|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chapter 9: Playing the Game / General Rules / Checks / Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success
...
If you rolled a 20 on the die (a “natural 20”), your result is one degree of success better than it would be by numbers alone. If you roll a 1 on the d20 (a “natural 1”), your result is one degree worse. This means that a natural 20 usually results in a critical success and natural 1 usually results in a critical failure. However, if you were going up against a very high DC, you might get only a success with a natural 20, or even a failure if 20 plus your total modifier is 10 or more below the DC. Likewise, if your modifier for a statistic is so high that adding it to a 1 from your d20 roll exceeds the DC by 10 or more, you can succeed even if you roll a natural 1! If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead.
Page 278 appears not to have been updated for the changes from the playtest, or perhaps just over-summarizes. Taja's quote is the relevant rule. Hopefully the errata/update document coming out today will change page 278.
ok, so there is a need for errata on page 278. Thanks.
Paizo - heres to hoping your monitoring your boards :-)
I think they try to monitor everything for errata, but this one has been reported in a thread they definitely check.
This question is not addressed in that thread, in any designer discussion, or in the Errata 1.0.
In an earlier thread I started on this same topic, someone linked to a video where Jason Bulmahn treats a natural 20 as one degree of success higher, in contradiction with this language on page 278.
They need to address this!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This question is not addressed in that thread, in any designer discussion, or in the Errata 1.0.
In an earlier thread I started on this same topic, someone linked to a video where Jason Bulmahn treats a natural 20 as one degree of success higher, in contradiction with this language on page 278.
They need to address this!
Hence why they said "Has been reported" not "has been addressed"
Reading is FUNdamental! :)
The rules for the Critical Hit deck back up the wording on p278. They say to draw a card, “whenever a PC scores a critical hit DUE TO A NATURAL 20 on the die roll.” The wording is the similar on the Critical Fumble deck too. There is no clause about, if the natural 20 would’ve resulted in a successful Strike or anything like that. “Regular” crits do not result in a card draw.
Taken together, Paizo seems to be saying that a natural 20 is always a crit. This suggests p445 needs to be fixed.
I’ve found this confusing since the first time I read the RCB, and I was surprised it was not clarified in the first round of errata. Its an important point that comes up a lot since its so much easier to crit now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This question is not addressed in that thread, in any designer discussion, or in the Errata 1.0.
In an earlier thread I started on this same topic, someone linked to a video where Jason Bulmahn treats a natural 20 as one degree of success higher, in contradiction with this language on page 278.
They need to address this!
The rules for the Critical Hit deck back up the wording on p278. They say to draw a card, “whenever a PC scores a critical hit DUE TO A NATURAL 20 on the die roll.” The wording is the similar on the Critical Fumble deck too. There is no clause about, if the natural 20 would’ve resulted in a successful Strike or anything like that. “Regular” crits do not result in a card draw.
Taken together, Paizo seems to be saying that a natural 20 is always a crit. This suggests p445 needs to be fixed.
I’ve found this confusing since the first time I read the RCB, and I was surprised it was not clarified in the first round of errata. Its an important point that comes up a lot since its so much easier to crit now.
One of the developers, Mark Seifter, has confirmed that the “one degree of success” interpretation is correct. So p445 is correct.
Fortunately, this rarely comes up, since the two rules only yield different results when facing extraordinarily difficult DCs relative to your level.
EDIT: I said “confirmed”, but this was before the official release (but after the book was shipped to the printer), so Mark’s a little cagey, merely describing the virtues of the degree of success approach over the “a 20 always crits” alternative.