1 penalty does increase the chances of a critical failure. The critical failure is thus "easier" to achieve through negative modifiers than a crit success is through positive ones.
As for those who have pointed out this is an awful lot of effort put into a very minor "problem"... alright, you've got me there. At the end of the day it's easy enough for anyone who feels strongly about it to house rule one way or the other, regardless of any official ruling. Whether this should even be viewed as a problem at all is certainly debatable. But the fundamental point is that a strict interpretation of the rules really does result in critical failures being easier to achieve than critical successes in the sense described above.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, look how much of a debate this has sparked.It seems just a little self serving to argue with everyone who posts in this thread and then use that as a justification for you point in the first place.
I think we can all agree that the original poster is wrong and bad at math, and this whole thread is pointless. Hooray for consensus!
I think we can all agree that the original poster is wrong and bad at math, and this whole thread is pointless. Hooray for consensus!I mean, look how much of a debate this has sparked.It seems just a little self serving to argue with everyone who posts in this thread and then use that as a justification for you point in the first place.
I am thankful for this thread. The math around critical failures was something I assumed a consensus around where clearly there is not. And I am honestly surprised so many people feel like the intention is for the range of failure to be only 9 / for ties only to go go to the roller at the line of success/failure, and for the line between failure/critical failure to be intentionally punitive.
I am not saying people are wrong for thinking this, I realize the wording in the playtest clearly established this line of thinking, but that the wording in the final rulebook was changed to move away from having that be the only clear reasonable reading of the rules and that it is rational to hope for additional clarity to be provided on something that has the potential to effect game play on nearly 50% of rolls, especially important/high tension ones.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it is rational to hope for additional clarity to be provided on something that has the potential to effect game play on nearly 50% of rolls, especially important/high tension ones.
It isn't actually. People who play board games will look at the rules and go "I think this is how it is" someone might say "Naaah. I think it's this" and they'll discuss one way or the other and then typically come to a decision that they think will be the most fun for their group.
What they don't do is pull out a calculator, spend hours crunching numbers. Go to a website. Pose the question. "Discuss" with anyone who disagrees with them and then say "well clearly there is no consensus so now we need an official ruling".
I understand all of that has become tried and true gaming behaviour. I don't think it's rational though. I think what's rational is notice the potential uncertainty, have a quick look around, maybe pose a quick question on the internet and then discuss it with their friends who they're playing the game with and then come to a decision.
Of course, one person's "rational behaviour" may not match another person's definition. So everyone is welcome to engage with the game however they like :)
My old PF1e group deliberately did not look up any FAQs or use Paizo rulings. Because we too often disagreed with Paizo's logic. So we made rulings that were fun for our group. I consider that to be pretty rational ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize the wording in the playtest clearly established this line of thinking, but that the wording in the final rulebook was changed
The "fails by X or more" wording appears in PF1 and SF. While the PF2 playtest may not have used that wording, PF2 was updated before release to be consistent with Paizo's other products. This is not an indication of the math changing from playtest to release.
It's been 10 years since PF1 was released. Before this thread, I don't believe I've ever seen any confusion over the meaning of "fails by X or more".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) If the only thing you find offensive in my post is the use of "rational" then I apologize and feel free to replace it with "of questionable value of time used".
2) Typically when someone doesn't understand something they ask for help. That is notably missing from the OP. They then don't argue with everyone who disagrees with them.
3) My post was more about general gaming culture then the OP. The OP has behaved in a way quite consistent with our community. It doesn't mean it's the best way to behave or we should characterise it as "the only rational course"
|
|
According to op there are 10 steps to crit success but only 9 to crit fail, leading him/her to say that crit fail is more likely.
If we change succeed conditions to beating a DC instead of only matching it then the maths becomes symmetrical. You have an even 10 steps to crit succeed and 10 to crit fail. The chances of critting either side stay the same but the normal pass chance has dropped.
If the DC doesn't succeed or fail, it becomes the middle/fulcrum of the scale. In the actual game system that point exists only theoretically, because you can't have an X.5 value, only X.0 (an integer). Your analogy is false, but you are correct that the odds would be completely equal if the DC was the center and not a success/failure.
You have no bonus and the dc is 15. You roll there are only 6 steps between failure and critical success here. According to OPs logic crit success should be more likely but it obviously isn't.
That is precisely why it makes more sense to talk only about the scale around the DC, rather than the rolls and/or modifiers. When you use the latter, you can use infinite variables and combinations and make it tell any story you want (such as your example being crit success more likely). It makes even more sense to show probability on the DC scale when you consider that it's not usually just one person that rolling against the DC, meaning whole new sets of possible variables in d20 + modifier rolls, each with their own probability percentages.
The origin point of the scale I present is the fulcrum between overall success and overall failure. Because there are only four possible outcomes, the center of the scale is always going to be an (X.5) value, the DC (being a positive/success result) has to be on one side of the origin or the other.
When I mention framing, I mention it for a reason. If you start on that center point, zoomed all the way in, then start zooming out, you have to at least zoom out minimally to the point where you can see the all four of the result categories. Yes, you can keep zooming out, but the numbers are literally infinite then, so the optimal cut-off is the minimum data set needed to demonstrate.
That is why, when using the DC-10 method, a minimum of two values/points/steps for critical failure will be visible by the time you finally see the first value/point/step of critical success. It's literally twice as probable when you measure it that way. You can't quite measure it by a straight die roll, because with 22 values/points/steps in-frame at that time, a lone d20 (regardless of modifiers) cannot meet every result on that scale.
Therefore, 1 out of 22 is 4.5%, 2 is 9%: twice as probable on the minimal scale. That's all that meant. I fully recognize dice rolls change it up and have their own probability percentages depending on the modifier and the DC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What they don't do is pull out a calculator, spend hours crunching numbers. Go to a website. Pose the question. "Discuss" with anyone who disagrees with them and then say "well clearly there is no consensus so now we need an official ruling.
(...)
A GM is running the game. A GM is expected to adjudicate the rules
I've mentioned a few times in this thread, part of my desire for clearer wording is that this involves Pathfinder Society, and uniformity in the game experience (individual GMs have less "final word" flexibility) is supposed to be the key thing there.
I also mentioned that it's entirely possible for someone to not see the glossary entry and make the natural assumption that you've found the best answer/details. If you're just reading the book normally, you'd not even see the glossary - but you would see the full text entry.
But let me reiterate: I favor the DC-10 method, if only because of the simplicity. But I also favor it because failure needs to be more of a potential threat for the PCs, especially coming from PF1e where it's not difficult to get PCs with insane bonuses to the point where they can auto-succeed every possible skill DC, unless you set it so high they're the only member of the party that can succeed.
2) Typically when someone doesn't understand something they ask for help. That is notably missing from the OP. They then don't argue with everyone who disagrees with them.
You're right. I wasn't asking for help. I knew about the wording of the entry and the differing glossary entries (they're not even consistent) before posting. I was drawing attention to what I believe to be a flaw in the wording, and made my case as to why it is a flaw, and that it is also entirely possible for someone to miss the wording in the glossary.
3) My post was more about general gaming culture then the OP. The OP has behaved in a way quite consistent with our community. It doesn't mean it's the best way to behave or we should characterise it as "the only rational course"
If I ever came across as rude, offensive, or overly-argumentative, it certainly wasn't intended.
Like Mathmuse quipped about himself, my line of work and interests also involves being extremely analytical to the point of overthinking. It also involves objectively presenting observations, possibilities, and arguments that run counter to my own conclusions.
And, like you observed about gaming culture, I also expected some of the derision and dismissiveness in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, I agree strongly with John Lynch that this is an “issue” that is very easily resolved at the table with a quick 5 minute conversation and is best handled that way until or rather unless an Errata is release that will change the wording in future reprintings of the book. And even then it is still perfectly rational to use any version of the rules you want at your table, but it is kind to future players at your table to be aware of what has moved from interpretation of the rules to “this is our house rule.”
As a game designer and teacher of writing, my interest in this thread is larger than “winning” my case so I can have the rule I want at my table. I would not consider my participation in this conversation expected player behavior and I sympathize with anyone who regularly plays with people who show up to the table with printouts if message board threads to prove their highly specialized character is rules legal.
I do however, think it is rational as a player, or especially a GM, to look at the major issues on this message board and say, “ah, these are the things that are causing debate for people in play, it is better I talk about this with my table the next time we sit down, so we are not trying to debate this at the point that it is someone’s actual character sitting at dying 2 who just rolled a 2 on the die.”
I've mentioned a few times in this thread, part of my desire for clearer wording is that this involves Pathfinder Society, and uniformity in the game experience (individual GMs have less "final word" flexibility) is supposed to be the key thing there.
Then I would petition the PFS organisers (as they're the GM equivalent) for clarity on this issue. Not mount a case directly to the Paizo devs (which is what this thread feels a lot like and it's not the first time I've seen threads like this).
But here's the thing: My post wasn't actually directed at you. Yes. You fit the description of the person I was describing. But your behaviour is hardly an isolated incident in our community. I've seen it in D&D 4th ed, I've seen it in PF1e and now we're seeing it in PF2e (I wasn't a tabletop gamer before 4th ed so I don't know what it was like back then).
I took umbrage when someone said (or so I interpreted their statement) "well clearly seeking official dev clarification is the only rational course" which is when I responded with my response.
I also mentioned that it's entirely possible for someone to not see the glossary entry and make the natural assumption that you've found the best answer/details. If you're just reading the book normally, you'd not even see the glossary - but you would see the full text entry.
And here's the thing: In a non-PFS setting* a reasonable interpretation is all that matters. It doesn't matter if it's the right interpretation. All that matters is "does this interpretation make the game fun?" and anytime the answer is "no" the rational course of action is to change what your doing. It is NOT rational to check whether or not the Devs intended for that and then follow whatever the devs say no matter what.
There is absolutely nothing rational about that.
*And this is probably a big part of why I dislike organised play with such intensity
You're right. I wasn't asking for help....I was drawing attention to what I believe to be a flaw in the wording, and made my case as to why it is a flaw, and that it is also entirely possible for someone to miss the wording in the glossary.
Thankyou for your honesty. I am glad to see I had correctly judged the situation.
Just to be clear: It was not my intent to label your behaviour as irrational.
If I ever came across as rude, offensive, or overly-argumentative, it certainly wasn't intended.
Nope. I don't think you were rude. Clearly pursuing an agenda. An agenda I personally think has become an unhealthy obsession for our community. But not rude.
And just to be clear: I am not calling your behaviour obsessive or unhealthy. I wouldn't ordinarily feel the need to make this clarififcation, but I know there are a lot of sensitive types out there who get outraged awfully quickly.
And to further clarify: I am not accusing Outrider as being sensitive or insensitive. I have no thoughts or opinions as to the sensitivity, or lack thereof, Outrider has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I took umbrage when someone said (or so I interpreted their statement) "well clearly seeking official dev clarification is the only rational course" which is when I responded with my response.
It was me. I took no offense. I also realized that I was only saying that it was rational, not that it was the only rational position, so I didn't sweat the response.
I'd like to just add one tiny bit of perspective here...
The proud nail gets the hammer. Point is, Paizo has limited resources, and if a thread regarding clarity fizzles after three posts, whatever wording spawned the thread will never get attention and resolution. A thread that examines the topic in exquisite detail not only draws attention because of its sheer size, but also illuminates all sides of the issue so that it's - sort of - easier for Paizo to consider.
I have no stake in this particular discussion, but I wanted to mention I think there's value in it. Especially for a brand new edition that is intended to embrace new players, clarity, consistency, and intuitive reading are all important. If experience players want to make a decision at home how to interpret things, that's valid. But new players shouldn't be expected to do that any more than the instructions for assembling some Ikea furniture should be allowed to be vague because people who do it regularly can just... improvise. No. Do it right.
|
|
I don't see how asymmetry is inherently bad, but changing the rule to be DC-11 for a Crit failure doesn't actually accomplish a symmetrical system, and it's a BAD idea, please don't do it.
I'm curious as to what you think is bad about it, why should we favor one result over the other?
Outriders charts are very misleading in how they arbitrarily have a bigger section for Crit Fails and Crit Successes, they don't depict a valid representation of the spectrum.That's slightly disingenuous. Yes, Outrider is choosing to show more crit failure results than crit successes despite both having an infinite number of values to achieve either. The point they're trying to illustrate though is that if we start at the breakpoint between failure and success, and advance in both directions at an equal rate, we reach crit failure range sooner than crit success
I did not mean to say Outrider is intentionally misleading people with his charts, just that they ARE misleading.
I said his charts are misleading because they DON'T show what you are saying they do.
Sorry, my graphing abilities are not great, and I am pressed for time so I can't give a longer response, but please see the following image of Outrider's graph with the number line added.
You can see that his own graph shows that the exact middle point is 15, not 14.5, it's just not labeled very clearly hence it is misleading.
His reasoning that the exact middle in between Success and Failure is halfway between 14 and 15 is false.
The exact middle point between Success and Failure is still 15 weather we are using dice values or raw numbers it doesn't matter.
Success is slightly more likely because we count the exact middle as Success, but it is erroneous to say that changes the exact middle of the distribution.
If experience players want to make a decision at home how to interpret things, that's valid. But new players shouldn't be expected to do that any more than the instructions for assembling some Ikea furniture should be allowed to be vague because people who do it regularly can just... improvise. No. Do it right.
I fundamentally disagree and I think I've explained why. So I'm happy to move on and let everyone continue discussing the finer points of what "less than 10" actually means.
You know, the thing is, people want to say "critical failure is more likely than critical success" but that is not really accurate.
On any roll, there are infinite totals that end up with Critical Failure or Critical Success.
There are 10 that end up in Success, and 9 that end up in failure.
The reality is that success is in fact, more likely than failure because of ties going to the person rolling.
This is of course, not even counting in the fact that the likelihood of critical failure/failure/success/critical success has much more to do with where the GM places DCs than on whether -10 or -11 from DC counts for critical failure or not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I am honestly surprised so many people feel like the intention is for the range of failure to be only 9 / for ties only to go go to the roller at the line of success/failure, and for the line between failure/critical failure to be intentionally punitive.
It’s because those that understand the math know it’s not punitive at all. The fact that meeting the DC is a success means there’s 1 additional success over failure. That’s the opposite of punitive.
Using DC 15 again, but let’s say instead of a success the 15 is a reroll. You’ve now got 9 numbers for success (16-24) and 9 for failure (14-6) and infinite numbers for critical sin either direction (25 and above & 5 and below). Each side is now exactly equal. Let’s now look at the 15 again, do you want that to be a success (and give you 10 successes) or a failure (and give you 10 failures)? There’s no mathematical reason you would choose to make it a failure.
So why does a flat DC11 make me more likely to critically fail then critically succeed if you remove the the natural 1 & 20 rules? Because the average flat d20 roll is 10.5 so any flat DC above it is skewed to critical failure. A DC10 flat check is just as skewed to critical success as the DC11 was skewed to critical failure but thanks to meeting the DC being a success the DC10 is also more likely to succeed.
Given the 10.5 average d20 roll (and the limit of the number of sides) you cannot have a DC that is equally as likely to succeed by 10 and fail by 10. The natural 1 & 20 rules mean DC10 & DC11 have equal crit success & fail chances which makes DC11 the perfect 50/50 roll. Like with any math equation you can add numbers that cancel out on each side. So +5 bonus for AC16 is still 50/50.
Because DC 10 & 11 are mirrored for crit chances DC 12 the mirror of DC 9. The mirror is being equal sides of that 10.5 average d20 roll.
Hope that helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the basic premise of "crit failures are more likely" is definitely true
It's not. 11 is not the middle of a d20. 10.5 is.
If you do your math based on 11 being the middle, yeah, it'll seem like crit failures are more likely. And if you do your math based on 10 being the middle, it'll seem like crit successes are more likely.
regular successes are also slighlty more likely.
This is correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yes, I agree that the title is problematic, the basic premise of "crit failures are more likely" is definitely true;
It is definitely untrue. It’s entirely dependent on the DC.
You can’t compare DC15 & DC7 because they are 4 away DC11 because DC11 is not the middle.
For instance, if I mistook the middle for DC10:
At DC 14 (DC10+4) you get: 6 points of success (14-19), 9 points of failure (5-13), 1 point of crit success (20), and 4 points of crit failure (1-4).
At DC 6 (DC10-4) you get: 10 points of success (6-15), 4 points of failure (2-5), 5 points of crit success (16-20), 1 point of crit failure (1).
This now makes Crit success look more likely then critical failure. The truth is DC10 isn’t the middle, the middle is 10.5 which is equally in between DC10 & DC11.
If you want to compare numbers on either side of average you need to do so by rounding that 10.5 up and down respective of the direction you are going.
Compare:
DC11 with DC10 (Rounded up with Rounded Down)
DC12 with DC9 (Up+1 with Down-1)
DC15 with DC6 (Up+4 with Down-4)
You and I already broke that last one down:
At DC 15 (DC11+4) you get: 5 points of success (15-19), 9 points of failure (6-14), 1 point of crit success (20), and 5 points of crit failure (1-5).
At DC 6 (DC10-4) you get: 10 points of success (6-15), 4 points of failure (2-5), 5 points of crit success (16-20), 1 point of crit failure (1).
The critical success and failure mirror each other here perfectly. However you are more likely to succeed then fail because of ties going to the roller.