Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[P.F.]

I apologize if I used the wrong terminology.

In my experience people tend to use terms for the worst result on a roll, e.g. "fumble," "critical failure," "both," "glitch," "complication," "complete failure," etc. fairly interchangeably in the common parlance, and people often even combine terms for example "critical fumble".

I was not aware that there was a significant difference between a "fumble" and a "critical failure" in the generic gaming lexicon.

Distinctions of technical versus vernacular aside, the points remain:

1) Insofar as these "more bad" results happen more often, their deleterious effects will likely be less bad than houseruled /optional effects in previous editions, and often only exactly as bad as the "less bad" result;

and, 2) Compared to a climb check under the current rules, where a "more bad" result is already prescribed, it will occur less frequently, not more.

... Assuming implementation in a system similar to the current one, of course, YMMV void where prohibited, etc.

[upho]

I didn't mean to dump on your ideas; I was only saying that personally, there isn't a 9-paladin naming convention that would really satisfy me. I may very well be in a vanishing minority on that sentiment (though obviously I won't think I am until I see it actually work.)

No worries, I think I got that. I just couldn't help noticing that I happened to agree with your distaste when it came to those particular names, and had to admit they were pretty far from what I would find acceptable in a PF book myself.

At which point our metric will be how successful the effort is as a whole. People like to decry argumentum ad populum here - but it doesn't really apply when how popular something is, is actually the question being asked.

Yep. At least once there are some reliable statistics for how popular the P2 paladin is.

Their challenges being the same is kind of the point though; if you're not using alignment as a way to contrast how two different characters approach the same problem, then I would question why you're using it at all.

Sure, but that point is kinda besides my point. Through no fault of yours, I must add, as I didn't really explain this bit at all in my previous post.

To clarify, I'm not just talking about the classic pally "alignment-/code-restricted room for maneuvering"-challenges primarily focusing on the method and means to achieve a certain goal, but also about challenges primarily focusing on the goal and objectives to be achieved, and/or for example the general leanings of society, important NPCs, enemies, allies etc. And in games where alignment related challenges are limited to the mentioned classic method focus, I mostly agree with the claims stating/implying a LG pally is likely more difficult to play than say a NG or CG one. But in games also including challenges with other focuses, there's simply no good reason for those claims to remain true.

So a more succinct phrasing of the question in my previous post would probably be "why should the focus of their challenges be the same?"

It's an element of character, because it's an element of characterization, which in turn informs the overall narrative. Or put another way - there's a reason fantasy authors put paladins (the archetype, not the D&D class) in group dynamics with other good and neutral people. If you had an Avengers where everybody shared ethics with Steve Rogers, it would be pretty dull.

Of course. But I fail to see how this characterization would be lessened by including some alignment challenges specifically tailored to be greater for one (or more) particular PC of a certain alignment, and other challenges tailored to be greater for those of other alignments.

Instead, I'd say that tailoring challenges to the specifics (personality, alignment, background, ambitions, talents etc) of one or more particular PC is the far most effective GM tool for supporting and developing characterizations. And IME, a GM using this tool frequently and skillfully is also the far most commonly shared aspect of games really getting the "characterization + group dynamics + narrative"-ball rolling, allowing for that truly intense immersion, intuitive RP and "larger-than-life RPG magic" to happen.

Sure, but those are all external problems. When a CG character is faced with those, yeah their lives or livelihood might be in danger, but as long as they can avoid the consequences they get to live without any self-doubt. The LG character who has to weigh following the law vs. doing the right thing is facing an internal struggle, and no amount of avoiding authority will quiet that nagging voice in their heads.

This particular struggle for a LG pally doesn't seem to be a thing in P2 judging by the new code, but I think I get what you're trying to say.

First, yes, naturally the specific typical mix of challenges making a certain alignment difficult to play won't be identical to that of another alignment, but that doesn't mean any one such mix have to or should be any more or less difficult to play than another (with the possible exception of E alignments). Second, it's easy for a GM to make a very similar internal struggle an equally great challenge for a CG or even NG character. It may not be about the opposing demands of two alignment components (although it certainly often could be in the case of CG), but perhaps having to choose between protecting the liberty of one individual/group and that of another, between the least short-term suffering and the most long-term happiness, etc, etc.

Note also that while many examples like these focusing solely on doing Good may initially appear as if they should be equally problematic for pallys of any G alignment, they're actually often not in practice. For example, assuming L/C considerations have little practical impact on a NG pally's actions as you said, it follows that neither LG or CG pallys will be able to do as much overall Good as their NG colleagues and remain L or C, respectively. Which of course shouldn't make the NG pally's service any easier, as the most reasonable consequence would be that her single focus comes with significantly higher expectations and demands on her ability to do Good, along with the associated increased risks of performance anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, and potentially even of not living up to her code.

Moreover, Paladins face an additional threat - namely that they can fall no matter whether or not they can successfully evade the authorities.

This is certainly true.

I'm a bit torn on this one actually. For Good it can certainly be blurry distinguishing between CG and NG, especially when it comes to writing up their codes of conduct. But for Evil, I think CE, NE and LE are all very clearly distinguishable - preferring destruction, corruption, and domination respectively. So I do ultimately think 4e got it wrong (with the best of intentions), and they very especially got it wrong by implying that the ends of their single spectrum (LG and CE) amount to "best good" and "worst evil", respectively.

'Aight. Hmm... Personally, I feel that if simply ditching mechanics using objective alignments (like D&D1e-4e/PF1) by default remains too great a commercial risk, the alignments really need to be more clearly and distinctly defined and exemplified than in 3.5/P1. And I agree this is especially true in the case of CG and NG and their associated codes. If this actually proves to be a too difficult a task for any of the 9 PF alignments, I do think the number of alignments should be cut and/or the entire system should be altered, and I'm not really sure how. Without alignments flexible, consistent, clear and distinct enough to actually serve their intended purpose in related mechanics, such as the paladin code(s), I don't see much point in having a system of objective alignments in the first place, and the related mechanics will hinder rather than aid fun.

Re: the 4e alignments, I agree the system partially, if unintentionally, did imply a single spectrum. But I wouldn't say that LG and CE represented the extremes of Good and Evil per se. Instead, IIRC the merging of NG, CG, LE and NE into G and E where made primarily due to the devs not considering their differences meaningful enough to matter in practice. Which I actually agree with if going by previous editions' definitions of those alignments and related WoTC monster/NPC descriptions. I also suspect the LG and CE alignments where kept because a lot of people - including many WoTC writers over the years - intuitively placed many qualities/actions previously defined as exclusively L/C on the G/E axis as well (such as honesty, deception/lies, stealing and cheating). Which I find unfortunate, since I really believe those qualities/actions do belong solely on the L/C axis, and by keeping the LG and CE alignments, 4e simply further confused what should've been firmly U qualities/actions with G/E ones, on top of further implying a single LG/CE axis.

I kinda like the concept of a catch-all Unaligned category, making it clear many qualities/actions fall outside the alignments defined by the game, as even qualities/actions which may partially fit those definitions often have primary philosophical motivations and implications that don't. I think the greatest advantage of such a category is the freedom it allows for in related fluff, such as descriptions of deities and their dogmas. Some such fluff tagged "U" in 4e would've been poorly served by being forced into one of the alignment boxes of previous editions, for example due to incorporating both strongly L and strongly C components (like that of the Kord dogma and the related pally code I touched upon earlier).

[137beth]

There's A blog about monster stat blocks. They are listing only abilithy score modifiers, which raises the question as to whether it will still be possible to do odd ability damage to monsters. More importantly, it would make it more difficult to advance monsters by adding class levels. Of course, making it harder to advance and customize monsters also increases the demand for more "new" monster stat-blocks, which might increase sales of future bestiaries.

[stack]

There's A blog about monster stat blocks. They are listing only abilithy score modifiers, which raises the question as to whether it will still be possible to do odd ability damage to monsters. More importantly, it would make it more difficult to advance monsters by adding class levels. Of course, making it harder to advance and customize monsters also increases the demand for more "new" monster stat-blocks, which might increase sales of future bestiaries.

I don't know if it has been definitely stated, but my impression is that ability damage won't work the same anyhow, replaced with statuses (weakened 2 applying -2 to strength stuff) instead, so that probably doesn't matter. Not terribly hard to back-calculate the stat from the mod anyhow. Seems like most boosts are by even number anyway. I wish they would make everything just use the mods instead of wasting time and space on ability scores.

[Pex]

The whole idea is that critical failure =/= fumble, as in a critical failure attack roll would resolve to "miss the target." However, this critical miss could trigger certain effects for the target if they have the appropriate feats, class features, etc. So while missing by 10 or more / rolling a 1 and missing could cause you to suffer an AoO, it would be because your target has invested in this ability, not because you fumbled. And accidentally dropping your weapon, stabbing yourself, tripping over your own sword, etc, are off the table.

So probably it won't be a problem for most things where critical failure == failure, unless someone is actively contesting you. For something like a climb check it would make critical failures much less likely on average.

But yeah, we'll have to see how it's implemented to evaluate for sure.

That would be fair in concept. A game resource was spent to enable an ability to trigger when someone critically fails. The ability is a logical consequence of the thing causing the critical fail to happen. The consequence would not be "for the lulz" or otherwise kill yourself literally or figuratively. My worry is what the consequence would be when critically failing against a monster ability. To be blunt, Pathfinder did a good job of moving away from save or die. I hope they don't reverse the trend. Roll a 1 and die is just as bad.

I remember reading a critical fail against a damage dealing spell meant you take double damage. I'm not happy with that result. An extra 50% damage, maybe. A rider effect, possibly. Double damage might as well be roll a 1 and die.

I know it could be roll 10 or more less than DC. "Roll a 1" is easier to get the meaning.

[NomGarret]

That would be fair in concept. A game resource was spent to enable an ability to trigger when someone critically fails. The ability is a logical consequence of the thing causing the critical fail to happen. The consequence would not be "for the lulz" or otherwise kill yourself literally or figuratively. My worry is what the consequence would be when critically failing against a monster ability. To be blunt, Pathfinder did a good job of moving away from save or die. I hope they don't reverse the trend. Roll a 1 and die is just as bad.

I remember reading a critical fail against a damage dealing spell meant you take double damage. I'm not happy with that result. An extra 50% damage, maybe. A rider effect, possibly. Double damage might as well be roll a 1 and die.

I know it could be roll 10 or more less than DC. "Roll a 1" is easier to get the meaning.

Depends on the damage of the spell. If spell damage in general is scaled back to account for this, it might not be so bad.

[User_Undefined]

Well, they've shown that a 5th level Cone of Cold does 11d6 damage. That's the same base damage as PF1, but they didn't show the full spell write up, so it's impossible to say how or if it scales by heightening.

[stack]

Wizard preview is up.

[Pex]

A low roll on Diviner's Sight cannot help an ally not get a critical failure because the ally has to choose the Diviner's Sight roll before he rolls his saving throw. Why have a guaranteed fail save when you can roll and get a success?

[Kurald Galain]

A low roll on Diviner's Sight cannot help an ally not get a critical failure because the ally has to choose the Diviner's Sight roll before he rolls his saving throw. Why have a guaranteed fail save when you can roll and get a success?

Because in some situations you can value the guarantee of not crit-failing higher than the chance of succeeding.

[137beth]

So once again, wizards get a bunch of unique, non-numerical abilities right at first level. Fighters and rogues have to wait until 14th level to get a minor number boost.

[skaddix]

Well sure but they took away the Wizards bonus spells so its all good.
They also have to pay feats for some of their previous free class abilities granted you now get way more feats so will see how that balances out.

But sheesh Universal Seems Buffed.

[Kurald Galain]

So once again, wizards get a bunch of unique, non-numerical abilities right at first level. Fighters and rogues have to wait until 14th level to get a minor number boost.

The level requirement on shield-to-reflex is stupid, yes. That said, fighters do get actual abilities (and action economy advantage) right from level one.

But sheesh Universal Seems Buffed.

Universal needs buffing (compared to school specialization) because it's always been a really bad choice in PF.

[skaddix]

The level requirement on shield-to-reflex is stupid, yes. That said, fighters do get actual abilities (and action economy advantage) right from level one.


Universal needs buffing (compared to school specialization) because it's always been a really bad choice in PF.

True enough...I am curious to see more cause right now it seems flat out the best. The Divination ability didn't impress me much.

Honestly what confuses me most about PF2 is its so suppose to be easier to play and yet you got more feats flip through and select, the resource pools don't seem as streamlined (cleric is really bad at this you got spell, spell points and healing pool) and you got 4 potential spell effects.

[Kurald Galain]

True enough...I am curious to see more cause right now it seems flat out the best. The Divination ability didn't impress me much.

It's usable in addition to casting a spell on your turn, and strikes me as effective support for any teammate under an ongoing (save-each-round) effect or anyone making a skill check in combat. It would be even better if it applied to attack rolls, of course, but it's pretty good for a level-1 ability.

Honestly what confuses me most about PF2 is its so suppose to be easier to play and yet you got more feats flip through and select, the resource pools don't seem as streamlined (cleric is really bad at this you got spell, spell points and healing pool) and you got 4 potential spell effects.

Valid concerns, yes. I think there will actually be less feats due to categorization (e.g. clerics pick a cleric feat or a skill feat, not one from a central lists of thousands) so they're more like Arcana/Exploits/Tricks from P1. Clerics do appear to have too many resource pools, but they have even more in P1 (i.e. spells, spells-as-healing, channel, two different domains with two abilities each, and possibly one more from your archetype). P2 cleric healing should arguably use spell points, that's what they're for.

[Kurald Galain]

An interesting tidbit from the discussion at Paizo,

Some player states that "Martial characters SHOULD have access to viable crowd control options, or "AOE-esque" abilities. Maybe in the form of a "ground pound" that creates a small earthquake, or by firing a volley of arrows, or doing a massive spin swing that covers a small area, or creating a pressure wave with their sword swing that covers a small arc in front of them." and the designer responds that all of these AND others are available to martial characters.

[Morty]

Yeah, nothing surprising here. Wizards have spells, they prepare those spells and cast them. I'm not too thrilled about all the goodies they get on top of those spells, though. They want to make wizards more customizable, and that's fine, but they're already the most diverse class just by the giant pile of spells they get. If you stripped them of all feats and features, you could still have two wizards who act completely differently.

They bravely keep on trying to make Magic Missile relevant. 3d4+3 damage without a roll isn't bad, but is it worth three actions and a spell slot? Is it equal to Sleep or Color Spray? Or will they try to make those spells less likely to end encounters this time around? The acrobatics to balance Sleep as a 1st-level AOE disable have always been entertaining.

[Scowling Dragon]

Some player states that "Martial characters SHOULD have access to viable crowd control options, or "AOE-esque" abilities. Maybe in the form of a "ground pound" that creates a small earthquake, or by firing a volley of arrows, or doing a massive spin swing that covers a small area, or creating a pressure wave with their sword swing that covers a small arc in front of them." and the designer responds that all of these AND others are available to martial characters.

They have been available in regular pathfinder as well. The question is: Which level.

So far the design standard has been: About 10 levels after the wizard has been doing it.

[skaddix]

Yeah they seem more late game when the Wizard can drop Meteor Swarm or Freeze Time.

It's usable in addition to casting a spell on your turn, and strikes me as effective support for any teammate under an ongoing (save-each-round) effect or anyone making a skill check in combat. It would be even better if it applied to attack rolls, of course, but it's pretty good for a level-1 ability.


Valid concerns, yes. I think there will actually be less feats due to categorization (e.g. clerics pick a cleric feat or a skill feat, not one from a central lists of thousands) so they're more like Arcana/Exploits/Tricks from P1. Clerics do appear to have too many resource pools, but they have even more in P1 (i.e. spells, spells-as-healing, channel, two different domains with two abilities each, and possibly one more from your archetype). P2 cleric healing should arguably use spell points, that's what they're for.

Well sure I just don't think the core ability of school should only be good for helping teammates.

Fair Enough.

[Kurald Galain]

They bravely keep on trying to make Magic Missile relevant. 3d4+3 damage without a roll isn't bad, but is it worth three actions and a spell slot? Is it equal to Sleep or Color Spray? Or will they try to make those spells less likely to end encounters this time around?

If I understand correctly, Sleep will disable enemies only on a critical failure on the saving throw, which means that it's much more likely to work on a group of lower-level enemies than on a single higher-level enemy. On a regular failure the enemy will probably end up slowed or something.

Yeah they seem more late game when the Wizard can drop Meteor Swarm or Freeze Time.

There is no reason to assume that e.g. reach weapon + combat reflexes (which is available to a level one fighter in P1) would suddenly require a seventeenth level fighter in P2. But yes, the level gate on shield-to-reflex is silly, and I hope we're not seeing more of that. We'll have twelve months to point this out to Paizo; they've already made a couple of adjustments based on forum feedback, and the playtest hasn't even started yet.

Well sure I just don't think the core ability of school should only be good for helping teammates.

Diviner's Sight can target yourself, as you are a willing creature within 30'.

[skaddix]

I guess...I suppose I like it more if worked on Attack Rolls...better not be a feat tax for that.
Also its not a free action so depending on how many actions it cost relative to spells which seem to usually cost 2 actions.

[Scowling Dragon]

they've already made a couple of adjustments based on forum feedback, and the playtest hasn't even started yet.

Really? Also they pretty much said their playtest is pretty much mostly set as it is.

[Kurald Galain]

Really? Also they pretty much said their playtest is pretty much mostly set as it is.

Yes really (e.g. alchemist bombs were two-handed initially and they're one-handed now). The whole point of a playtest is to adjust rules before you publish the finished product. What is "pretty much mostly set as it is" is fundamental things like the list of races/classes, the three-action and four-result system, and so forth. What is up to debate is a huge number of important details like whether class X should be proficient with skill/weapon Y, the level and scaling of specific spells, the properties of individual weapons and so forth. And if someone find a way to break the game, the devteam can fix it.

[Morty]

If I understand correctly, Sleep will disable enemies only on a critical failure on the saving throw, which means that it's much more likely to work on a group of lower-level enemies than on a single higher-level enemy. On a regular failure the enemy will probably end up slowed or something.

That is certainly better. Does spending more actions let you affect more enemies?

As far as the promised martial exploits go... kind of hard to discuss them in a complete vacuum. When we got the wizard, cleric and paladin previews, we had a fairly detailed account of their class features, feats and spells. Alchemists likewise, only in their case it was alchemical items they can make. But fighters and rogues only had class features and feats, which ranged from pretty good (the fighters' action economy tricks) to lukewarm (basically everything about rogues, the aforementioned shield to reflex at level 14). And they keep using the fighter's first level feat, sudden charge, as an example of what they can do.

The abilities they apparently talk about elsewhere could make for a wide toolset of non-magical exploits, or they can boil down to "you can do this one thing by spending an extra action when you reach level 15".

[Starbuck_II]

They bravely keep on trying to make Magic Missile relevant. 3d4+3 damage without a roll isn't bad, but is it worth three actions and a spell slot? Is it equal to Sleep or Color Spray? Or will they try to make those spells less likely to end encounters this time around? The acrobatics to balance Sleep as a 1st-level AOE disable have always been entertaining.

Designers said at the blog posts below that they don't want MM to be that great unless it is special circumstances like ghosts. Well, the actual post was about heightened version not stacking up with higher level spells, but seems same reason.

[Morty]

"Mediocre but guaranteed damage even against incorporeal targets" is a pretty decent niche, I suppose. At least it can actually hurt something at level 1, instead of tickling it.

[Pex]

They are applying the 5E method of upcasting, so I don't think increasing caster level increases spell power is a thing anymore. 3d4 + 3 damage is good enough for low level. When that's obsolete but you really want the guaranteed damage you could cast it as a 4th level spell for 6d4 + 6. Mileage varies if that's worth it for you, but it's there. The value of the spell should be compared to how P2 works not P1.

[upho]

Nothing really stands out in the wizard preview IMO, except perhaps that it at least appears to follow the PDT's earlier implications they've tried to tone down relative caster power. Again, too early so say how much in comparison to P1, or if at all, really. But I think this at least show some hope P2 wizards will turn out to be both fun and less OP.

An interesting tidbit from the discussion at Paizo,

Some player states that "Martial characters SHOULD have access to viable crowd control options, or "AOE-esque" abilities. Maybe in the form of a "ground pound" that creates a small earthquake, or by firing a volley of arrows, or doing a massive spin swing that covers a small area, or creating a pressure wave with their sword swing that covers a small arc in front of them." and the designer responds that all of these AND others are available to martial characters.

Noticed this as well, which made me curious as to why they haven't chosen to reveal any such tidbits in more detail, instead of the largely mediocre stuff we got from the weapons, fighter and rogue blogs.

There is no reason to assume that e.g. reach weapon + combat reflexes (which is available to a level one fighter in P1) would suddenly require a seventeenth level fighter in P2. But yes, the level gate on shield-to-reflex is silly, and I hope we're not seeing more of that. We'll have twelve months to point this out to Paizo; they've already made a couple of adjustments based on forum feedback, and the playtest hasn't even started yet.

Actually, I believe there's a very valid reason for precisely that assumption; nothing revealed so far breaks the 1 Immediate Action (AoO)/round rule. A few revealed mostly damage related abilities may possibly provide similar but far more limited effects, such as the Cleave feat or the Axes weapon group Crit Specialization. So while a fighter may potentially damage more than one target/action, so far there's nothing offering the same level of control or AoE potential as that of P1's reach + Combat Reflexes.

"Mediocre but guaranteed damage even against incorporeal targets" is a pretty decent niche, I suppose. At least it can actually hurt something at level 1, instead of tickling it.

Yeah, I think this may be decent enough. I might've preferred heightening effects providing a few more significant mechanical changes rather than just numeric boosts to damage, but I can see how that kinda risks defeating the apparent purpose here.

[137beth]

PaizoCon is starting today. I wonder what they will reveal about Pathfinder 2 during the convention.

[stack]

PaizoCon is starting today. I wonder what they will reveal about Pathfinder 2 during the convention.

All iconic art will be replaced with enormous piles of pouches and straps.