Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[NomGarret]

So the monster preview is up:

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v574...lding-Monsters

DR and Energy resistance are getting merged and vulnerability now adds a specific amount, rather than a multiplier. So, pretty much exactly what 4e did.

They realized that a lot of monsters were same-y. The example given was how little difference there was between a tiger and an owlbear. So we're going to get extra abilities to further distinguish what happens when one bites you vs when the other bites you. Conversely, some of the monsters that have thusfar been cluttered with abilities (usually spells or SLAs) that either don't see much use or don't advance a narrative will have those ability lists trimmed down.

Lastly, how will they handle multiattacks in a 3-action system? By getting action options that involve pooling their attacks. Rather than rolling each tentacle slap, an octopus might get some slapping fury attack that costs two actions and gets bonus accuracy and damage from using 4 or more tentacles at a time.

All in all, I like it more than I've liked some of the other previews. There is certainly plenty that rests on execution, but there's a sign that they recognize shortcomings and have an idea of the direction they want to take things.

[Cosi]

As repeatedly said above, the D&D Paladin is specifically built on the trope Right Makes Might. If you dislike this trope, you should accept the fact that numerous other players do like it (bear in mind that this is not the class-that-everybody-hates, but that it is controversial). If you dislike the trope so much that you want to prohibit everyone from playing it entirely, then the game should either have no paladin at all, or should find a different way of setting paladins apart as a class. Basically, give it a reason to exist. I note that so far, no such way has been proposed in this thread, so it's quite possible that there isn't one.

Is there a reason Paladins can't simply be Knights who took the Cleric feat/kit/subclass/trait/whatever and happen to serve whatever god the PC believes is Righteous (and therefor Mighty)? The status quo means that people who identify with any moral philosophy that isn't both Lawful and Good aren't allowed to draw power from that philosophy, which is dumb and bad.

Look, "Lawful" and "Good" are not meaningless.

Ask ten people what it means to be "Good". I doubt you'll get any useful agreement, particularly not on any difficult questions (which, of course, are where the answers matter). Now ask ten people what Utilitarianism is (you may have to ask ten philosophers, I imagine most people don't know or care about specific moral philosophies). I suspect you'll get a very consistent set of answers. That's what I mean when I say Good is meaningless. The question "what is Good" is perhaps the oldest question in philosophy, and there is nothing approaching consensus on it.

In the end, Paizo is not enforcing specific moral principles. Look at the paladin code:

That makes it even worse! You can't say "you have a strict moral code that is objective and important" and then not define it.

DR and Energy resistance are getting merged and vulnerability now adds a specific amount, rather than a multiplier. So, pretty much exactly what 4e did.

I think "this monster is resistant to this thing" and "this monster is vulnerable to this thing" are concepts that should be kept separate. Werewolves are supposed to be vulnerable to silver, while Fire Elementals are supposed to be immune to fire. Merging those concepts means that one (or possibly both) of those entries is going to be way longer than it needs to be, and that the introduction of new damage types breaks existing puzzle monsters.

They realized that a lot of monsters were same-y. The example given was how little difference there was between a tiger and an owlbear. So we're going to get extra abilities to further distinguish what happens when one bites you vs when the other bites you.

I really don't look forward to having to track separate status effects for each of the dozen mooks in a fight. Some creatures need to be simple, because some battles are going to involve large numbers of those creatures.

Conversely, some of the monsters that have thusfar been cluttered with abilities (usually spells or SLAs) that either don't see much use or don't advance a narrative will have those ability lists trimmed down.

I suspect that in practice this will result in monsters losing utility abilities that made them interesting to design adventures around.

Lastly, how will they handle multiattacks in a 3-action system? By getting action options that involve pooling their attacks. Rather than rolling each tentacle slap, an octopus might get some slapping fury attack that costs two actions and gets bonus accuracy and damage from using 4 or more tentacles at a time.

This is correct and good. Rolling six or more times to resolve an attack routine is stupid.

[Scowling Dragon]

Werewolves are vulnerable to silver...because their supposed to be invulnerable to everything else.

For them at least, increased vulnerability makes less sense then Damage Resistance.

[Starbuck_II]

Werewolves are vulnerable to silver...because their supposed to be invulnerable to everything else.

For them at least, increased vulnerability makes less sense then Damage Resistance.

Now Werewolves take reduced damage from attacks (except silver)
Normal damage from fire/etc
Extra damage from silver.

Which is why you use silver bullets, they barely take any damage from regular bullets, but they now take an extra punch from silver.

[Cosi]

Oh, so what they've really done isn't "consolidate DR and resistance" but "rename DR to vulnerability and add more HP bloat". Yeah, that's stupid and they shouldn't have done it. HP numbers are already too large.

[NomGarret]

I really don't look forward to having to track separate status effects for each of the dozen mooks in a fight. Some creatures need to be simple, because some battles are going to involve large numbers of those creatures.

I doubt it’ll be all that much more. Add a rider here or there. That’s easy enough to track unless you have 6 different mooks in one encounter.

[Talakeal]

I think it is weird that more people aren't freaking about them adding critical failures to the game. I have been using a very similar system in Heart of Darkness for years,* and the amount of flak I get online (but strangely not in live playtests) for including fumbles is staggering, and it is one of the staple threads on this and other forums is "lets get together and bitch about our GMs critical failure house rules". It just seems weird that people seem so accepting of PF implementing it.

On the topic of paladins I am very dissapointed that they made them devoted to gods. That is a very common house rule for d&d and one that I have never liked. I really think they should be working hard to push the two classes further apart, but right now paladins and clerics looks very samey.


On the whole, PF2 seems weird. I guess they had to do something as without 4e to drive people away from D&D PF is losing market share to 5e, but the whole appeal of PF was that it was compatible with 3E but still in print.

PF2 looks to be very similar to 5e with nothing really distinctive to set it apart, and without a hook or the power of the D&D brand behind it it seems destined to share the same fate as the fantasy heartbreakers of old.




*Identical actually, except thst my margin for a critical is twenty rather than ten and I kept confirmation rolls for natural ones and twenties.

[Morty]

They're certainly taking a lot from 4e here. Not that it's a bad thing; 4e had a lot of good ideas when it came to monster design. One problem it had was applying it to NPCs, which made it hard to create them as enemies. Let's say I want to make an evil knight the villain of my campaign. In core 3e/PF, I can just make an NPC human fighter. Who will be laughably inept as a villain, but nonetheless there. In 4e? I guess I could reskin a hobgoblin chieftain. I wonder how PF 2e will deal with this.

Anyhow, I'm not convinced about the emphasis on damage types, because I'm not sure how "dynamic" it's really going to be. It seems like it'll just make every weapon-user carry three or two weapons (since some deal two types of damage) and swap out as necessary. Which either costs them nothing, if they know what they're dealing with, or one or two actions if they're surprised.

An ideal situation would be one where you face multiple weaknesses and resistances and the party has multiple damage types. Facing skeletons means bludgeoning damage is the best; facing both skeletons and zombies means you actually need to pick your targets. But how often is this going to happen?

This also means they have to provide finesse and ranged weapons that deal slashing and bludgeoning damage, rather than piercing all around.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it is weird that more people aren't freaking about them adding critical failures to the game. I have been using a very similar system in Heart of Darkness for years,* and the amount of flak I get online (but strangely not in live playtests) for including fumbles is staggering, and it is one of the staple threads on this and other forums is "lets get together and bitch about our GMs critical failure house rules". It just seems weird that people seem so accepting of PF implementing it.

I'm not surprised. People in general don't mind fumbles, they mind stupid fumbles. Like the kind where you stab yourself if you fumble an attack roll; but not the kind where you fall if you botch a climbing check.

By codifying the non-stupid kind of fumbles (which appears to be what they're doing so far) they prevent GMs from houseruling in the stupid kind of fumbles.

[Psyren]

@Alignment and The Planes:

I´m also a bit torn how things developed for Golarion. The three lower planes are pretty distinctive and covered quite well by the various Books of the Damned, while the three upper planes have more or less morphed into one entity and the neutral planes have more or less stopped being planes at all, instead of being functions of the multiverse now. It´s a bit... odd... but I wouldn't say that I don't like it.

I like all the outer planes actually and think they feel distinct. The only blurry area I see is between NG and CG, though even there you can lean into the "lovable jokester" aspect of the latter's denizens to help set it apart.

I think it is weird that more people aren't freaking about them adding critical failures to the game.

As Kurald mentioned, having Paizo define these effects is actually better than letting jerk GMs come up with their own, which are more likely to be fatal (both to the player and to their party.)

[Baroncognito]

Ask ten people what it means to be "Good". I doubt you'll get any useful agreement, particularly not on any difficult questions (which, of course, are where the answers matter). Now ask ten people what Utilitarianism is (you may have to ask ten philosophers, I imagine most people don't know or care about specific moral philosophies). I suspect you'll get a very consistent set of answers. That's what I mean when I say Good is meaningless. The question "what is Good" is perhaps the oldest question in philosophy, and there is nothing approaching consensus on it.

Ask ten people what it means to have honor and I imagine you'd have a similar problem. I really don't think "Ask ten people and see what the consensus is" is really the best method for determining what's meaningful.

That makes it even worse! You can't say "you have a strict moral code that is objective and important" and then not define it.

Okay, now you're complaining both that you don't want specific moral principles of the designers forced and that they really need to get more specific about that strict moral code.

They say that there are things you and your GM have to decide on. There will always be context to actions that prevent people who lack that context from being able to decide if an action is evil, good, or neither.

There are discussions to be had. You will have to talk to your GM and other players at the table. You will have a discussion about what is good and what is not. This is not a bad thing. Maybe everyone won't agree, but the GM will make a ruling. It is a game, one of the rare occasions in which there is a higher power to appeal to to make decisions.

Most of the time, the question of "Is this good" or "Is this evil" will not be contentious. A paladin will make a decision and no one will second guess it.

[upho]

As repeatedly said above, the D&D Paladin is specifically built on the trope Right Makes Might.

And as repeatedly said above, that trope is NOT the sole basis for the D&D Paladin, as clearly evidenced in flavor as well as mechanics.

And more importantly, especially if an entire class actually was based on that trope, it's bad for the game to claim that only one alignment out of nine is "Right Enough To Make Might". To illustrate this, one can simply look at the history of the original concept of the Paladin, which was born hundreds of years ago from the romanticized ideals and religious beliefs of famous crusaders. And at least if judging by the "Mighty" actions motivated by those "Right" ideals and beliefs, the Paladin wouldn't be defined as Lawful or Good by a majority of people in D&D settings or the real world at any point in history. For example, I'm pretty certain you'll agree we can safely assume few of the Saracens at the time would call what they remembered as murdering hordes of religious fanatics invading their land "Right", even if they might agree their conviction and dedication made them "Mighty". Likewise, if "Dedication To LG Makes Might" is true in PF, so should "Dedication To Non-LG Alignment Makes Might" be.

If you dislike this trope, you should accept the fact that numerous other players do like it (bear in mind that this is not the class-that-everybody-hates, but that it is controversial). If you dislike the trope so much that you want to prohibit everyone from playing it entirely, then the game should either have no paladin at all, or should find a different way of setting paladins apart as a class. Basically, give it a reason to exist. I note that so far, no such way has been proposed in this thread, so it's quite possible that there isn't one.

AFAICT, several posters in this thread have expressed they disagree with your claim and the P1 rules that the trope can only be translated into "LG Makes Might". Many of those posters have also proposed rules changes, including for example allowing paladins of non-LG alignments, changing or removing the alignment system, basing Paladin codes solely on the commandments of the deities served rather than alignment per se, and removing the cleric as a class.

More importantly, it seems you keep missing that limiting all paladins to any one single alignment does not in itself give the class more of a reason to exist, nor is LG the sole alignment able to reflect the "Right" in the "Right Makes Might" trope.

AFAICT, you have even repeatedly, if indirectly, confirmed the first bit yourself:

And all of those are mechanics, rather than flavor. The central trope here is this one, not anything related to clerical spellcasting. And defining a paladins as 'champion of a deity' tends to make their flavor indistinguishable from clerics.

Yeah, the question is not so much what you can find in a thesaurus, but how exactly this is different from a melee-based cleric again.

The point is that although the mechanics have changed throughout the editions, the various paladins have always been based on the concept of "Right Makes Might". Some people really dislike this concept, and that's fine. But if you make up a paladin without it, you end up with something that's conceptually identical to the cleric. And at that point there's no reason to have a distinct paladin class at all, any more.

According to what you've posted on this subject so far, LG clerics should no longer be allowed in PF and they never should've been, as such clerics threaten to remove the far most important distinguishing feature of the paladin class and render the "LG Makes Might" version of the trope meaningless. Why have you not said as much?

[Cosi]

Ask ten people what it means to have honor and I imagine you'd have a similar problem. I really don't think "Ask ten people and see what the consensus is" is really the best method for determining what's meaningful.

Well if you're not going to define the term, and people can't agree what the term means, what's the value in using the term?

Okay, now you're complaining both that you don't want specific moral principles of the designers forced and that they really need to get more specific about that strict moral code.

My complaint is that you can't declare that it is very important that someone follow a moral code, and then not present that moral code.

[Baroncognito]

Well if you're not going to define the term, and people can't agree what the term means, what's the value in using the term?

I'm not saying people can't agree what the term means. I'm saying that if you ask people to define the terms, you'll get different answers. If you ask people questions about what is, or isn't honorable, you might get different answers (depending on how much context you provide).

HOWEVER: Neither of those things means people can't agree what a term means. If you get people together to actively discuss things, you'll get some sort of consensus in the group about what they can agree is honorable, good, or lawful.

This is more or less what happens with every word. We come to an agreement as to what the word means. You'll get different opinions about what a berry is depending upon who you ask, but reasonable people can come to an agreement.

My complaint is that you can't declare that it is very important that someone follow a moral code, and then not present that moral code.

1) This isn't even the playtest yet. This is the teaser, to keep appetites whetted.

2) It seems like, to some extent, the exact code will vary from deity to deity. In the example they gave, Shelyn's paladins never attack first except to protect an innocent.

3) They do give four tenets of code, that, while not explicitly defined in all terms by the developers, do provide enough that your gaming group can come to an agreement as to what each phrase means.

[Pex]

I think it is weird that more people aren't freaking about them adding critical failures to the game. I have been using a very similar system in Heart of Darkness for years,* and the amount of flak I get online (but strangely not in live playtests) for including fumbles is staggering, and it is one of the staple threads on this and other forums is "lets get together and bitch about our GMs critical failure house rules". It just seems weird that people seem so accepting of PF implementing it.

I don't like it at all. If their critical failure card deck is any indication, I am incensed hating with all the rage in the universe about it. However, I need to see its implementation before I give my final judgment of doom I'd rather play 5E so there kind of admonishing. The chickens haven't hatched yet to be counted.

[Psyren]

1) This isn't even the playtest yet. This is the teaser, to keep appetites whetted.

2) It seems like, to some extent, the exact code will vary from deity to deity. In the example they gave, Shelyn's paladins never attack first except to protect an innocent.

3) They do give four tenets of code, that, while not explicitly defined in all terms by the developers, do provide enough that your gaming group can come to an agreement as to what each phrase means.

I'll add also that expecting the code, and "good acts" in general to be exhaustively defined in the core game seems rather persnickety. Past editions of the game have done fine with a "morality splat' (or splats) that goes into more detail on that sort of thing for those groups who really want detailed guidance.

[Kurald Galain]

I'll add also that expecting the code, and "good acts" in general to be exhaustively defined in the core game seems rather persnickety. Past editions of the game have done fine with a "morality splat' (or splats) that goes into more detail on that sort of thing for those groups who really want detailed guidance.

Precisely. This isn't Magic: the Gathering, and most players do not want the rulebook to legalistically define every single term used in the game.

[JyP]

the LG Paladin is a traditional literary archetype, and the other eight are just a set of mechanics with no coherent flavor. Outside of forums like this one, players care far more about flavor than about mechanics.

Let's note that D&D Paladin is described as having faith & social obligations through its code of conduct - which would explain his spells & class features through faith, which goes well with Galahad in Arthurian legends for example.

Curiously, D&D Clerics don't have such restraints described - as they are able to do even more miracles, they should have an even stricter code of conduct to explain their close link with their Deity, and moreover should only gain more powers through repeated trials to temper their faith. I feel clerics having no code of conduct at all a kind of double standard, as they should be even more restricted than paladins through their faith - storywise at least. It's not because paladins are martials that they should be more restricted !

To parrote what I said in another thread recently :

- clerics should only gain more miracles by doing priestly things : faith trials, convert new followers to faith, complete divine objectives, prayers...
- wizards should only gain more spells by doing wizardly things : study from arcane books & mystics, arcane trials, hermetic mysteries...
- thieves should only be more stealthy & cuning by thieving deeds - markedly through stealing more and more.
- fighters should be even more skilled by... fighting in deadly settings & through martial training

... but D&D shortcuts by saying all should gain levels through combat primarily. It's a little amusing to have quadratic wizards / linear fighters, while everyone gains experience through fighter deeds.

[ComaVision]

I don't like it at all. If their critical failure card deck is any indication, I am incensed hating with all the rage in the universe about it. However, I need to see its implementation before I give my final judgment of doom I'd rather play 5E so there kind of admonishing. The chickens haven't hatched yet to be counted.

A Critical Failure for an attack roll is that it misses.

[MeeposFire]

A Critical Failure for an attack roll is that it misses.

If that is what they are talking about when it comes to a critical fail then that is nothing new. A roll of 1 on an attack roll has been an automatic miss in every edition of D&D and similar game that I can remember and it not what is usually meant by a "critical failure" which is usually some additional problem that is given on a roll of 1 (such as that aforementioned critical miss deck). People do not typcially go up in arms over the miss on a 1 rule but many people do get upset about things like that critical miss deck.

I would also point out that for people that do like critical failures the miss on a one will not appease them because those folks have always wanted more back in all the games where the miss on a one already exists.

If this is really what they meant then they really said nothing at all.

[stack]

Critical fails aren't just on a 1 in PF2, also anytime you miss by 10 or more if I recall. In addition to failing, there will be class abilities that trigger on a crit fail (crit miss an attack, fighter gets an AOO or something along those lines). It isn't the classic, terrible crit fumble deck though.

[Cosi]

Neither of those things means people can't agree what a term means. If you get people together to actively discuss things, you'll get some sort of consensus in the group about what they can agree is honorable, good, or lawful.

Alright, then why do you need a code? If the group is going to discuss it, what's the point of trying to define it, except that maybe you get a definition that is incompatible with the groups?

1) This isn't even the playtest yet. This is the teaser, to keep appetites whetted.

It's Paizo's job to put out content that impresses people. Putting out teasers people don't like is a failure of the company, just as putting out a product people don't like would be. It's their job to make me enthusiastic about this new product, not my job to blindly support it.

3) They do give four tenets of code, that, while not explicitly defined in all terms by the developers, do provide enough that your gaming group can come to an agreement as to what each phrase means.

Let's take a look at those tenets:

You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

Murder is unjustified killing. "You may never kill things you are not allowed to kill" is not a terribly useful moral precept. I personally consider torture bad, but there are absolutely people who consider Jack Bauer a hero for torturing terrorists for intelligence. As I understand it, no Paladin in good standing will have the opportunity to cast evil spells, as they are not allowed to multiclass (though this may be different in PF, either 1e or 2e). None of the enumerated examples here are helpful.

You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

What the hell does it mean to be "innocent"? What if you have to choose between two actions, both of which either possibly or definitely harm innocents? For example, what is the Paladin obligated to do if goblins are attacking two different villages?

You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.

This one is fine.

You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

So when you enter the caverns of the kobold king, are you supposed to respect his legitimate authority as king, or do Evil creatures not have the right to self-determination?

[Psyren]

If that is what they are talking about when it comes to a critical fail then that is nothing new. A roll of 1 on an attack roll has been an automatic miss in every edition of D&D and similar game that I can remember and it not what is usually meant by a "critical failure" which is usually some additional problem that is given on a roll of 1 (such as that aforementioned critical miss deck). People do not typcially go up in arms over the miss on a 1 rule but many people do get upset about things like that critical miss deck.

I would also point out that for people that do like critical failures the miss on a one will not appease them because those folks have always wanted more back in all the games where the miss on a one already exists.

If this is really what they meant then they really said nothing at all.

"Critical Failure" in P2 is not "roll a 1." It is "miss by X amount or more." Rolling a 1 is certainly likely to make that happen, but it's not actually what they mean.

[Starbuck_II]

So when you enter the caverns of the kobold king, are you supposed to respect his legitimate authority as king, or do Evil creatures not have the right to self-determination?

If the evil people are harming innocents, you can ignore their legal authority it says.

[Baroncognito]

Alright, then why do you need a code? If the group is going to discuss it, what's the point of trying to define it, except that maybe you get a definition that is incompatible with the groups?

You need the code because the discussion with the group happens outside of gameplay. This is not you talking to your party on decision, this is the players talking amongst themselves.

It's Paizo's job to put out content that impresses people. Putting out teasers people don't like is a failure of the company, just as putting out a product people don't like would be. It's their job to make me enthusiastic about this new product, not my job to blindly support it.

This doesn't seem relevant to the conversation. Unless you're suggesting that the Paladin teaser would have been more popular if they had included more minutiae about the code. Even then, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Murder is unjustified killing. "You may never kill things you are not allowed to kill" is not a terribly useful moral precept.

That is an awful breakdown of what murder is. You're being deliberately obtuse here. I'm honestly beginning to question if you're participating in this discussion in good faith. I think it's important to have murder specified as an evil deed, because otherwise you will get people saying "Oh, but is it really evil to murder this bad person? Clearly, it's only evil to murder innocents." This response is "Is it murder? Then it's an evil act."

I personally consider torture bad, but there are absolutely people who consider Jack Bauer a hero for torturing terrorists for intelligence.

People consider Jack Bauer a hero for saving lives. They consider torture a necessary evil to allow him to save lives. A Paladin would argue that there's no such thing as a necessary evil.

As I understand it, no Paladin in good standing will have the opportunity to cast evil spells, as they are not allowed to multiclass (though this may be different in PF, either 1e or 2e). None of the enumerated examples here are helpful.

I don't know which of these will hold true in Pathfinder second edition, but in first edition:
1) Paladins have no restrictions on multiclassing
2) Use Magic device is a charisma based skill that Paladins could be good at. (It isn't a class skill, but that's only a +3 bonus)

All of this is to say: You have just demonstrated why listing murder and torture are helpful. If torture was not listed, there would be people who would argue it wasn't evil. If murder wasn't listed, there would be people who would argue it wasn't evil. Both of these things are clearly evil to Pathfinder Second Edition paladins. Seems like it helps define a code.

What the hell does it mean to be "innocent"? What if you have to choose between two actions, both of which either possibly or definitely harm innocents? For example, what is the Paladin obligated to do if goblins are attacking two different villages?

The definition of innocent is probably something that you'll have to figure out with your group (not their characters).

If you have a mutually exclusive choice, you cannot reasonably be expected to make both choices, so you do not violate your tenets by choosing one over the other. You just do have to chose one, you cannot let yourself succumb to inaction because of indecision.

So when you enter the caverns of the kobold king, are you supposed to respect his legitimate authority as king, or do Evil creatures not have the right to self-determination?

Well, Pathfinder seems to have moved away from the "Evil creatures should be killed on sight." I'm not positive about this, but I think evil creatures are only considered evil if they're doing evil things. If you can reasonably negotiate with the kobolds and they respect the king's authority, you should recognize that the king has authority over the kobolds.

But then... I think unintelligent undead are definitely evil kind of "slay on sight" still. I'm not sure about intelligent undead. I don't know, when I play good characters, I tend to try talking first, and don't attack them until I'm absolutely sure that we're going to end up fighting.

[Talakeal]

"Critical Failure" in P2 is not "roll a 1." It is "miss by X amount or more." Rolling a 1 is certainly likely to make that happen, but it's not actually what they mean.

Are you sure? My reading of the text was miss by 10 or more OR fail on a natural 1.


The Paizo blog states "If your result was 10 or more lower than the target DC, or if you rolled a natural 1 and didn't meet the target DC, then you critically failed."


Which I personally think is going to result in a crazy amount of fumbles, but we will see how they are implemented.

[P.F.]

Are you sure? My reading of the text was miss by 10 or more OR fail on a natural 1.


The Paizo blog states "If your result was 10 or more lower than the target DC, or if you rolled a natural 1 and didn't meet the target DC, then you critically failed."


Which I personally think is going to result in a crazy amount of fumbles, but we will see how they are implemented.

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.

[Psyren]

Are you sure? My reading of the text was miss by 10 or more OR fail on a natural 1.


The Paizo blog states "If your result was 10 or more lower than the target DC, or if you rolled a natural 1 and didn't meet the target DC, then you critically failed."


Which I personally think is going to result in a crazy amount of fumbles, but we will see how they are implemented.

What I meant was that it's something that's expected to happen more often than 5% of the time. So the result of it likely won't be as fatal/punishing as the fumble houserules DMs have used in the past.

[Knaight]

Which I personally think is going to result in a crazy amount of fumbles, but we will see how they are implemented.

They're not fumbles - it's a major failure, minor failure, minor success, major success system, of the sort that's been around in the industry for decades. This is distinct from fumbles and criticals, largely because all four categories are major, instead of there being two significant categories and two rare special categories with effects that can easily be excessive.

[Talakeal]

They're not fumbles - it's a major failure, minor failure, minor success, major success system, of the sort that's been around in the industry for decades. This is distinct from fumbles and criticals, largely because all four categories are major, instead of there being two significant categories and two rare special categories with effects that can easily be excessive.

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.

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.